Sitting of 15 January 2001

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

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1999–2000
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before this House the accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1999–2000, showing:—

  (1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 2000.

  (2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. —[Mr. Clelland.]

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

    National Missile Defence
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on national missile defence. [143711]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We have continued to discuss regularly the proposed United States national missile defence system with the current US Government, and expect to do so with the new US Administration.
    Mr. Flynn: Was not star wars the most expensive and most abject military failure ever? Will not son of star wars violate international treaties and wreck the present stability between east and west on nuclear matters? How could any British Government agree to support a scheme that would try to defend the United States by increasing the risk to Great Britain? Britain's role in any star wars nuclear exchange would be to offer up our country as a disposable target. Would not it be more appropriate to rename son of star wars and call it son of failure, especially as it is supported by the Tory party, which is the party of failure?
    Mr. Hoon: I say the same to my hon. Friend as I shall no doubt say to Opposition Members in due course. The Government have not yet reached a decision on this matter, nor should we do so, because the Americans have not reached a decision. Given that there will be a new United States Administration, it hardly seems sensible to commit ourselves to a system that the Americans may or may not commit themselves to.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is naive to give uncritical support to a unilateral proposal on national missile defence without taking account of Russian anxiety, the risk to further cuts in strategic nuclear weapons and the potential for a nuclear arms race in Asia led by China and followed by India and Pakistan? Does he further agree that the advent of a new Administration in the White House gives the opportunity for fresh thinking to take account of the nuclear realities of the 21st century, to continue progress towards further cuts in strategic arms holdings, and to provide, if it is viable, protection for all who subscribe to a new regime, including Russia

    3
    and China? In particular, could not the United States kick-start such a proposal by signing the comprehensive test ban treaty?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition shows a lack of judgment when he blunders about pronouncing on this issue even before the United States has reached a conclusion. That applies equally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's further observations. It is necessary to consider carefully any proposal as and when it arrives so as properly to protect the best interests of the United Kingdom, and not to reach a conclusion at this stage, whatever it might be.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I have previously raised with my right hon. Friend the concerns of the communities of the North York moors, including my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Is my right hon. Friend happy to confirm what he has previously told me, that the British people and this place would know first about any proposals on such a defence system, and that the immediate communities around RAF Fylingdales would be included in the process of understanding those proposals? We should be careful to note that, if there is to be a 21st-century bandwagon, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is the wrong test pilot to drive that bandwagon forward.
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that, whenever the United States reaches a decision on what type of national missile defence it proposes to develop, it is important for such a system to be carefully considered in the United Kingdom and among our allies. That was one of the reasons why President Clinton decided to defer the proposal to the new Administration who are about to take office. It is obvious that there should be a debate in the United Kingdom, specifically among the people in and around Fylingdales.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not it noteworthy that supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who included many Labour Members, were vociferous in their criticism of the deployment of cruise missiles in this country because, according to them, it would thereby become more vulnerable? Those same people are now complaining that Fylingdales may be modernised as part of the US's national ballistic missile system, which will make this country less vulnerable. Is it not clear that the Labour party has little interest in national defence?
    Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I have always felt that his views were redolent of a different era—or out of date, to use more everyday language. Associating the new Labour party and the Government with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of which I have never been a member, shows some desperation in his political questioning. I assure him that the Government will take any decision on national missile defence in the best interests of the British people. That will be the sole criterion.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the truth that long-range traceable-source missile systems are
    4
    effectively obsolete in the real world, and that the real threat comes from the container going through the port? Is it not also true that the Tories are divided on the issue and are trying to hide that division, which will surface over the next couple of months? [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are divided.
    Mr. Hoon: There are a great many real threats in the world. My hon. Friend has mentioned two. It is obviously important for nations to defend themselves against those threats, and the Government have always made it clear that we well understand why the United States might seek to defend itself against nuclear proliferation by deploying a national missile defence system. We have always made plain our understanding of the Americans' real concern in that respect, and we have great sympathy for them.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Ministry of Defence agree that there is a growing threat to the United Kingdom and its allies from rogue states around the world, armed with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction? Does the Ministry think that something should be done about that?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government have made it clear that, in the light of a series of careful reviews of the United Kingdom's security, we apprehend no immediate threat to the UK from so-called rogue states or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obviously we pay careful regard to the matter, but it is under equally careful consideration in the United States.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that, very recently, President-elect Bush said:
    It's a sensitive subject for leaders of different countries around the world … requires a lot of discussion and a lot of give and take and a lot of listening.
    I suggest that the shadow Defence Secretary should do a bit of listening, and give the matter a bit of careful thought. His advice to his own leader might then be a little more thoughtful.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is interesting that the Secretary of State chose not to answer the question directly. He evaded it by talking about immediate threats. He knows that the Ministry of Defence is advising him that there is a growing threat. Does that not explain why he and his colleagues have been going to Washington in the past year and a half, and informing the outgoing Administration privately that they would be willing to let them upgrade Fylingdales, provided that they did not ask the question before the next election?
    If that is the Ministry's private view, why did the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), say in March last year:
    I don't like the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited?
    Is that not really the public face of the Government's position, although privately they are pretending otherwise?
    Mr. Hoon: All members of the Government have consistently set out our position on national missile defence proposals. The reality is that, in the circumstances, it is best for the British people and best

    5
    for the country that we respond to a decision by the United States, rather than seeking to anticipate that decision.
    As for an assessment of the strategic threat, the hon. Gentleman has had the same opportunity as every other Member to read the relevant documents. They are published, and they set out clearly the Ministry's view that there is no immediate threat to the country's security from nuclear proliferation.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the Opposition were trying to associate new Labour with CND. Is not the Minister of State whom I quoted earlier still a member of CND? Is not the reality that his public position is now the Government's public face? Scared of denying the United States for fear of losing influence in Washington, they are at the same time scared of telling their own Back Benchers, as well as the French and some of their European counterparts, who are opposed to it, that they are going to do something about it.
    Does that not leave us with a Government who increasingly resemble Dr. Dolittle's pushmi-pullyu, hoping that something will turn up before the election?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will believe what he wants to believe. He will decide what the view of members of the Government should be on the issue in line with his own prejudices. We have seen a good deal of that from him in relation to matters European. I suspect that this is another example of his anti-European attitudes: he is trying to demonstrate that, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, there would be an application for Britain to become the 51st member of the United States.
    The reality is that we must deal with the situation as it is. The present and future United States Administration will think carefully before they decide whether to go ahead with national missile defence. President-elect Bush described it as a sensitive subject. It is a matter for regret that the Opposition do not treat it with the same sensitivity.

    RAF Procurement
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: How many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143712]
    Mr. David Borrow: How many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143713]
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: How many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143718]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Including aircraft on order, we currently plan to acquire 232 Eurofighter multi-role aircraft; 25 A400M transport aircraft; 25 C130J transport aircraft; 21 Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; eight Chinook mark III support helicopters; 22 Merlin mark III support helicopters; and five modified Global Express jets to carry airborne stand-off radar. We will also lease four C17 transport aircraft.
    6
    In addition, there are several projects where the exact number of aircraft that the RAF will use has still to be determined. Those include the future strategic tanker aircraft; the future carrier-borne aircraft; the future offensive air system; the support, amphibious and battlefield rotorcraft; and the UK military flying training system programmes. Some of those programmes are planned to involve private finance initiative solutions where the aircraft will not be owned by MOD.
    Mr. Hoyle: Obviously, we welcome those orders and the commitment to BAE Systems in the north-west, which specialises in defence aircraft, but does my hon. Friend share my worry that redundancies are taking place in the north-west with a full order book? The worry is that the company will not be able to complete the orders that the Government have provided the north-west with and benefit from the work that could come out of the joint strike aircraft.
    Dr. Moonie: We share my hon. Friend's concern about potential job losses in the north-west. Given the size of the programme to which we are committed, together with the likely outcome in relation to the other aircraft that I mentioned, the company should have a secure future.
    Mr. Borrow: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern in the households of many thousands of my constituents following the redundancy announcements and expected job losses at Warton and Salmesbury in Lancashire. Can he reassure me and them that the orders for Eurofighter and the 6,000 jobs that depend on those orders are secure? Does he understand that the less than wholehearted support for the Eurofighter project from the Conservative party causes my constituents concern about their future?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, who is assiduous in looking after his constituents' interests, that the present programme for Eurofighter is constructed on a solid base. I am happy to say that the Greeks, who announced their intention to purchase Eurofighter, have confirmed that the purchase will go ahead, thereby underpinning the security of long-term jobs in his constituency.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend comment on the disgraceful way in which BAE Systems announced the job losses, given in particular the recent Indian Government announcement that they intend to buy the Hawk jet? Many of the job losses are associated with the work force on that jet.
    Dr. Moonie: It is always disappointing when workers learn about their future through other sources, rather than directly. The order book looks quite promising. In his recent visit to India, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was assiduous in promoting the interests of the Hawk aircraft. I hope that redundancies will not be nearly as severe as has been forecast.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: To put that impressive-looking list in perspective, will the Minister, first, tell us what proportion of existing RAF aeroplanes are airworthy, and secondly, confirm that the number of

    7
    fast-jet fighter pilots is now almost 20 per cent. below manning levels? Are we approaching through the back door the era of unmanned flight?
    Dr. Moonie: Unmanned flight seems to be a capacity of the Conservative party. I do not have to hand the figures on current levels of airworthiness—which is hardly surprising, as the matter is somewhat complicated—but I should be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.
    Mr. James Gray: The nation will have been pleased to hear the Minister reconfirm that the Government are to acquire 232 Eurofighters. Will he also take this opportunity to reconfirm that there is no slippage whatever in their delivery? In that context, when will the final C130J be delivered to RAF Lyneham in my constituency?
    Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that, in the past, there was slippage in the Eurofighter programme—most of which occurred under the previous Government, and is therefore not really a matter for us. We have managed to stabilise the programme—trials are going well—and we hope that it is now on target.
    The C130J is clearly a most worthwhile aircraft. I do not have a firm delivery date on the final aircraft, but the in-service delivery date of the 12th aircraft was June 2000. I shall certainly provide the information to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: May I take the opportunity to remove all ambiguity on the matter, as there is too much misinformation and, sometimes, damned lies from certain quarters—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to any Member of this House.
    Mr. Davies: Of course not; I said from certain quarters, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I just wanted to be clear about that.
    Mr. Davies: I can give you that assurance absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I also make it absolutely clear that Conservative Members are fully committed to all those programmes, a number of which we launched ourselves, including the Eurofighter and the C130J.
    It is very curious that the Government have made no statement today about the joint strike fighter. This morning, there was a report from the Press Association that Ministers were about to do what we have been urging them to do and sign up to the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the project. May I ask Ministers for an assurance that, if they do take that decision, they will come to the House, as they should, and make a proper statement, so that we can question them, rather than simply leaking the decision to the press?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to say that we have certainly not been involved in leaking anything to the press. I am also happy to say that it is normal to wait for a question before one answers it; and, having had a question, I shall
    8
    answer it. Although no decision has yet been made on whether we will take the joint strike fighter, we remain fully involved in its development, which is still at a very early stage. It is also no secret that that development is about to proceed to the next stage. Later this week, my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will visit the United States to progress the discussions further.

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement about British armed forces involvement in the European rapid reaction force. [143714]
    Mr. David Crausby: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about European defence co-operation. [143715]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There is no standing European rapid reaction force. The United Kingdom has identified a pool of forces and capabilities that would enable it to make a powerful contribution to operations in support of the European Union's common foreign and security policy, when NATO as a whole is not engaged. Participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution, will be matters for decision by the United Kingdom Government in the light of circumstances at the time. I have regular discussions with both my EU and NATO counterparts on all aspects of European defence.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for that woefully inadequate reply. Given that 60 pages of the Nice treaty provide for a separate EU military staff committee and organisation, a strategic planning capability, a satellite centre, an institute of security studies and a force catalogue comprising 100,000 men, 400 combat aircraft and 100 vessels, why cannot he understand what the former British ambassador to NATO, Sir John Weston, emphasised last week—that with a European Union army, NATO will be progressively downgraded as the principal instrument of western defence and security? How does he justify ignoring historical experience and military common sense alike through the pursuit of that craven and foolhardy approach?
    Mr. Hoon: Again, I emphasise that there is no European army. The Government are seeking to improve the capabilities of European nations, and the new arrangements will prove an extremely effective means of achieving that. In particular, they will be based on the closest possible ties with NATO. As the hon. Gentleman would have realised if he had read his background documents on Nice more carefully, provision is included for operational planning to be conducted at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. Notwithstanding his observations, there is no intention to establish an EU operational planning capability.
    Mr. Crausby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that European nations must work together on defence in order to support NATO? Will he confirm that that will involve

    9
    the interchange of kit between European nations? Are not the A400M and the Meteor prime examples of European co-operation?
    Mr. Hoon: I am fairly sure that it was President Kennedy who first spoke about a European pillar for NATO. It is in the interests of NATO, the United States and European nations for Europe to be capable of making an effective contribution to the alliance. Nothing would destabilise the alliance more than a perception in the United States that European nations are not prepared to play their part. That is precisely why we are seeking to improve our European capabilities—to strengthen NATO, not to weaken it.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Who in the military chain of command will be responsible for force generation in respect of any force decided under the new arrangements, and what role will the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe have?
    Mr. Hoon: Force generation will be conducted precisely as it is currently conducted for multinational operations. There will be an assessment in the United Kingdom of the forces that we can contribute, and that will be set against the situation with which we are required to deal. Part of the planning currently under way concerns the variety of scenarios that will be tested in order to see what forces Europe can contribute. That work will be done carefully by the allies as part of the process of ensuring that a range of capabilities is available. Part of the reason for such a process is to ensure that gaps will be identified; indeed, some have already been recognised. Work will then be undertaken by European nations to improve capabilities. It is important for a close connection to exist between European Union and NATO planning experts.
    DSACEUR will be in a crucial position in giving practical advice on the nature of planning that is required. We continue to negotiate the matter with our European allies as part of the NATO process.
    Mr. John McFall: In this European defence arena, does my right hon. Friend envisage that our troops will still use depleted uranium? Given that the Ministry of Defence was warned about the issue 10 years ago and that increasing circumstantial evidence is available from troops in America, Iran, Europe and elsewhere, should not the burden of proof be on the Ministry and on Governments, instead of on individuals who are ill? It is they who currently face the burden of proving that their illnesses are a direct result of the use of depleted uranium.
    Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, the issue is rather more complicated than he suggests. In the absence of any specific evidence to link depleted uranium with any particular illness suffered by any individual, it is extraordinarily difficult for any Government to prove a negative. That is what his question invites the Government to do, but it is not possible. What is required is that the best scientific and medical evidence available to the Government be relied on in taking decisions on the use of a highly effective weapon.
    Mr. John Maples: Have the Government entered into any unpublished agreements on the proposed EU military capability?
    Mr. Hoon: No.

    Troop Deployments
    Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement about the number of British troops deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo. [143716]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the week beginning 8 January 2001, the number of British troops deployed in Bosnia was 2,265, and in Kosovo it was 3,351.
    Ms Ward: Next week, I shall visit Kosovo with the Royal Marines as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I expect to be asked a number of questions as a result of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces last week. Is my right hon. Friend now able to give more details about the testing programme for depleted uranium, so that hon. Members taking part in the scheme will be able to enlighten members of the services during their visit to Kosovo?
    Mr. Hoon: The enhanced screening programme described by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces last week will require extensive consultation, not least with the national screening committee of the Department of Health, the Royal Society and other respected scientific and medical bodies. I hope that we shall be able to complete those consultations by the end of March. In addition, we shall invite the views of groups representing veterans.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State ignore the support that he is getting from Conservative Members on the question of depleted uranium and listen to Back Benchers from his own party and others who are extremely concerned about this issue? In particular, will he re-examine the parliamentary answers given to me on 17 November 1998 and on 28 January 1999 on depleted uranium? Those answers were clearly misleading in the light of last week's statement, and seem to be part of a cover-up on the issue.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman insists on using a term such as "cover-up" to describe a situation in which the Government have consistently, over many years, acknowledged the low-level risk that exists—for example, the risk to soldiers who go into the burned-out shell of a tank immediately after it has been hit by a depleted uranium shell. We have given clear instructions that they should approach such a vehicle only when wearing appropriate protective clothing.
    Information on this matter has been published again and again, including on the Ministry of Defence website. It is readily available for the right hon. Gentleman to see, and I am sorry that he believes that it has been the subject

    11
    of a cover-up, because the Ministry has tried extraordinarily hard over a long period to publish as much of this information as it possibly can.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government deserve to be congratulated on the actions that they took in Kosovo, without which there would undoubtedly have been no change in Serbia? However, is he also aware that I and many other hon. Members are very concerned about reports, some in today's newspapers, about the effects of depleted uranium, including cancer risks, on civilians in Kosovo and Bosnia, arising from the operation that took place there in 1995? Is he now willing to go further than the statement made last week in recognising the dangers involved, and to make a further statement to the House at an appropriate time?
    Mr. Hoon: May I give my hon. Friend some of the background information on which our assessment has been made? It is important to consider this issue in context.
    A specific study has been carried out by the school of epidemiology and health sciences at Manchester university, which considered the 53,000 people deployed to the Gulf against a control sample of members of the armed forces who were not deployed there. Of those who had served in the Gulf, 452 had died of all causes by 30 June 2000, compared with 439 in the control group, and 156 had died of disease, compared with 190 in the control group. It is perhaps particularly relevant to my hon. Friend's question that 64 Gulf veterans had died of all forms of cancer, compared with 68 in the control group.
    If one deploys around 53,000 people in a particular situation, there is, sadly, a reasonable chance that a number of them will die of cancer, whether they are in the Gulf or the Balkans. Wherever they are in the United Kingdom, the same statistical incidence of cancers will arise.
    There is absolutely no discrepancy in any of the statistics between those who have been to the Gulf or the Balkans and those who have remained in the United Kingdom. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the matter dispassionately, rather than simply relying on some of the more fanciful headlines that have appeared in the newspapers.
    Mr. Robert Key: If I may say so, the Secretary of State's defensive tone is redolent of the situation some years ago when my party was in government, and was accused of such things by the then Opposition. On 28 April 1999 the then Minister for the Armed Forces told the Select Committee on Defence, which was then probing the question of depleted uranium:
    "if there is anything that we are not doing that we should be doing, I want to know about it and put it right …
    Moreover, Conservative Ministers in the previous Government were not aware of the impact of depleted uranium munitions. Why are Ministers now repudiating the Ministry of Defence advice, which was in wide circulation in Kosovo in the summer of 1999, and which was given to the staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as to British forces? What is the Secretary of State doing now to protect British and other troops in Kosovo? What is he doing to protect
    12
    civilian communities in Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia? Above all, what is being done to protect and educate children in that respect? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm reports from Brussels, following the first meeting of the EU Political and Security Committee under the Swedish presidency, that the European rapid reaction force will be armed with depleted uranium weapons?
    Mr. Hoon: I found the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question a little puzzling. We do not believe that there is any significant risk associated with the use of depleted uranium. I have described the precise circumstances in whit h both the present Government and the previous Government have recognised there is a risk. Details of that risk have been published, and instructions have been given to the armed forces to guard against it. As for the civilian population, efforts have recently been made by British forces to identify sites in the area of Kosovo for which they are responsible, where depleted uranium is likely to have been used. Those sites have been examined and no evidence of any increase in the level of background radiation has been found. Therefore risk of harm, either to members of Britain's armed forces or to the civilian population, does not arise from the use of depleted uranium—certainly so long after the events that led to the use of those shells in the first place.
    I have made it clear on behalf of the Government that unless there is any clear scientific evidence to link the use of depleted uranium with any specific illnesses, Britain's armed forces will continue to use depleted uranium shells both nationally and in a multinational context.

    Armed Forces (Education)
    Mrs. Joan Humble: If he will make a statement on developments in education and training for the armed forces. [143717]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As has been well demonstrated by the recent deployments to Sierra Leone and in the Balkans, the training of our armed forces is of a very high standard. To maintain that standard and to ensure that our training and education arrangements for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilians continue to meet defence needs in the 21st century, my noble Friend Lord Robertson, when Secretary of State for Defence, announced a wide-ranging and fundamental review of education and individual training in the Department. This review is due to be completed this spring, when I will make a further statement to the House.
    Mrs. Humble: My hon. Friend will be aware that the armed forces recruit many young people. Will he assure me that when they leave, they take with them appropriate transferable qualifications that they can take out into the wider world of work?
    Mr. Spellar: We certainly recognise that the vast majority of our people will go on to other careers and occupations. We are talking to the appropriate authorities and qualifications bodies to ensure that when people leave they take with them qualifications that recognise their attainments, and what they have achieved while they have been with the armed forces—not only in traditional

    13
    technical areas but in the high level of training in leadership and management qualities that the armed forces give to our people.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister place in the Library, or at least supply to the Select Committee on Defence, details of the training that our armed forces have been given in handling depleted uranium and vehicles that might have been hit by depleted uranium shells? Will he comment on the fact that in his statement on Tuesday he made no mention of the Royal Navy using depleted uranium in its Phalanx guns? I was always told that that was non-hazardous ammunition, but the Americans are now withdrawing it in favour of a more expensive ammunition. Why did the Ministry of Defence announce on Saturday that it was withdrawing the ammunition because the Americans were no longer manufacturing it? Why did it decide to withdraw it?
    Mr. Spellar: We have not yet made the decision to withdraw it. We are phasing out depleted uranium ammunition on Phalanx because the Americans have found that the tungsten round has a further reach and greater accuracy, leading to a higher probability of knocking out a missile. The difference between the role of Phalanx and land-based or air-launched depleted uranium weapons is that the former is for missiles launched at our ships. Therefore, by definition, Phalanx is unlikely to be used against heavy tank battle armour, against which depleted uranium is the only effective weapon.
    Not only this Administration but a previous Administration published quite a bit of information on depleted uranium, which, with the advent of internet technology, has been placed on our website. A wide range of information is available. The instructions given to our forces in theatre are exactly consistent with what we have said throughout, including in my statement last Tuesday, and reflect our responsibility for ensuring, in the particular circumstances outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that people take adequate precautions, while also looking at the very low level of risk in other circumstances.
    Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the review of training to which my hon. Friend referred. As someone who has served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I know that there is concern about the extent of health and safety training with respect to depleted uranium. Several people in Staffordshire who served in the Gulf were not aware— or appeared not to be aware at the time—of any need for health and safety training, particularly for the use of depleted uranium. Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to how the precautionary principle can be included in that aspect of health and safety training?
    Mr. Spellar: We certainly take that very seriously, which is why there has been a series of instructions. It is fair to say that depleted uranium was used for the first time in combat in the Gulf. The evidence is that that information did not get through to some units at the time. However, there is no evidence of a higher level of illness arising from such occurrences.
    I am pleased that my hon. Friend referred to her membership of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward).
    14
    They demonstrated, once again, the enormous value of the scheme in enabling Members on both sides of the House to hear the views of the armed forces and to gain a much better understanding.
    Our understanding, from the figures rightly identified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is that there is no increase in illness as a result of the use of depleted uranium, and epidemiological statistics bear that out.

    Royal Navy
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the seagoing capacity of the Royal Navy. [143719]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The strategic defence review envisaged an emerging role for maritime forces in a wide range of operations in littoral areas in addition to more traditional naval tasks. It reflected changes in the potential maritime threat, our forces' missions and the likely geographic location of future operations. The Royal Navy has the seagoing capacity to fulfil the role envisaged under the strategic defence review and, as demonstrated by recent deployments to Sierra Leone, has the capacity to react to changing situations. With the introduction of type 45 destroyers, the planned replacement aircraft carriers and the Astute class submarines, the Royal Navy will continue to be very well placed to meet its missions effectively.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as I, too, am part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and served for six days with HMS Cumberland in the Gulf. Which fleet submarines are currently at sea and operational? I understand that, as of last October, no submarines were able to go to the Gulf to assist HMS Cumberland. My information is that there are plans to scrap HMS Sovereign before her time for withdrawal is due; all 12 of the hunter-killer classes are currently being investigated after coolant leaks; HMS Spartan is in refit; HMS Superb, Sceptre and Splendid are undergoing safety inspections; and all seven of the modern Trafalgar class ships are out of action. Does that not leave our other naval vessels completely exposed—with no submarine defences?
    Mr. Spellar: The international security situation does not bear out the particular fears expressed by the hon. Lady; of course, if there were to be a change, we would take emergency action. I confirm that seven of the SSNs are affected by a problem to the pipework that forms part of the reactor cooling system. A repair programme—
    Mr. John Bercow: Pitiful!
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is jumping about in his usual excitable way. Nearly all those vessels were purchased and built during the period when the Conservatives were in government. I do not know why he thinks that this is a party political point.
    A repair programme is in place. Four other SSNs are undergoing refit, maintenance or repair; HMS Triumph has been inspected, is free of the flaw and remains available for programming. I am also pleased to

    15
    report that, working in close collaboration with industry, the repair programme is advancing well; it is very much a tribute to the skills both of members of the Royal Navy and of the commercial contractors involved.
    Ms Rachel Squire: I, too, had the invaluable and rewarding experience of spending five to six days on HMS Cumberland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, along with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I pay tribute to the captain, officers and crew of HMS Cumberland and to the rest of our Royal Navy. Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to warship building and to maintaining a repair and refit capacity at Rosyth dockyard and other UK facilities?
    Mr. Spellar: As I pointed out earlier, we have already launched a considerable programme of new warship construction. Indeed, it is one of the biggest programmes ever undertaken by this country and will help to keep the Royal Navy at the forefront of the world's navies—especially in its blue water capability. My hon. Friend will be aware that a study is being undertaken of warship maintenance. It is considering the capability both in our own dockyards and in those of several of the private contractors. Considerable discussion is taking place with the companies concerned and, obviously, with the trade unions that represent our own work force. We hope to be able to bring that matter to a conclusion, so that we can have a sustainable repair capacity, taking into account the excellent—indeed, world-class—repair capability in our dockyards.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph reported that the Government had ordered two new aircraft carriers. Will the Minister confirm that? If, as I suspect, that report is erroneous, will he tell the House when the orders for the two new aircraft carriers will be placed?
    Mr. Spellar: I have not seen the Sunday Telegraph article to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, we are very much on course with the programme; we have placed contracts for the evaluation and planning of the new aircraft carriers. In parallel with that, we are undertaking the work referred to today—evaluating possible future carrier-borne aircraft in order to provide and maintain that distinctive capability, which as we have seen, even in recent years, is enormously effective in projecting Britain's power and our force for good in the world.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: With regard to type 45 destroyers, will my hon. Friend try to ensure that BAE Systems does not become the monopoly shipbuilder in this country and that Vosper Thornycroft can participate in a contract, as agreed at the pre-contract stage, so that shipbuilding remains in Southampton and possibly in Portsmouth?
    Mr. Spellar: There has certainly been no change to the Ministry of Defence procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer programme, as announced by my right hon. Friend in July 2000. Under the current strategy, we anticipate that Vosper Thornycroft will be subcontracted for a substantial element of work on the first of class and on the assembly and manufacture of the second of class.

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the future of DERA, Aberporth. [143720]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): It is our intention to proceed with the implementation of the core competence model for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of the public-private partnership that my right hon. Friend outlined in his statement to the House on 24 July last year. Under core competence, about three quarters of the DERA organisation will be turned into a company, referred to as NewDERA. 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. The capabilities provided by DERA, Aberporth will form part of the new company and will therefore transfer to the private sector.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply and apologise for not being present at the start of Question Time.
    May I draw the Minister's attention to DERA's application for Aberporth under the capital modernisation fund? That is an extremely exciting prospect for regional economic development in a rural area and will put NewDERA on the right footing. However, indications from Treasury officials are not so good. What can his Department do to get the best possible application for Aberporth so that it has the best possible future?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to the tell the hon. Gentleman that we are considering two options for Aberporth's future that DERA and the Ministry of Defence have been discussing with the Welsh Development Agency and local bodies. The first is a gradual improvement to the runway and associated radar and terminal facilities, possibly in partnership with a private operator, to bring the facilities up to a standard that would allow them to be licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority.
    The second option involves a possible redevelopment of the technical site and its expansion on to part of the airfield to form a business park. That would be done in conjunction with the WDA and would also accommodate staff from the privatised DERA. We very much hope that the redeveloped DERA facility will attract firms to move into the area and create further employment opportunities.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is it not ironic that the new organisation, which is being formed in the teeth of the opposition of the unanimous view of the Defence Committee, our allies in the United States and Her Majesty's Opposition, should receive a final insult under new Labour, which, having betrayed DERA, has decided to call it NewDERA?
    Dr. Moonie: No, it is not.

    Smart Procurement
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on progress with the smart procurement initiative. [143721]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Lucky me.
    The reforms that we have put in place to improve the equipment acquisition process of the Ministry of Defence have made good progress and substantial savings have been made. We completed the implementation phase of the smart procurement initiative in summer 2000 with the final roll-out of 138 integrated project teams. We are sustaining and broadening smart procurement principles under what we now call smart acquisition.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: A company in my constituency had to take a prime contractor of the Ministry to court to obtain payment, and since then has received no work from the contractor. Will the Minister confirm that payments to prime contractors under the smart procurement initiative have been delayed because the Ministry has lost control of the delegated payments and it has run out of money this year?
    Dr. Moonie: I clearly cannot comment on an individual case without prior notice. We are well aware of the problems that contractors and subcontractors may experience if payment is not made, promptly and we do our very best to correct them.
    Mr. Andy King: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Conservatives left office they left a legacy of £3.25 billion of overcost on the top 25 equipment projects? When we consider that alongside the cuts that were so damaging to the strategic performance of our armed forces, we see that it surely proves to the people of this country that we should never again trust the Conservatives with the defence of our nation.
    Dr. Moonie: You, Mr. Speaker, will not be surprised that I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to say that thanks to our improvements to the procurement process, we are on course to save some £2 billion.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it an example of smart procurement to save a derisory sum by removing the planned cannon from the Eurofighter Typhoon, or is it penny-pinching folly?
    Dr. Moonie: That is another piece of iterative behaviour from Conservative Members. We have considered the question of the cannon at great length on many occasions. It is the wish of our Royal Air Force that the cannon should not be fitted to this aircraft because it might cause problems, and we are happy to go along with that.

    Public Accounts Committee Report
    Mr. David Rendel: When he plans to respond to the 45th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1999–2000, HC975. [143725]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We will respond to that report shortly.
    Mr. Rendel: The Ministry keeps saying that it cannot overturn the findings of the air inquiry because no new evidence has been produced. Will the Minister confirm that no new evidence emerged between the original finding by Wing Commander Pulford that the pilots were in no way to be criticised and the final finding by Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten that the pilots were to blame?
    Mr. Spellar: That point has been made several times and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the engagement of the Air Marshals. The initial process aimed to establish fact and the final process aimed fully to evaluate it. We have said a number of times to hon. Members and others that if new evidence emerges we will examine it. A member of the other place has submitted a dossier, which we are fully evaluating. We are also considering the Public Accounts Committee report. We will respond to both in due course, and if no new evidence emerges we will stand by our previous decision.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Why do not Ministers say to the head of the air inquiry and the RAF, "Thank you for your detailed work, which we appreciate, but we want to make a political decision that the situation subsequent to the inquiry, in which guilt does not have to be found, should apply and the pilots in this case absolved of blame"?
    Mr. Spellar: It would be quite inappropriate to make a "political decision" in a matter that is for the judgment of those with professional expertise. They have made their best judgment of the circumstances. That is what we pay them for, and that is what we expect them to do as part of their duty. If subsequent evidence invalidates that judgment, there will of course be grounds for reopening the inquiry, but until that happens there are no grounds for doing so.

    European Security
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What recent meetings he has had with European Commission officials to discuss European security. [143726]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The development of European security and defence policy is a matter for the European Council, not the European Commission. I have therefore had no meetings with Commission officials on this subject, nor do I have any planned.
    Mr. Leigh: It would be nice if Defence Ministers, in attempting to answer the question, tried to give the House the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than having it dragged out of them inch by inch, week by week. Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), to which he received a waffly non-reply? What will be the role of DSACEUR?

    19
    What will be the command structure? Why did the Secretary of State most revealingly say that these matters will be taken forward in consultation with EU planners, when until now we have been told that there is no separate planning role for that force? What is going on? Can we have the whole truth?
    Mr. Hoon: On the subject of things being nice, it would be nice if an hon. Member and former Minister knew what he was talking about when tabling questions. Clearly, he did not; otherwise, he would not have referred to the European Commission.
    20
    We have made it absolutely clear time and again that it is important that there should be a close connection between the European Union and NATO. We have said that the planning process should be the responsibility of NATO; that is where planning will be most effectively conducted. Obviously, there are still matters that require further negotiation and discussion. In the light of those negotiations, it is strongly the British Government's view that the process should conclude that it is for NATO to provide the planning assets rather than any other organisation—not least the European Commission—that may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

El Savlador
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if, in the light of the horrendous earthquake, she will make a statement on Government aid to El Salvador.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question.
At 17.33 on Saturday 13 January, a major earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale occurred off the coast of El Salvador. The epicentre was offshore, about 105 km south south-east of the capital, San Salvador. It was also felt in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and as far afield as Mexico City.
The Government of El Salvador report more than 400 people killed, about 800 injured and more than 1,300 still missing, many of them in an area of San Salvador which has experienced a major landslide. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing sympathy to the people of El Salvador. The airport was damaged and, although some relief flights are being allowed to use it, it is closed to civilian traffic. Since the main earthquake, there have been a number of aftershocks, some of which have been of significant strength. The President has declared a national emergency and appealed for international assistance.
The Department for International Development emergency response centre has been operating round the clock since the earthquake struck and is in regular contact with both British embassy officials in El Salvador and operational agencies on the ground in order to obtain further information and to provide advice on regional procurement of urgently needed supplies. We have been in close contact with the Ministry of Defence but, regrettably, the West Indies guard ship is not in the area.
We responded immediately to the preliminary appeal from the United Nations and the Red Cross. We have given financial support to the UN disaster assessment and co-ordination team, which includes a British member, Mr. Joe Bishop; and we have given a commitment to fund Oxfam's emergency water and sanitation programme and the Pan American Health Organisation's programme of emergency medical assistance.
Since Hurricane Mitch hit the region in October 1998, we have been providing support to the Centre for the Co-ordination of Natural Disaster Preparedness in Central America for a disaster preparedness programme in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and plan to support a similar disaster preparedness programme with PAHO focusing on reducing vulnerability in the health sector.
I am sure that the House will agree that, once again, the United Kingdom has responded quickly and effectively to help people struck by a natural disaster. Our commitment to date is now more than £600,000, but I assure the House that we will respond sympathetically to any further requests.
Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. Given that 1,300 people are missing, is not speed of the essence? What practical help is expected of
22
us in repairing the airport? What will be the role of the DFID emergency response centre over the next fortnight? Is regional procurement part of the answer to what is obviously an urgent problem, where speed must be emphasised?
Mr. Foulkes: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Speed is of the essence. If people are trapped—not under buildings that have been destroyed, but under the landslip, as they are in this case—we need to get to them as quickly as possible. The Government of El Salvador are well organised and immediate assistance has been provided from their own resources and from the surrounding area. It is, of course, quicker to get in assistance and teams from the area than it is to fly them in from many thousands of miles away.
We shall certainly give consideration to repairing the airport, although I am not sure whether it is included in the list of requests that we have received from the Government. We are going through those requests for various forms of assistance, considering what we might be able to supply from the emergency supplies that we have here in the United Kingdom, and what might be procured locally with financial assistance from the UK. Again, it is quicker, more effective and cheaper to procure many supplies locally. The DFID emergency response centre will remain open 24 hours a day for the foreseeable future to deal with the emergency, as we have done in respect of previous emergencies and shall do in respect of future emergencies.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I wish to express the Opposition's horror and sadness at the tragic events in El Salvador. We welcome the prompt action taken by the Minister to date in sending help on behalf of all of us. I assure him of our full support for any reasonable action that he and the British Government might take to assist in the search and rescue phase immediately after the earthquake and thereafter.
I have five specific and brief questions. Although I welcome the early financial support sent by the Government, does the Minister share my concern about the $50,000 made available to the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs? He will appreciate the House's concerns about the past performance of that UN agency—its slowness to act and inefficiency have been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Would not our money be better spent exclusively through respected agencies such as the Red Cross and Oxfam?
Secondly, according to the United Nations resident co-ordinator's office in El Salvador, there appears still to be a need for additional search and rescue teams, and recent television footage appears to show that little, if any, heat-seeking equipment is currently being used to find people under the rubble. What requests were made for such equipment for search and rescue and precisely when were they made? Were we not in a position to send some specialist teams on Saturday or Sunday, and is it now too late?
Thirdly, does the Minister share my disappointment that the West Indies guard ship is not in the area, especially in the light of the great contribution that it made during the crisis in Montserrat? Has he learned from his Ministry of Defence colleagues where the ship is, if it is not in the region, and whether there is any prospect of it being sent nearer in the very near future?

23
Fourthly, what talks has the Minister had with the Disasters Emergency Committee about an appeal for the region? Would he support such an appeal? Can he tell the public today what they should do and what they should collect if they want to help?
Fifthly, have the Government been in contact with the European Community Humanitarian Office? If so, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, after the emergency phase is over, EU aid will not be delayed in reaching the region as it was in the wake of Hurricane Mitch, when it took two and a half years to reach the area in need? Finally, I again express the Opposition's support for the swift action that the Minister has taken.
Mr. Foulkes: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks, which are appreciated. They will be appreciated above all by the staff of the emergency response team office, who have been working 24 hours a day since the earthquake happened and have contacted me at odd hours to keep me informed of progress.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the $50,000 for OCHA. The UN team is already operating on the ground, and Joe Bishop is part of that team. The hon. Gentleman might know that, sadly, another team was in a helicopter that crashed in Mongolia the other day, and one British member of that team was killed. They are brave men who do a great deal of good work under the auspices of the United Nations, and we find the organisation to which they belong effective in the work that it does.
The hon. Gentleman's question on search and rescue teams was precisely that which I asked. We have a number of such teams, and I have met Willie MacMartin and the International Rescue Corps, who do excellent work out of Grangemouth. When I asked why we were not sending out such people quickly, I was told that there are enough search and rescue teams on the ground to deal with the immediate emergency. Because a landslip is causing particular problems—rather than the destruction of buildings that we saw in Turkey, where thermal imaging equipment was useful—I am told that shovels are needed, rather than thermal imaging equipment.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was disappointed that the guard ship is not in the area. He will be pleased to hear that it is helping us in another emergency, but it is a long way away and cannot be mobilised quickly. On the Disasters Emergency Committee, I have not been in touch with it personally, but, following a request that I made earlier today, my officials are contacting it to see if it plans to have a co-ordinated emergency appeal. That is the committee's decision, not the Government's. In the meantime, however, I support what the hon. Gentleman said, and anyone wanting to helping people in that appalling situation in El Salvador would be well advised to contribute generously to Oxfam, the Red Cross—I am not sure whether Ministers are supposed to say this, but I shall say it nevertheless—and other organisations working in the area.
On the hon. Gentleman's fifth question, the European Community Humanitarian Office has already committed 2 million euros to help the area. There has been substantial improvement in the operation of European development assistance and humanitarian aid in the past few months under pressure which was led, I might add,
24
by the United Kingdom. I was in Rome last Thursday, talking to the Italian Development Minister about co-ordinating pressure on the European Commission to make it more effective. EuropeAid, the new operational arm of the European Commission, started on 1 January, and this will be the first test of how effective it is. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it comes through that test and shows that combined European assistance can be just as effective as that provided bilaterally by countries such as the United Kingdom.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I join others in congratulating the Minister on his Department's rapid and effective response, which will be much appreciated by people in El Salvador in getting through the terrible times that they face in the next few days? Obviously, any further rapid help that can be given to assist in finding bodies and, hopefully, people who are still alive, will be useful.
Will the Minister cast his mind a little further forward? In the process of reconstruction which, once again, El Salvador and other countries will have to go through, will he assure me that the Government are prepared to support further information and research into earthquake prediction in the region, and in particular assist with planning, building design and advice on how buildings should be constructed to withstand earthquakes? That will help to find the reason why so many houses have been constructed in areas where a mud flow is likely after an earthquake. Once again, it appears that the poorest people in one of the poorest parts of the world are suffering the most from these disasters as a result of the bad planning and bad housing construction with which they must live.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I remind him that, in my statement, I said that we are supporting the Centre for the Co-ordination of Natural Disaster Preparedness following Hurricane Mitch. We learn from those disasters, the way in which we respond to them and, sometimes, the inadequacies in our response. We recognise that prevention is better than cure We cannot stop natural disasters, but we can mitigate their effects as much as possible, which we are eager to do. We do that in our environmental work with developing countries, to try to minimise the effects of floods. Building design is important, as are the places where houses are built. That does not just apply to developing countries—hon. Members and others who live in England will know that recent floods showed that, even in the United Kingdom, we can have problems when houses are built in areas that are prone to flooding or other natural disaster effects.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My party shares the shock and sadness in the House at news of another disaster affecting people who are least able to cope with one, and welcomes the prompt action taken by the Government to send relief to the area. Does the Minister agree that, rather than trying continually to strengthen OCHA, the establishment of a permanent United Nations rapid reaction force would enable assessments of and responses to disasters to be swiftly and more effectively carried out? In view of the fact that the USA is spending

25
$1.3 billion in military aid to Colombia, which is likely to cause far more suffering than it relieves, how much aid is it sending to El Salvador?
Mr. Foulkes: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I support the principle of a UN rapid reaction force, but we should not necessarily think that it would be a panacea to deal with all disasters and suddenly magic away their results, because it would not. We need a quick response, good organisation by the national Government on the ground and good co-ordination by the international agencies involved, and we are moving towards that without necessarily having the formal structure that she advocates. We are certainly considering ways in which we can co-ordinate the national Governments and the international agencies in our collective response to such natural disasters. I shall leave United States policy on Colombia to other people and stick to the subject before the House.
Mr. John McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for the speedy response. He will know that sanitation problems are great in such situations and that outbreaks of diseases occur. Have the Government made any contacts and can he make any progress on that issue? He knows that there has been great solidarity between the Scottish charity agencies and central America over the years. Are agencies such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Christian Aid and others being used? They have expertise as they have worked in central America for many years, and they could make a worthwhile contribution to the exercise.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to in my hon. Friend. I know of the solidarity between Scotland and El Salvador, which I have visited a number of times. On the radio this morning, I heard Father Michael Campbell-Johnston talk about experiencing the earthquake in his pick-up, in which I have travelled with him during a flood. The pick-up began to float down the road in the direction in which we were not driving, so I know the situation on the ground. We are in touch, and the Department, consistent with the need to respond quickly to what is happening on the ground, is also contacting agencies in the United Kingdom—Christian Aid, SCIAF and others—to find out what they are doing and whether we can give them assistance.
26
Disease is a problem that will occur and, from our experience, we know that dysentery, cholera and other such diseases will threaten after the first few days. That is why we are working with the Pan American Health Organisation and have given it £300,000 for immediate medical emergency supplies. I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that that is the right way forward.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In a disaster of such magnitude, is not it reassuring that the United Kingdom can send not just sympathy but practical, pre-planned help, mobilised from the region to a large extent? Can any men, women or equipment of Her Majesty's armed forces still in Belize to support the jungle warfare training school be utilised to alleviate suffering?
Mr. Foulkes: Again, I am grateful. I have had discussions with the hon. Gentleman, who knows Latin America extremely well and understands the situation. One of the first questions I asked of our officials was whether they had been in touch with the Ministry of Defence not just about the guard ship, but about the residual garrison in Belize. They had, but what we have left there does not meet the needs of El Salvador. Had it done so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, with whom I spoke earlier, would have made that equipment and those people available as quickly as possible. Sadly, they were not of the kind needed.
Mr. Paul Goggins: Everyone must have been shocked by the media pictures from Santa Tecla. At least it is relatively close to San Salvador and is reasonably accessible. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the speedy action that has been taken. Will he bear in mind the needs of more remote areas, such as Santiago de Maria, which is near to the coast and where, I have been told, 90 per cent. of all houses have been damaged or destroyed?
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend, who also knows the area, has put his finger on an immediate problem. The information we are getting is from San Salvador and the immediate surrounding area. We envisage problems in areas further away from the capital, but we have not heard anything yet. We are trying to get as much information as possible, and to see how we can respond in the area that he mentioned and in other areas remote from the capital. We shall respond as sympathetically as we can to any requests from those areas.

Neighbourhood Renewal
3.51 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal action plan "new commitment to neighbourhood renewal", which we are publishing today.
When we published the urban and rural White Papers in November, we set out our vision for ensuring a sustainable quality of life. We made it clear that an important part of the framework was to turn round our most deprived areas, and that the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal would spell out our ideas. This strategy is a long-term response to the appalling conditions created over decades in communities up and down the country.
When the Government came to office, the most deprived areas of England had, when compared with the rest, almost two thirds more unemployment; a mortality ratio 30 per cent. higher; and two to three times the level of poor housing, vandalism and dereliction. Over the 1980s and into the 1990s, the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country grew steadily. Places that started with the highest unemployment often also saw the greatest rise in unemployment. Health inequalities widened. The proportion of people living in low-income households more than doubled. That was partly the result of global social and economic changes, but it was also a legacy of a lack of political attention and of policies that did not work.
Past Government action was unfocused and unco-ordinated. Departments worked at cross purposes on problems that needed a joined-up response. Regeneration initiatives were short-term and limited to a few areas. Mainstream services, such as schools and hospitals, were failing in far too many deprived neighbourhoods. Crucially, there was a failure to harness the knowledge and energy of local people, and to empower them to work out their own solutions.
The result was both socially and economically damaging. Communities were trapped in unemployment, and deprived of the good schools and services that would help them to get back on their feet. The economy was deprived of workers, taxpayers, customers and entrepreneurs, and the bills of social failure mounted up.
The Government have made tackling this long-term decline a priority from the outset, through new policies such as sure start, raising school standards, the new deal, crime reduction, the health plan and the new deal for communities. Those policies are already showing results. Britain is a fairer and more prosperous country. Economic prosperity and educational opportunity have increased in all areas. In 19 of the local authorities with the highest unemployment rates, unemployment has fallen faster than the national average, and 44 of the most deprived local authorities are among those with the fastest improving key stage 2 numeracy results.
However, deep-rooted problems require a long-term and integrated approach that can be sure of avoiding the mistakes of past decades.
In 1998, the social exclusion unit was asked to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. More than 400 people from inside and outside Government have
28
been involved with the SEU in developing the strategy through 18 policy action teams. In addition, thousands of other people up and down the country, many of whom live and work in deprived neighbourhoods, responded to the consultation on the framework for the strategy that was published last April. In parallel, last year's spending review identified new resources to be invested in improvement.
That produced a framework for action which has the support of the people who need to make it work on the ground. It sets out an ambitious vision: that within 10 to 20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live, and that the gap between the poorest neighbourhoods and the rest will have been narrowed. That is indeed an ambitious goal, but, in the Government's view, it is a vital one. It will take time to achieve, but we have established clear measures to chart our path towards it.
The action plan sets out a three-year commitment to raising the standard and performance of public-sector services in the most deprived areas, with the following clear outcomes: reducing crime; reducing unemployment; improving education and skills; improving health; and improving housing and the physical environment.
The strategy has three key elements. First, there are new policies, funding and targets to tackle the causes of neighbourhood decline, such as unemployment, crime and poor services. Mainstream services—health, law and order, housing and education—will for the first time be judged on their achievements in improving things where they are worst, rather than just in relation to national averages. For example, the Department for Education and Employment will work towards ensuring that by 2004 no local education authority has fewer than 38 per cent. of pupils getting five good grades at GCSE; and by 2005 no area should have a burglary rate more than three times the national average.
In the 2000 spending review, Departments were given substantial new resources—for instance, the £1.6 billion increase in spending on the police by 2003–04, and the rise in education and health spending. This year, they will review their resource allocations to ensure that they meet their targets.
Secondly, we will promote integrated action at local level to get services to work better, and to deliver for their communities.
Local implementation of the strategy in each area will he the responsibility of a single body, the local strategic partnership. The partnerships will bring together public, private and voluntary service providers with the community and business sectors. They will be responsible for drawing up local strategies that address the specific problems and aspirations of all their deprived neighbourhoods, and give communities a single door to knock on so that they are not endlessly passed from pillar to post.
We have already announced that the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide £800 million over the next three years to help local strategic partnerships in the 88 most deprived areas to kick-start the process. In addition, I am announcing today that a community empowerment fund of over £35 million will support communities, enabling them to develop their ideas for change and to participate as equal partners in local strategic partnerships. It will

29
amount to an average of £400,000 per area over the next three years, and will allow all residents the chance to have their say.
There will be other models for community involvement. A £50 million community chest fund will give communities in such areas small grants to help them run their own projects, and we will put £45 million into at least 30 neighbourhood management pathfinder projects over the next three years. Those projects will explore the benefits of putting one person, or a team of people, in charge of looking after a neighbourhood. They will provide a local presence to whom residents can go if they have concerns about the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood manager will have the clout to get things done in the area.
These measures are essential. Communities are at the heart of neighbourhood renewal. Some past Government efforts to deal with neighbourhood deprivation failed because they did not engage effectively with communities in those areas. We must learn from that. People living in deprived neighbourhoods know their area better than anyone else. They must be at the heart of neighbourhood renewal.
The third key strand of the strategy is better national and regional support for local activity. Central Government must be more joined up and work better with their local partners. The strategy will ensure that that happens. We must end the problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods which are shunted from one service provider to the next and from one Department to the next, with no one taking responsibility.
In September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that a new neighbourhood renewal unit in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would be established by April. The unit, headed by Joe Montgomery, director of regeneration at the London borough of Lewisham, will have a cross-cutting, outward focus. It will be staffed by civil servants from across Whitehall and secondees with a broad range of experience in working with local communities. It will be responsible for overseeing and for co-ordinating the implementation of the strategy. It will ensure that the Government as a whole deliver on their commitments to neighbourhood renewal, supported by neighbourhood renewal teams in Government offices and annual statistics about how neighbourhoods are progressing.
As our vision turns into reality in more and more neighbourhoods, people on the ground will see a huge difference. For the first time, someone locally will be prepared and empowered to take responsibility for the many joined-up problems that the poorest neighbourhoods face. There will be a genuine opportunity for residents to get involved, and communities will have resources to support them in that. Residents will see further improvements in local and regional economies, new ideas such as neighbourhood wardens and IT centres coming on stream, and improvements in the quality of core public services such as schools, health and policing. Areas that suffer from the worst performance at the moment will see standards brought up to minimum floors.
It is easy to be sceptical about change, but the improved policies of the past three years and the concrete examples of what can be achieved by community groups and social entrepreneurs are a measure of what can be achieved. They give us confidence that we can aim for a position
30
where more neighbourhoods are advancing on all fronts. The new commitment to neighbourhood renewal builds on existing policies: to end boom and bust; to put the economy on a stable footing; to invest in public services; to invest in people and their futures; and to take active measures to ensure that everyone benefits from the prosperity and opportunity that we have created.
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am glad that I came in.
I thank the Minister for giving us an advance copy of her statement and for coming to the House to take questions. With the greatest respect to her, it is odd that the strategy announcement was made this morning at the Ocean estate, Stepney by the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Social Security and assorted other senior hangers-on, while the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will do for the House.
The statement has an interesting title—"new commitment to neighbourhood renewal." It is not clear whether it is a new commitment to neighbourhood renewal after the previous one failed, or a new-found commitment that the Government want to be seen to be committed to before a general election. However, the Opposition welcome any genuine moves to raise the problems of urban regeneration up the agenda and to bring about practical solutions. We particularly welcome any moves that seek to involve and to empower the community at all levels, with a genuinely bottom-up approach.
Many of the community-based regeneration projects that I have seen in recent months—whether the Royds community association in Bradford or similar organisations in Sheffield or Brent—say that progress is best made when communities are provided with the tools and set free to get on with the job at the sharp end, with minimal interference from the Government. I am pleased, albeit suspiciously, that the Government are starting to acknowledge that the solution to urban regeneration problems is an holistic one, involving making communities safer; ensuring that they have decent schools to which parents want to send their children rather than being forced to get out to get them an education; and making them places where businesses want to invest.
Such an approach is at the heart of our "Believing in our Cities" policy document, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) launched last year. That document is all about putting in place building blocks for sustainable communities, not only depending on bricks and mortar. However, that is barely a "new approach" to public investment—as the Prime Minister put it today in his speech in Stepney. After four years of warm soundbites, unfulfilled promises and failing delivery, people will want to know exactly how the scheme will work in practice, if at all, and to ask the following questions.
As the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recently noted:
The quality of services provided to urban neighbourhoods is very poor despite the large amount of mainstream funds spent.
Why will the money that the Minister has announced be spent better? We are told that the new neighbourhood managers are to act as an interface between Government agencies and communities. Is not such interface made

31
necessary by the fragmentation and complication of the Government's plethora of competing schemes under the heading of urban regeneration—such as education action zones, health action zones, the new deal for communities, renewal areas, and so on? Has not that complication made the whole business of urban regeneration bureaucratic, administratively costly and much removed from the communities which they are supposedly there to benefit and which now need the supposed remedies? Was not dome tsar Lord Falconer supposed to have sorted all that out?
Secondly, is the money new money or simply the usual recycled announcement of funds from last year's comprehensive spending review? Rather than the £131 million mentioned by the Prime Minister, and just now by the Minister, is not the amount allocated for neighbourhood management and neighbourhood managers really £45 million spread over three years? How much will that translate into for each of the communities involved? How many communities will be involved? When will they receive it?
Who will the money be paid to? Will the regional development agencies have a role as the major distributors of urban regeneration grants? Will local authorities have a hand in the determination of funds? If so, will communities genuinely be empowered—as the Prime Minister claimed—to control and shape their own destiny?
What will be the role of the Department of Trade and Industry? The Secretary of State seemed rather keen to muscle in on the act this morning. We are delighted to see him in the Chamber now.
What exactly will neighbourhood managers do? How are they different from neighbourhood wardens? Will they be there simply to manage neighbourhood wardens? Who will appoint them? On the basis of what criteria will they be appointed, and to whom will they be accountable? This morning, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not seem to know the answers to those questions. How exactly will neighbourhood managers interface with local authorities?
Thirdly, is it not gross opportunism to announce the scheme now, just weeks before a general election? Is it not really little more than yet another gimmick that barely rectifies the record of a Government who have presided over a widening north-south divide and a widening poverty gap—the extent of which have been clarified with publication today of the third "Wealth of Nations" report showing that 60 per cent. of households in centres such as Liverpool, Bradford, Blackburn and Middlesbrough are earning less than £10,000 annually per household?
Have not the Government presided over a decrease of 35 per cent. in the amount of new social housing built, and an increase of 74 per cent. in the number of people in temporary accommodation? Moreover, against the background of 190,000 extra crimes committed last year, has not crime in inner cities increased most of all—up by 12.6 per cent. in London, and 16 per cent. in the west midlands?
Does the statement go any way to satisfying any of the remaining 91 recommendations of the Rogers report which were not dealt with in the earlier urban White Paper? Does the statement restore a single one of the
32
2,600 police officers who are no longer present to patrol the streets in deprived communities? Will the right hon. Lady admit that neighbourhood wardens are no substitute for properly trained bobbies on the beat? Will she confirm that one of the more fatuous pledges in her announcement, namely, that by 2005 no area should have a burglary rate of three times the national average, can be achieved simply by raising that average?
Does the statement restore a single one of the teachers who are leaving the profession in droves, demoralised by form-filling, bureaucracy and political correctness? Does it shorten by one single day the waiting times that people in inner cities must suffer to obtain urgent treatment in hospitals, if they are lucky enough to graduate from the waiting list for the waiting list?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, why are the Government again palming us off with gimmicks when they could be spending the money on more police, more teachers or more operations? Like people elsewhere, people in inner cities have paid the taxes, so when are they going to get the services?
Ms Armstrong: I had intended to thank the hon. Gentleman for not indulging in cynicism, but I am afraid that he moved in a cynical direction towards the end of his remarks.
Services in many of our deprived areas have been worsening for decades. The previous Government did nothing to arrest that process or to ensure that specific action was taken in those areas. Indeed, they engaged in rounds of cuts year after year before the last election. We are giving ourselves tough targets on all of the key services and have worked with people from communities throughout the county on identifying those services and the aspects that need to be improved; that has been an intensive activity over the past two years.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) seems yet again to want a top-down approach in which the Government decide what is right without proper consultation or discussion and without piloting proposals with local communities. On money, he seems to think that Budgets and statements by Chancellors do not matter and that we can suddenly resurrect money from an unidentifiable pot of gold. Yes, the money was announced in the public spending round last July, but it has not previously been allocated and we have been working 'with local communities on deciding the most effective allocation. Our piloting of neighbourhood managers will involve 30 different areas in two rounds during the next three years. Many areas that benefit from the new deal for communities are already piloting or beginning to set up new forms of neighbourhood management. The 30 additional communities that will benefit from the piloting are all in the top 10 per cent. of the country's deprived wards.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether local authorities would be involved, but he seemed schizophrenic about the nature of such involvement. Of course they will be involved, as they are responsible for several of the key services that must be delivered more effectively in the areas in question. It is therefore important for them to act as partners with the local community, business, other public sector agencies and voluntary organisations. They will be partners in the local strategic partnerships and in drawing up priorities and plans for their deprived neighbourhoods.

33
Of course the DTI is involved. If we do not improve enterprise in these areas, their long-term sustainability will be reduced. The actions of the DTI on the minimum wage, for example, and its work with the Small Business Service are absolutely critical.
We shall not appoint the neighbourhood managers: they will be appointed locally. The appointments will come from whatever vehicle the local strategic partnerships decide to set up. Under the new deal for communities, many areas have already set up community trusts. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is really not interested in my answer, is he? Several areas are setting up community trusts that will appoint a neighbourhood manager. In other areas, the appointments will be carried out in a different way by people in those areas, who will decide the most effective way of acting.
Conservative Members clearly have severe problems in understanding that one cannot dictate everything centrally while expecting local people to trust that their involvement will matter. We are determined to show that that will be the key.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Burnley is a deprived area? We certainly welcome the statement, and Burnley has a record of seizing any opportunity given by a Government, although we were given few by the Tory Government during their 18 years of responsibility for the problem. Several community groups in Burnley—particularly south-west Burnley—will already be considering how to meet the challenge that the Minister has proposed for community groups to receive this funding.
May I spell out one problem for my right hon. Friend? When we involve community groups and build up their hopes, there is always a danger that those people's hopes will be dashed and that they will get depressed if sufficient money is not then available. Can we have an assurance that the money will be available, and that these people will get the go-ahead and be able to tackle the kind of problems to which my right hon. Friend has referred?
Ms Armstrong: Burnley is one of the authorities that will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund, to the tune of £2.5 million over the next three years. It will also be able to access the other funds that I have announced this afternoon. Given the increased investment announced by the Chancellor, as long as the authority focuses on ways of reducing crime and unemployment, of improving health, and so on—although there will never be enough money and everyone will always want more—I am confident that the increase will be able to satisfy the aspirations of people in Burnley.
Mr. Don Foster: I welcome, as I have on two previous occasions, the broad principle of today's statement. The Minister has acknowledged that, with the exception of the £35 million for the community empowerment scheme, there is no announcement of new money. Will she at least confirm that the targets for crime reduction, education and health that she has announced today are absolutely identical to those that the Government announced on 10 September?
Will the Minister also tell the House why it has taken the Labour party 18 years in opposition and three and a half years in government to discover what many people
34
have known for all that time and longer—namely that the people who live with particular problems are the ones who are best placed, with support, to find the solutions to them?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that her announcement of, for example, a community chest, neighbourhood management and community empowerment schemes adds yet more bureaucratic schemes to the large number that already exists? So bureaucratic are some of those schemes that people have difficulty finding their way through them, and much of the funding announced by the Government to help those most in need of it has ended up being underspent.
On underspending, will the Minister acknowledge that, although there is to be £100 million for the neighbourhood renewal fund, the first time the Chancellor announced that, he did not announce—although the figures clearly demonstrate—that in the same financial year, £160 million was to be cut from the budget for the new deal for communities? That money was intended specifically for the same target group.
Ms Armstrong: The new money announced today—or the new allocation of money—is £50 million for the community chest over the next three years; £35 million for the community empowerment fund over the next three years; and money to support other community activities. Overall, there is £130 million.
It has not taken us so long to find out that the people living in an area are those best placed to turn it round. It is precisely because we have been working with people that the strategy is being announced today, rather than on the first day after the general election. We were working with people to develop the strategy, because we did not think that we could say, "We know best, and you'll do what we tell you."
The hon. Gentleman said that the new system would be more bureaucratic. I disagree. The local strategic partnership will allow all the other partnerships to come together in discussion and debate with others, and find the most effective way of meeting their targets. By bringing things together we can reduce bureaucracy.
Of course there has been underspend in some programmes, precisely because we were working with communities over a longer time. For example, the new deal for communities pathfinder in Birmingham needed another year to put its proposals together, so we gave it another year. That meant that it did not spend the money that would otherwise have been available. Taking the opportunity to work with people sometimes means that money is not spent at exactly the expected time.
Fiona Mactaggart: Like many Labour Members, I welcome the statement—but I am upset that it does not extend to my constituency. The index of deprivation 2000 rates Slough as only the 107th most deprived area, but all other indices of deprivation put Slough much higher. We are among the top 20 boroughs in the country for burglary. We have very high levels of deaths from heart attacks and heart disease. One in three children entering Slough schools has English as an additional language.
I am particularly concerned that the new deprivation index does not account sufficiently for pockets of deprivation among ethnic minority communities.

35
Eighty per cent. of Pakistanis in Slough earn less than £10,000 a year. Will the Minister please reconsider the way in which boroughs with large ethnic minority populations are treated under the deprivation index, because it does not accurately reflect the needs of the community that I represent?
Ms Armstrong: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns; she is constantly seeking to increase opportunities for people in Slough—and so she should. However, 70 per cent. of this country's ethnic minority population live in the 10 per cent. of wards that are most deprived. That is reflected in the new index, so my hon. Friend can see that it takes account of people from ethnic minorities. I assure her that we want to improve the available data all the time. Indeed, the comprehensive spending review put money into the Office for National Statistics to improve data collection and availability not only at ward level but at remuneration by district level. That is important not only for those of us who administer programmes but for local people, who should have proper access to information about what is really going on in their neighbourhoods—and that is what we seek to provide over the next three years.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the sense of outrage in Essex when people learned that, of the £800 million announced by the Government, not a penny was to go to anywhere in Essex—apart from Dagenham—even areas where there are substantial problems, such as Basildon, Tilbury and Southend-on-Sea? Is the Minister aware that unemployment there is well above average and that there are many social problems, as seen from the concentration of bed-and-breakfasts and houses in multiple occupation? Is she also aware of the concentration of elderly people? Will she ask the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), about the situation regarding asylum seekers? In Southend, we have a nightmare of a problem, which places a big strain on public services?
Does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable anger that Southend is not getting a penny? I was told this morning that Southend's problem could be its above-average results for education—that is not a problem for us; we are delighted with it—and that we have an effective Conservative council that avoids the shambles we have seen in other areas. Is the Minister willing to look again at the criteria, because the present situation is not fair to Essex and not fair to Southend?
Ms Armstrong: We had to take difficult decisions about what were the poorest areas. We did so according to very clear criteria which we have published in "Indices of Deprivation 2000", and I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at them.
I know that Southend is seeking to tackle its problems. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited recently to announce a very generous transport settlement. As he also knows, Southend is doing quite well out of the local government settlement. I want to ensure that Southend is using its mainstream money effectively. This statement is not just about money but about how we work with areas
36
that have problems to make sure that the mainstream money works effectively. I am sure that Southend will be seeking to do that.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me—most unusually, perhaps—that this statement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and by Thurrock borough council? The proposals that she has announced fit in very well with the borough's new structures to enable and empower neighbourhoods. I speak for Tilbury, not for Southend, and I hope that the lion. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will bear that in mind.
We welcome this document because it is a little bit of socialism, if I dare use the word. It targets the most deprived areas so that they get much more than they would get in blanket grants.
The paper refers to the co-operation of a number of agencies, particularly the police. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will not allow the chief constable of Essex police to be tardy and hold back on this matter? We find the least policing in our areas of greatest poverty. The local authority and local community might be lined up on this, but unless we can get the co-operation of the chief constable in recognising that deprived areas such as Tilbury need greater policing, we will be frustrated in our attempts to fulfil the radical and progressive objectives that my right hon. Friend has outlined this afternoon, particularly for my community in Thurrock and Tilbury.
Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend's authority, although it does not receive a neighbourhood renewal fund, none the less has at least two wards which are suffering from deprivation and are among the 10 per cent. worst in the country, which mewls that it will be eligible for the neighbourhood management pilots and for some of the other money.
More than anything else, this strategy is a means by which local communities can come together to work out what the local priorities are and how to tackle them locally. The police will have targets. Whatever the chief constable feels about other matters, he will be seeking to ensure that the outcomes that every community has the right to expect are delivered in his area.
Mr. David Curry: I have rarely heard such a blubber-laden statement, even by the prolix standards of the Labour Government. Does the Minister agree that she spends too much time emphasising exam results in secondary schools and not enough time identifying the real problems in primary schools? In those areas, many primary schools are not failing, quite; are not in special measures, quite; and are not in an education action zone. They thus receive no help from the Government at all, and are finding things immensely tough. What measures does the right hon. Lady propose to give head teachers to enable them to fire bad teachers and to reward and thereby retain good teachers who could easily leave to work in a much more pleasant neighbourhood for the same money?
Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there has been significant investment in primary schools. No primary school has failed to benefit from that additional money. Every primary school has received

37
significant additional money and has been engaged in raising attainment at key stages 1 and 2. In the most deprived areas, 44 of the 88 most deprived authorities have achieved the greatest rise in attainment at key stage 2 in numeracy. That is a real testament to primary school heads and teachers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support them in meeting those targets everywhere.
Ms Hazel Blears: I warmly welcome the report and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to regeneration issues. That is in complete contrast to Conservative policies which, in their 18 years in government, led to mass unemployment, wrote off inner-city communities and caused a doubling of crime.
As a result of the rundown of inner-city areas, one of the most difficult matters is to engage local people in regeneration initiatives. My right hon. Friend is aware that in Salford several initiatives are under way, but one of the most difficult things is to get local people to have the confidence to take part in decision making. That is why the community empowerment fund will be crucial in encouraging people to come forward. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fund will support existing initiatives, as well as the new neighbourhood management initiatives? I fundamentally believe that we all need to learn from each other's experience of the whole range of initiatives; the community empowerment fund could be a mechanism that enables us to do that.
Ms Armstrong: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's dogged determination in her own constituency and to the way in which she works directly with community groups in some of the regeneration areas in Salford. Over the next three years, Salford will benefit by almost £11 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund. That shows the degree of deprivation in the city and the work that is to be done. I assure my hon. Friend that the community empowerment fund will ensure that local groups—local people—can be full partners, so that their voice can be heard whether the programmes are existing or new. Local people will be able to play their part; they will be equal partners, along with the local authority, the police authority, the health authority and business. Local people have their part to play; the programmes cannot be achieved without them.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that any interest in the more deprived communities—many of which were Labour heartlands, but are so no longer—will be most welcome. Do her comments about neighbourhood managers mean that local residents, and not other agencies, will appoint—and sack, if need be—such managers?
Will the right hon. Lady look positively at the fact that, as London is the only part of the United Kingdom where there is not even a power to set up parish or community government, if people want to set up such government, they should be allowed to do so? In combination with the Homes Bill, which is also welcome, will these measures mean an end to the politically correct system of allocating housing? That system broke up communities, separating people from their families, from carers and from their children's nursery places. Families should be allowed to live near each other—if they want to do so—where they can be mutually supportive, and not thrown to the four
38
winds, where they have suffered; as many academics and politicians agree, communities have been broken up over the past 50 years.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman's constituency is in the London borough of Southwark, which over the next three years will benefit to the tune of nearly £16 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund. Local residents will be involved in appointing the neighbourhood manager and will determine the framework for that. Some may decide to do it through a community trust. It is not up to us to establish the local framework. The local community must determine the employer, accountable body and so on.
The Homes Bill aims to change the way in which homeless people are accounted for. As a result of the response to the housing Green Paper, we have signalled a change in allocations policy.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I very much welcome the Minister's statement, especially in the context of the economic regeneration that is under way. I anticipate that Liverpool, where eight of the 20th poorest postcode areas are to be found, will benefit. What powers will be given to the strategic partnerships or their nominees to ensure that co-ordination of existing initiatives takes place and that Departments react constructively to what is happening locally? What role does my right hon. Friend see for local government, with its renewed powers in relation to environmental and economic well-being?
Ms Armstrong: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the initiative. She is right: Liverpool has some of the most deprived people in the country. They will benefit by receiving more than £40 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund in the next three years, in addition to mainstream funding. We need to be sure that that money works effectively. It is therefore important to have co-ordination at local, regional and national levels, and that is precisely what the strategy sets out to achieve.
The local strategic partnership will work with regional government offices and central Government to ensure that barriers to effective co-ordination are removed. The negotiation of work between central and local government will also help to ensure that that happens. By having the right levers at local level, local people will be able to make a difference and bridge the gap between poorer and richer areas.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Is the Minister aware that if we are going to have daily ministerial electioneering statements, I shall pray nightly and fervently to the Almighty for an early general election to release us from our sufferings? Of course there is cynicism, here and elsewhere: if the Government cannot even deliver on the five early promises contained in pledge cards at the previous general election, how on earth does the right hon. Lady expect to persuade people in the inner cities that she is going to build the new Jerusalem, starting tomorrow?
Ms Armstrong: We cannot win, can we? Some Tories accuse us of not announcing the strategy early enough and others accuse us of producing a last-minute election ploy. Today's statement is a result of sustained work over the past

39
two and a half years, within government and between central and local government and the Government and local people. That is why we have made a statement today.
Thousands of people took part in an extensive consultation. We have assessed and evaluated that consultation and the results are before us today. I suspect that if we had not laid them before the House, the hon. Gentleman would be raising points of order and complaining. This is a significant move. We are admitting past mistakes made by Labour Governments and by Governments of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. Governments have too often been part of the problem. We have to change that and ensure that they work effectively with people so that everyone benefits from this country's growing prosperity.
Ms Karen Buck: Until recently, the Lisson Green estate in the Conservative-controlled borough of Westminster was the model of how not to do urban regeneration. Some £50 million was spent on hugely mismanaged building works, with no consideration given to crime prevention, the community or economic development. I am glad to say that the corner is now being turned, with an education action zone, a sure start scheme and the opening last week of the council-funded information technology access project, firststep.com.
Will my right hon. Friend give me a commitment that small areas of acute deprivation such as the Lisson Green estate in Church street will continue to benefit from Government initiatives even though they are located in the midst of areas of considerable prosperity, as is so often the case in London?
Ms Armstrong: As I said, this strategy is not just about money; it is about ways of working and making sure that mainstream money works effectively. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that some local authorities had money from mainstream funds but were not using it to target areas of deprivation in ways that gave people in those areas real opportunities. This strategy will make sure that that happens. Both the boroughs that my hon. Friend represents will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund, and I assure her that we will be watching carefully to make sure that councils target areas of deprivation. Initiatives such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend will continue to benefit small areas of deprivation in otherwise prosperous places. It is important that we tackle deprivation and give people opportunities wherever they live.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In her recycled, sustainable statement the Minister said that the measures outlined are designed to cut crime in deprived communities. Given that in such communities it is often the case that a high proportion of crimes are committed by a small number of dedicated criminals whom the courts allow out again and again instead of using their powers to put them away, will she explain how the measures will have any effect whatever on the level of crime in those communities?
Ms Armstrong: I did warn you, Mr. Speaker, that there would be some cynicism, and the hon. Gentleman
40
displays it by saying that nothing can be done. I simply do not accept that. The Government have already introduced significant legislative changes to enable local authorities and the police to take action against the very people about whom he is talking. Through the local crime and disorder partnerships and other methods, police and court activities are targeted at tackling problems locally. I am confident that that can happen, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so cynical that he believes that nothing can be done. He is obviously content that we will continue to have areas of social deprivation and he does not want to do anything about that.
Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the statement and wholeheartedly thank the Government for their work to deal with social exclusion, to reduce the poverty gap, to deal with ill health and to improve education. What work has been done to help people in Stoke-on-Trent where, far from there being one area of deprivation, 80 per cent. of people live in wards where there is 25 per cent. poverty among children? Will the programme that my right hon. Friend has announced enable whole areas of cities to be targeted?
Ms Armstrong: The programme is specifically for the most deprived areas. Stoke-on-Trent will benefit to the tune of £8 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund over the next three years. The Government are targeting the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises. She will know that we have a target to eliminate child poverty within 20 years. Our mainstream policies of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, with the increase in child benefit, will benefit all those in her area who have not in the past received the help and support that they ought to have received.
The programme will particularly enable such people to get involved in other things that are needed to turn their area around, so that there are more job opportunities and they acquire the necessary skills and qualifications for better jobs. It will also tackle inequalities in health, crime and so on. Along with other mainstream policies, the programme will make a real difference to people's lives in Stoke-on-Trent.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady share with the House the reason why the statement is being made today although, as she has admitted, the money was announced as part of the public spending review, and the Select Committee reports on urban and rural renewal are due for discussion on Friday next week? She talks about whole neighbourhoods, but how will the policies adapt to and tackle pockets of urban deprivation? Is she saying that such policies are needed because all the partners to whom she referred woefully let down little Anna from Haringey?
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Lady asks why the statement is being made today. As I have said several times, it is not just about money. It is about how that money will be spent effectively and what can happen locally and nationally in order to ensure that programmes are targeted effectively and have effective outcomes. We are able to make the statement today because we have completed work with those around the country who have been involved in consultation and policy action teams.

41
Of course the strategy can be used to tackle pockets of deprivation. We have acknowledged in the index that there are such pockets, which the previous Government seemed never to want to do. We know that we must do that and that the data are not sufficiently good to enable us to do so effectively. We continue to work on the data but none the less have a strategy that enables every community to consider what can be done to help to turn things around.
Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome the commitment of the Government and my right hon. Friend to neighbourhood renewal. My right hon. Friend will know that Birmingham not only has a new deal for communities pathfinder initiative, but is to receive £44 million under the neighbourhood renewal fund.
May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of pockets of deprivation? Although I appreciate the work that she and her Department are doing on improving data, a problem remains if they are based on ward indices and there are areas of deprivation alongside areas of affluence in a ward. In allocating moneys such as the neighbourhood renewal fund, will she urge local authorities and other accountable bodies to try to target below ward level in order to address that problem?
Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend. In fact, Birmingham has two new deal for communities areas and will benefit by more than £44 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund in the next three years. I agree with my hon. Friend about The quality of data. At the moment, we are working hard to amass effective data at ward level. That has been difficult; it was part of the reason for the new index. We invested money through the 2000 spending review to try to collect good data on remuneration at district level, data from across the range of public services and information from other important aspects in order to find out what is going on and what priorities should be. Obviously this year's census will help us to do that. In future, the Office for National Statistics will perform that task.
Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend, who, I am delighted to say, knows my constituency very well. I wish to draw her attention to Thornaby and Parkfield, which face a problem of unemployment that is considerably worse than the national average, as well as problems of drugs, alcohol and crime which seriously debilitate the community. In addition, the local authority is attempting to find £132 million to repair its council properties—a debt left by the previous Administration. Is Stockton to be included in the urban regeneration package? In particular, are Thornaby and Parkfield, which are areas of serious deprivation, to be included?
Ms Armstrong: I can assure my hon. Friend that Stockton will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund to the tune of £7.7 million in the next three years, and I am confident that the Thornaby and Parkfield wards will be covered. The problems that she mentioned, especially drugs, are scourges that tear the heart out of many communities—hence the importance of the drugs strategy and the work done by my colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Health.
42
The strategy sets clear targets for housing improvement. I think that it states that one third of the houses that have not been improved should be improved within three years, and that all houses should be fit and improved within 10 years. The Government have put in the money to back up those commitments. Now, we shall work with local people to ensure that we meet those targets.
Mr. John Cryer: To return to the question of pockets of deprivation, I have in my constituency, which is relatively prosperous, several small areas of deprivation, one of which is the Mardyke estate, in which there are high levels of crime, very high levels of anti-social behaviour, and families facing real difficulties. However, the figures for such areas do not register under the criteria mentioned today, because they are surrounded by areas of relative prosperity. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the data book, and will she give sympathetic consideration to the joint bid from Havering council and the local police for a neighbourhood warden scheme that would cover the Mardyke estate and other areas?
Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to say that overall levels of deprivation in Havering do not warrant its inclusion in the 88 authorities. However, as I keep saying, the programme is not only about money; it is about providing a toolkit for local communities, local authorities and other public agencies to use to turn areas around. I am sure that Havering will seek to do that in line with mainstream programmes, and I shall be more than happy to discuss with my hon. Friend how we might meet some of his objectives.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I welcome the announcement. If my understanding is correct, both Thanet and Dover are eligible to apply for neighbourhood management pilot status. If that is so, I am even more grateful for the statement. However, will my right hon. Friend explain what she means when she says that neighbourhood managers will have clout? We in Thanet have a regeneration board, a district council, a county council and involvement in the regional development agency. If the neighbourhood manager is to achieve anything he or she must be able to take decisions and get them implemented. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that neighbourhood managers are granted the power to implement decisions?
Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that Thanet and Dover will be eligible to apply for neighbourhood management pilots. We will work at Government office level with the local strategic partnerships to make sure that they can draw in all the public sector agencies, from the Employment Service and the Department of Social Security to the local housing authority, the health authority and so on. All those agencies have a part to play and we shall work to co-ordinate things at local level to ensure that that happens. Local people will have information about what is going on, and will have an opportunity to be involved. They will also make demands that need a response. I believe that we will have a structure that will ensure a response because people will know that their jobs are on the line.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know only too clearly that many

43
coastal towns around the country are in the most deprived areas. Along with Labour colleagues who represent those resorts and communities, I welcome very much the Government's approach in the report. Will my right hon. Friend say specifically whether Scarborough and Whitby, especially the communities of Eastfield and Barrowclough in Scarborough and Streonshalh in Whitby, will have an opportunity to participate in the urban renewal project?
Ms Armstrong: I know my hon. Friend's constituency well and I know the real problems faced by many seaside towns in this country. We have sought to target them specifically in the comprehensive spending review, and, although I do not have the names of Scarborough wards that are eligible, I can tell my hon. Friend that, as an authority, Scarborough has at least two wards on the index which will be able to apply for the neighbourhood management pilots.
Mr. Hilary Benn: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the last thing that my constituents who live in areas scarred by poverty need is cynicism? There is a lot of cynicism about, which is why I welcome her announcement, which combines a financial helping hand with the philosophy of self-help. Will she tell the House how the progress of the initiatives will be measured? In particular, how will my constituents in places like Halton Moor, Osmondthorpe, Holbeck, Cottlingley, Little London and Lincoln Green be able to see for themselves what difference her announcements today have made to their lives?
Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right: those communities need to know that we believe and trust them. That is very important, and cynicism from this place undermines their confidence in themselves and in those who work with them. As my hon. Friend knows, I visited his constituency and know of the poverty there. However, I am also aware that economically, Leeds is a fast-growing city overall. None the less, we are making available to Leeds in the next three years nearly £17 million for neighbourhood renewal. I assure my hon. Friend that we will make sure that that money is used effectively and that local people can measure what is going on. The statistics will be published much more frequently each year, and people will know what is going on and will be able to hold the public agencies to account for the way in which they are spending their money and for the outcomes of that spending.

Tax Simplification (Joint Committee)
4.59 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
That the following Standing Order be made—

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of seven Members, to join with the committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills, to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.

(2) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(3) The quorum of the Committee shall be two.

(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(5) The procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of select committees of this House when such procedure differs from that of select committees of the House of Lords.

(6) The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee under paragraph (3)(a) of Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees).

In moving the first motion, I should like to explain briefly to the House the procedure for a Joint Committee to be set up to consider tax simplification Bills. The House has already agreed in principle that it is expedient for such a Committee to be established, and agreement to two motions on the Order Paper, this being the first, is the next step in that process.
The first of those Bills—the Capital Allowances Bill—was introduced on 9 January. The procedure for them has been refined over the past four years to recognise their particular nature while providing for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation. The procedure draws on that for the consolidation Bills. The tax simplification Bills are not consolidation Bills, but have a lot in common with them. Their purpose is to rewrite the law so that it is clearer and more easily understood, but they will also make minor changes in the law, just as a consolidation Bill may contain minor changes giving effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission. The importance of providing proper parliamentary scrutiny of the rewritten legislation was recognised from the outset.
The motion provides for detailed scrutiny of the Bill, including what are very minor and largely technical changes to be undertaken by a Joint Committee, and is in the form of a Standing Order as there will be a series of tax simplification Bills. The second will, on current plans, be ready to be introduced in autumn 2002. Making a Standing Order will mean that the House will avoid the need to go through the process again. That, again, was envisaged in the original Procedure Committee report to the House in 1997.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the proposed Joint Committee meet in private or in public and can the Minister offer me any encouragement to believe that the

45
said Committee will be mercifully free among its members from representatives of either the Government or the Opposition Whips Office?
Dawn Primarolo: I was about to explain the procedure for the Select Committee. I hope to address the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but, if I do not, I shall of course give way to him.
The Committee to be established is a Select Committee, not a Standing Committee. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) knows, Select Committees are free to determine how and when they meet and whether to do so in open or closed session. The Select Committee will be free to proceed by taking evidence and informal deliberation as well as by proposing formal amendments to the Bill. The Procedure Committee recommended that
the greatest possible latitude be permitted to the committee in its terms of reference …
That is what we have tried to achieve. The Procedure Committee, in 1997, also recommended that a Minister should sit on the Joint Committee. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that, should the House agree another motion on the Order Paper, I would be a member of that Committee.
Mr. Bercow: The Minister will understand the purport of my continuing inquiries. I note what she says, although I confess that I do so with some distaste that the Committee will include a Minister, but will she confirm that the said Minister will be regarded not as a witness before, but as a member of, the Committee? Will not it therefore be open to the Committee at a meeting attended by a ministerial member to judge that, lacking witnesses, it should choose to meet in private? Does she understand that, as a champion of freedom of information in those matters and one who is concerned about possible dastardly works that might be perpetrated by the Government, I am uneasy about such private confabs?
Dawn Primarolo: I understand, the hon. Gentleman's concern that the transparency of the process should be upheld. The Committee will be free to elect its Chairman and I understand that my role is to be an individual member of that Committee. It will be for the Committee to decide how to conduct its business—it would be quite improper for me to suggest from the Dispatch Box how it should do so—but I am sure that whoever is appointed to chair the Committee will of course scrutinise today's debates and pay particular attention to ensuring that the rights of the House are properly protected.
Mr. Bercow: What are these pigs that I see flying?
Dawn Primarolo: I could not possibly comment.
The Joint Committee is expected to have 13 members. Six will be from another place and seven from this place. The Procedure Committees of both Houses have recommended that the Chairman be drawn from this place.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the procedure which was set up under Standing Order and introduced by the Conservative Government prior to the 1997 election provided that the House should have the majority—seven members—on the Committee and that the Chairman should be drawn from one of those seven members. That recognises that the Bills
46
concern tax and would not normally be matters for another place, while bringing to bear the expertise of Members of the other place in the process of consideration. In the previous Parliament, the Procedure Committee stated:
It is likely that a joint committee would only be generally acceptable if it was clear that the Commons was in a sense the driving force.
The division of seven members from this place and six from another place reflects that desire.
Given that it is somewhat unusual to engage the expertise of Members of another place in the debate on tax measures, the proposal is that House of Commons procedures shall be followed where they differ from those in the other place. That is most significant in the role of the Chairman in voting. In the other place, the Chairman votes like any other member and has no casting vote in the event of a tie. In this place, the Chairman does not have a vote unless a tie occurs, when he or she has a casting vote.
Secondly, the Committee will have powers to take evidence, as I have said, from anyone it wishes and to appoint specialist advisers if it judges that helpful to supplement the lengthy consultation already undertaken by the rewrite project.
Thirdly, there were some questions about the Committee's ability to change the underlying tax law. I hope that the motion will make it clearer that the Committee's remit is to consider tax simplification Bills, not to review and revise underlying tax policy. That is consistent with the recommendations made to the House when the tax law rewrite project was set up and with the Procedure Committee's reports to the House.
The motion is simply about taking forward Bills which rewrite existing legislation, with some minor changes only. That is a matter on which I am pleased to find that there has so far been a great deal of agreement. The work undertaken by Lord Howe of Aberavon and his enthusiasm, along with all the other members of the tax law rewrite body, of which the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is one, has demonstrated both the commitment of the previous Government and of the present Government to take this important work forward.
The motion puts in place the machinery for delivering the first rewrite Bill after a great deal of effort over several years. I hope that the House will accept the procedures.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I support the proposal, but has no thought been given to making the quorum of the Committee not merely two, as proposed? Should not the higher proportion that is required in the House constitute the quorum?
Mr. Bercow: There is an amendment on that.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that sedentary interjection.
I served on the Joint Committee that is designed to reject defunct or obsolete Acts on the statute book. I felt vulnerable when I attended. It was almost as if I were trespassing on House of Lords proceedings, as it were. I was somewhat alone on that occasion, and I believe that it is unhealthy for the House not to ensure that the

47
deliberations of the Joint Committee are a mutual undertaking, rather than one that is not pursued with any great vigour by some hon. Members.
Dawn Primarolo: I understand my hon. Friend's point. All these matters were considered by the Procedure Committees of both Houses. The Select Committee has only seven members from this House, and it would be extraordinary for the quorum to include more than half of those members—hence, the number two as the proposed quorum.
The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has 12 members and a quorum of two, as does the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, where the number of members is not fixed by Standing Order, but is, I understand, currently seven.
The new procedure that has been agreed is laid down by Standing Order No. 60. As the process of tax law rewrite is taken through the House for the first time, it will be necessary to reconsider the procedure.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady has been exceptionally generous, which I much appreciate. Nevertheless, I am a little concerned by the progressively byzantine arrangement that she has set out before the House. She said a moment ago, if I understood her correctly, that the Chairman of the Joint Committee would have to come from this House. Is that because of something in Sessional or Standing Orders, or is it merely by way of a gentlemen's or ladies' agreement?
Furthermore, with reference to paragraph (2) of the motion, does the hon. Lady understand that many of us are rather perturbed by the idea that the Committee might conduct its secretive work when the House is adjourned? That seems to be a recipe for trouble.
Dawn Primarolo: First, I assure that hon. Gentleman that nothing in the deliberations on the tax law rewrite Bills will be concealed from the House. There must be a report back to the House, and it will be for the House to decide. Secondly, I remind him that the Government are in a minority on the Committee—a somewhat unusual position for the Government to be in on Committees.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: If I may answer one question at a time, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
There is no chance that, without a majority, the Government could railroad anything through the Committee, nor would we want to. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) scoffs. If he studied the subject, he would find that from its inception under the previous Government, the proposal had received widespread support in the House and huge support among all the professions, and that it has been the subject of extensive consultation. The procedure to review it and consider Bills in the House has now been properly arranged.
On the question of the Chair of the Committee, it would be improper for me to express any view. It will be for the Committee to elect its Chair.
48
I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), even though I have concluded my remarks.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. She said that Government members on the Committee would be in a minority. As four out of seven members listed on the Order Paper are from the Government side, it follows that she knows who the other six from the Lords are. If she does, will she please tell the House, and if she does not, can she tell the House when they will be appointed or when their lordships will deliberate on the matter? With regard to the quorum, does the quorum of two bind only Members of this House, or does it bind the entire Committee, including Members of the other House?
Dawn Primarolo: The House of Lords returns from its break today, and it will appoint its members of the Committee. If we are notified during our debates that those appointments have been confirmed by the other place, I shall be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman. It is for the other place to determine who its six members will be.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not want to get at the Minister, but her statement that Government Members will be in a minority on the Committee cannot be correct, because she does not know what its total membership will be.
Dawn Primarolo: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking who the members from the other place will be. The breakdown of those six members will be two Labour, two Conservative, one Cross Bencher and one Liberal Democrat. It is not for me to determine which peers will be members: that is a matter for the House of Lords. The Joint Committee will follow the procedure and rules of Select Committees of this House.
Mr. John Burnett: Is it the Government's intention that they will be in a minority for the duration of the Committee?
Dawn Primarolo: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking. The procedure is laid down in Standing Order No. 60. The requirement is for the seven members of the Committee to reflect the balance in this House, but when the six members from the other place have been added the Government will be in a minority—not a majority.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the quorum. A quorum of two is what Lords Committees use. The procedure was set out in proposals from the Committee in the Lords on 13 November 2000. The quorum, the procedure, and the fact that the Select Committee procedure for the Commons will be followed because tax questions are involved have now all been agreed by both Houses.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should make it clear to the House that Mr. Speaker has not been able to accept any of the amendments.
5.17 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I had a couple of points to make, but they have been made more effectively than I could by my hon. Friends in their perceptive interventions. We will be feeling our way in this new process. It is the first time that we have gone through it. I have listened to the points that my hon. Friends have made, and will bear them in mind. I shall certainly advocate that we sit in public, and that there is as much openness in the process as possible. I hope that the Minister will accept that, as it is the first time we will have gone through the process, it will be appropriate to review it at the end. If we feel that the process has not worked properly, it would he thoroughly appropriate for the House to reconsider this Standing Order and make the necessary amendments.
We met to discuss this matter on 19 December. We agreed the motion in principle, and we do so now.
5.19 pm
Mr. John Burnett: The Joint Committee on Tax Simplification will be important and influential. Some eminent right hon. and hon. Members have proposed to go on the Committee, and I believe that it is wrong for the quorum to be just two Members of this House. There will not be a sufficient representative sample of the House, and the Committee may well be called on to deliberate and produce a report with the views and considerations of only one political party being represented. That is not acceptable. The quorum of the Committee should be at least four. Although I appreciate that, with a quorum of four, the Committee could still sit with only Government Members present, the amendment that has not been called would have provided at least the likelihood of diversity.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Would it not be sensible for the quorum to be at least two Members of each House, given that this will be a Joint Committee?
Mr. Burnett: I entirely agree, and I see no reason why the quorum of four suggested in the amendment that was not selected could not have been so comprised. Such an arrangement might provide even more diversity, and even more expertise.
Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, if this is to be a highly important, extremely influential and very worthwhile Committee composed of celebrated members with many commitments and full diaries, there is no good reason why at any one time 11 of the 13 should be unavailable to fulfil their important duties? Is it not alarming that if on some occasion only two members were present, one of them, the non-voting Chairman, a single individual, could determine the Committee's proceedings?
Mr. Burnett: I must confess that my knowledge of Committee procedures is not quite as extensive as the hon. Gentleman's. Nevertheless, the central point must be made that the quorum should be at least four. I hope that the Government will reconsider; this is a most worthwhile project.
Dawn Primarolo: I think the hon. Gentleman said that the quorum should be at least four, counting Members of
50
the other place. Two Members of the other place plus two Members of the House of Commons make four, and that is the quorum. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's problem.
Mr. Burnett: Is the Paymaster General saying that, for the Committee to sit, the quorum must be in effect four—two Members of this House and two Members of the other place—and that if four such Members are not present there will be no quorum?
Dawn Primarolo: Yes: I am referring to two Members of each House. When the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I said that the quorum for the House of Lords would also be two. Furthermore, I said that a quorum of more than two for a Committee consisting of seven members would be unheard of.
Mr. Burnett: Actually, I am somewhat reassured by that.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is by nature a decent and generous fellow, but I hope he will not be too readily reassured. He should not jump ahead of himself. Does he not accept that what we have just heard from the Paymaster General, welcome though it sounds, is effectively amendment on the hoof—amendment at the Dispatch Box? Subsection (3) of the motion specifically states:
The quorum of the Committee shall be two.
It does not say "two Members of each House"; it just says "two".
Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to that.
Dawn Primarolo rose—
Mr. Burnett: The Paymaster General is poised to intervene. I happily allow her to do so.
Dawn Primarolo: We are discussing only procedure relating to this House, but the hon. Gentleman will note from the record that when I replied to him earlier I said that the quorum for the House of Lords Committee would also be two, and that the procedure had been set out in a proposal from that Committee on 13 November 2000.
Mr. Burnett: There is but one Committee, which consists of Members of both this House and the other place. That Committee will not be able to go about its business unless four individuals are present—for instance, two Members of each House. On that basis, I am reasonably reassured.
5.24 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: Our exchanges about the quorum illustrate one of the Committee's most important tasks—attention to detail. Its work will involve detailed scrutiny, in the context of the first parliamentary consideration of tax law simplification.
Let me say at the outset that I welcome the progress that the House is making now in establishing the procedures—the substance will be established later—

51
of an exercise with which, as the Paymaster General suggested, I was closely associated during my time at the Treasury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) feared that the Committee's procedure might be clothed in secrecy. He is a modern Member of the House of Commons. If he had cared to look at the various internet websites on the tax law rewrite exercise, he would have found displayed to public view in the most open way possible all the proceedings so far of the exercise. It has been conducted in the most open of fashions.
Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend is an e-man of some note, but for those of us who do not possess a computer, who cannot switch one on, or who would not know a website if it jumped out of their breakfast cereal, to say that something is on a website is simply not sufficient. Those of us who are traditionalists and who prefer to deal with information in a proper way, conducted through a proper medium, will continue to insist on that. My right hon. Friend's talk of a website does not impress us all.
Mr. Jack: I was going to point out that conventional means are also being used to disseminate the information. When we debate that and other matters, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will refer to the copies, in a more conventional sense, of Committee proceedings that he will have obtained, with reference later perhaps to the many exposure drafts and other information that has been more conventionally produced and that will also assist the Committee in its work. If the shelf in my office that holds much of the printed material is anything to judge by, there has been a flood of information in the public domain on all aspects of the work that the Committee will examine.
Mr. Bercow: I confess that, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), on the whole I tend to prefer to communicate via use of the quill pen, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said in seeking to reassure me that the record of the proceedings was lodged on not one, but a multiplicity of websites. Is he saying that the verbatim account of everything said was lodged on said website, or is it merely a truncated version in the form of minutes? The former would be substantially reassuring, the latter less so.
Mr. Jack: If my hon. Friend were fully acquainted with and had read all the material from all the participants during all parts of the exercise that has produced the Bill that we shall discuss later, he perhaps would not have posed the question in quite the way that he did because it is the output and decisions of the consultative and steering committee processes that are of greater interest in the public domain than the words uttered both privately and publicly to determine what we will discuss later.
The first part of the motion deals with a Standing Order. The motion says that we wish
to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
52
That is the most positive part of the tax law rewrite exercise, but one of the challenges will be the considerable amount of detail that the Committee will have to go into in determining the answer, almost, to the question in the first part of the motion.
I was interested in a paragraph in the helpful Library note which gives some of the background to the exercise. It says on page 39:
Experience with the Joint Committee on Consolidation suggests that the Lords Members play a dominant part and that there are indeed frequent problems with ensuring sufficient attendance of Commons Members to provide the quorum.
It is interesting that later we may be able to debate the membership from this House of the Committee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have volunteered their services, or whose services have been volunteered, to that exercise will have the time to carry out the part of the motion that I read out earlier. It is a time-consuming exercise. Given that it will be the first parliamentary consideration of the rewrite process, assiduous attention to detail will be required to meet the understandable questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have posed and to give the reassurance that the matter has been properly considered.
The second paragraph of the motion states:
The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House—
and more important—
to report from time to firm, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
I am intrigued by that provision. I should also like to ask the Paymaster General about it, as that might refresh my memory of the procedures considered by the Procedure Committee in recommending that method of considering the Capital Allowances Bill. One of the matters that we shall discuss in more detail later is how the whole exercise has helped us to arrive at the conclusions in the Bill. The exercise has had two parts, the first of which deals with ideas to improve tax law but without changing current policy. The second part deals with ideas that go beyond that stricture in relation to current policy and addresses the simplification issue in the round.
Does the Paymaster General envisage that, in the reports that it might produce, the Select Committee will be able to go wider than the narrow confines of commenting on the fruits of the labour done by both the consultative and steering committees on the Capital Allowances Bill? I am sure that the specialist advisers who will wish to advise the Select Committee will have views on some of the implications of the Bill's drafting.
As for the tax law rewrite exercise, it might be quite interesting if the reports could go a little further than simply commenting on drafting. Nevertheless, even if they comment only on drafting, such reports could be interesting when we come to subsequent rewrite Bills. Will the Select Committee have to restrict its remarks solely to the Capital Allowances Bill? If not, will it be able to comment on more general matters? Such an ability could be valuable in other aspects of the exercise.
Some of the Bill's provisions beg the question how effectively current tax law operates. Will the Select Committee be able to call for an economic assessment of some aspects of capital allowances legislation and to

53
report on the operation of both current and redefined law? Such reports might be useful adjuncts to the Select Committee's work in commenting on tax simplification.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that paragraph (2) of the motion is a standard provision in motions establishing all Committees and that it is just so much hogwash? The Committee, even with the benefit of paragraph (2), will not be able to ask for the advice given to Ministers. Therefore, requests for all the really important information that the Committee might wish to know could well be refused by Ministers—even by the Minister dealing with the Capital Allowances Bill. Can that Minister be called before the Committee to give evidence?
Mr. Jack: As the relevant Minister will be part of the Select Committee, she will be able to contribute to its proceedings in her own way.
As for my hon. Friend's point on advice to Ministers, it is true that documentation that moved between Revenue officials and Treasury officials when I was a Treasury Minister would not be available to Ministers now. I would also not expect Select Committees to be able to gain access to information on the policy issues discussed by officials. However, in relation to the consultative committee's work and the number of exposure drafts that have preceded the Bill, the Bill has been written in such a transparent manner that the exercise itself has been very transparent.
If my hon. Friend wishes to avail himself of the available information, like the Select Committee he will have to conduct a comparative exercise between the "old" Bill and the "new" one. Then he will be aware of precisely the issues that would have been before Ministers. I recommend, however, that he conducts such an exercise only if he is an insomniac. Assuming that he wants to remain sane and normal, as he usually is, I remind him that he would be embarking on an extremely complex and difficult task—a remark that I shall repeat during the wider debate on tax simplification, if I have the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Bercow: Hot wet towels.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is correct, although the towels will have gone stony cold by the time such an exercise is complete.
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for her clarification on quorums. As I said, the issue is an interesting insight into the points of detail that will be the stuff of the hon. Members who comprise the Joint Committee. I welcome the original proposal on which the Procedure Committee deliberated and I wish the Joint Committee well. I hope that the House will approve the motion.
5.36 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I confess that I cannot join in the cosy unanimity that has so far been displayed. I am always suspicious when I am assured that everybody has been in agreement, not least when that assurance is given by Labour Members. Such statements always strike me as a recipe for sure disaster. Everybody will remember the agreement about the Child Support
54
Agency, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and many other measures that were brought to the House in a rush of consensual happiness, but which ended in universal tears. Might not the House now be considering another such measure?
When I see the words "tax" and "Lords" mentioned together in one motion, I become suspicious and wonder why we have all suffered from collective amnesia on the history of this place and on the relative roles of the Commons and the Lords, especially in respect of tax matters. The original Procedure Committee report of 27 January 1997 gave the lie to that. It states:
the Lords Procedure Committee has pronounced itself as content with the proposal for a Joint Committee.
It would, wouldn't it? The House of Lords has been trying for centuries to get its collective toes into tax matters.
The Procedure Committee went on to state that
the only evident drawback would be on the constitutional ground of whether it is appropriate for the Upper House to play any significant role in the consideration of bills relating to taxation.
It continued:
We do not, on balance, consider any such objection to be well founded.
The Committee conceded that a genuine judgment had to be made on whether it was appropriate for members of the other place to be involved in taxation matters at the current stage in our constitutional development.
Those recommendations set the tone that should have been reflected in the current debate. After reading them, I consulted "Erskine May", as one does on these occasions; indeed, I am sure that all hon. Members have done so. Under the interesting headings "Restrictions Under Constitutional Usage" and "Basis of modern practice with respect to privilege", page 797 of "Erskine May" reminds us that the original resolution relating to practice
in respect of the Commons' financial privileges
dates back to 1671. The resolution, which I have before me, therefore relates directly to the legitimacy of the role of the other place in taxation matters, which is precisely the substance of the motion. It states:
That, in all Aids given to the King, by the Commons, the Rate or Tax ought not to be altered by the Lords.
As was the practice in those days, the resolution is written clearly and succinctly—would that such practices were followed now. Interestingly—I add this in passing—the record states:
And then the House adjourned till To-morrow Morning, Eight of the Clock.
Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend point out any specific words within the tax law rewrite exercise that give powers to those involved in the exercise to make the type of changes to which he has just referred?
Mr. Forth: I need not do that, because I referred only to the motion and I shall return to this matter later. The motion refers to the responsibilities of the Joint Committee
to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, I read that wording as almost inviting the proposed Joint Committee—about which I am unhappy and do not share

55
the general approval so far expressed—to make minor but significant changes to tax law and possibly, therefore, to the burden of tax or to the rates of tax.
Mr. Jack: Has my right hon. Friend considered the before-and-after effect by reading the old law and the new law?
Mr. Forth: If I catch your eye in a subsequent debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to argue that dangerous scope for a stealth tax drift is built into the procedure, mechanism and wording of the proposal. However, I would not want to pre-empt that argument now.
Suffice it to say to my right hon. Friend that I am sufficiently unhappy that there is at least a danger that the mechanisms could alter the burden of tax, either inadvertently or deliberately—I know not which, yet; perhaps we shall consider that later.
Mr. Bercow: I appreciate the vantage point from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is approaching the subject. He thinks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has unjustified fears. However, would my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst care to entertain a scenario in which six members were present at a meeting of the Joint Committee, two of whom hailed from this House and four from the other place? Does he accept that, in those circumstances, decisions would effectively be made by noble Lords and that they could be decisions to which absentee members of the Committee subsequently declared themselves to be profoundly opposed?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has, as he often does, pre-empted an argument that I hope to make later on the quorum. I am going to work steadily and methodically through my many headings in this debate, and I have barely scratched the surface of the first.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me, but he has anticipated one of my anxieties. Not only does the motion give potentially equal say on tax matters to Members of another place but, as he pointed out, we could end up with Members of another place determining matters relating to tax by outnumbering Members of this House on the Committee. Later, I shall again quote the Procedure Committee on the matter because it has given the lie to the whole issue.
Undeterred, I shall press on. I shall be brief, as I am just setting the scene. "Erskine May" also helpfully draws our attention to a further resolution of 1678 entitled—or "intituled", as they used to say in the good old days—"Rights of Commons in granting Money". It states that it was resolved:
That all Aids and Supplies, and Aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole Gift of the Commons: And all Bills for the Granting of any such Aids and Supplies ought to begin with the Commons: And that it is the undoubted and sole Right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of such grants; which ought not to be changed, or altered by the House of Lords.
The history of this argument is clear—or, at least, it was in the balmy days of 1678. "Erskine May" also states that:
the House adjourned until To-morrow Morning, Eight of the Clock.
56
Those were the good old days when the House did a proper day's work, unlike the abbreviated consideration that we have now.
A further reference that I wish to pray in aid is also drawn to our attention by "Erskine May". It dates from 1860—we are getting more up to date—and is headed Tax Bills:
The Order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned Debate on the Question proposed upon the 5th day of this instant July, That the right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution; and the limitation of all such Grants as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them.
I quote that to illustrate the constancy and consistency of the attitude of the House of Commons over the centuries—that it is to this House alone that the raising of money and revenues, and the disposing of tax matters, should rest.
I add in parenthesis that that quotation continues:
And the House having continued to sit till after Twelve of the clock on Saturday morning …
In those good old days the House did a proper week's work—none of this bunking off on a Thursday—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has now made three references to something that is clearly outside the scope of the motion before us. I suggest that he desist
Mr. Forth: That was just a bit of whimsy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was brief enough to escape your notice—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even whimsy must be taken in moderation.
Mr. Forth: I shall try to restrict my whimsy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to get on with the really meaty part of what I want to say.
The quotation from 1860 continues:
Resolved, That the right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution; and the limitation of all such Grants, as to matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them.
Intriguingly, another resolution passed on the same day reads as follows:
Resolved, That although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting Bills of several descriptions relating to Taxation by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent, and is justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy as affecting the rights of the Commons to grant the Supplies and provide the Ways and Means for the Service of the year.
A Motion was made, and the Question being proposed, That, to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over Taxation and Supply, this House has in its own hands the power so to impose and remit Taxes, and to frame Bills of Supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, may be maintained inviolate …
At that time, too—we are talking about relatively recent times now—the House of Commons was very jealous of its rights.
The last quotation that "Erskine May" refers to in connection with the subject dates from 1910; the historians

57
present will know the importance of that date. The heading is "Relations between the Two Houses and Duration of Parliament":
The Prime Minister reported from the Committee on Relations between the Two Houses and Duration of Parliament several Resolutions …
Money Bills
1. That it is expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by Law from rejecting or amending a Money Bill, but that any such limitation by Law shall not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
It is clear that, as I think we all know and understand, history shows us that it is to this elected House of Commons that the rights are given in the matter of taxation. The old but potent phrase "No taxation without representation", to which I shall refer briefly later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the handy reference to that principle—a principle that the resolution before us, if we supported it, would be in danger of breaching.
Mr. John Redwood: At a certain point in my right hon. Friend's speech I noticed that the Paymaster General—the one Government Member present, apart from the Whip—seemed to be in agreement with him.
Dawn Primarolo indicated assent.
Mr. Redwood: The Paymaster General seems to be agreeing with my right hon. Friend's extremely learned and lucid argument that this House, rather than the other place, should have control of taxation matters. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will subject to some analysis the wording:
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
I suspect that that, rather than the principle of where the power over taxation should lie, is the real issue between him and the hon. Lady. I share my right hon. Friend's fear that the motion before us could lead to stealth taxes by the back door, and I think that it is here that the Minister would be even more vulnerable.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I fear that it is not only the Minister with whom I am at odds, but our right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is wrapped up in the process and naturally, I think, approves of it. He appears not to believe that there is any possibility built into the mechanisms in the motion that the tax rate or burden could be altered, even within the phrase
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that in the end, whether inadvertently or deliberately, that phrase could give effect to a change in taxation
Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the change in the rate of taxation is a minor matter?
Mr. Forth: That is the whole point at issue. We do not at this stage know whether the members of the Committee will regard it as a minor matter. Simply referring to it as a minor matter in the motion tells us no more about what the Committee will or will not regal d as a minor matter. Given that the Committee will be dominated by Members
58
of a tax-raising Government, I should have thought that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out—I will come back to this later when I speak about the quorum—it is all too possible that decisions could be made by a thinly attended Committee that could easily be dominated by Government Members.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and I may readily agree that rates of taxation are an extremely important matter, but I am not confident, given the Committee's proposed composition, that we can rest easy in our mind that it will never use the mechanisms that will be made available to it by this motion—if we agree to it—to alter rates of taxation. That is the source of my anxiety.
Mr. Burnett: It is, of course, for this House to implement and enact any changes. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the power of the Committee to consider tax simplification Bills—including Bills on corporation tax, capital gains tax, and any taxation measure—gives it such great influence that it is an unwarranted trespass on the powers of this House?
Mr. Forth: That is what I am suggesting. It will presumably be a matter for the Government whether they designate a Bill as a tax simplification matter. Even within the designation process, something could be concealed by the Government—either by incompetence, which would be entirely possible and, in fact, very likely, or by malice, which would be equally possible—and connived at by those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are enthusiastic about the process that would give rise to the sort of breach that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend said a moment ago that it was a matter for the Government to determine whether something constituted a tax simplification measure. I do not know whether his beady eye noticed that at that point the Paymaster General shook her head, obviously dissenting from what he was saying. I am sure that she will want to clarify the situation by speedily rushing to the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Forth: I suspect that the Minister, courteous and considerate as ever, will want to listen very carefully to the entire debate and then seek to wind it up, with the permission of the House. I would not want to rush the Minister into giving a reply at this stage. I have only just got into my stride, in any case, and have a number of other points to make.
I resorted once more to "Erskine May". On page 63, under the heading "The Principal Power of the Commons", it says:
the House of Commons possesses the most important power vested in any branch of the legislature, the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public service.
It then says on page 798:
the Commons treat as a breach of privilege by the Lords not merely the imposition or increase of such a charge but also any alteration, whether by increase or reduction, of its amount or of its duration, mode of assessment, levy, collection, appropriation or management; and, in addition, any alteration in respect of the persons who pay, receive, manage, or control it, or in respect of the limits within which it is leviable.

59
It is perfectly clear from "Erskine May" and the historical records to which I briefly referred, notwithstanding the times at which the House then sat, that these matters are well entrenched and well established in our history and in the only constitution that we have—namely, our statute, resolutions of the House of Commons and in "Erskine May", which some might think is as close to a written constitution as we may ever have. That matter is therefore beyond doubt.
We seem to be sliding, quietly but inexorably, from the well-established position that I thought was well understood—that this representative, elected, accountable House of Commons was the sole repository of responsibility for tax and taxation matters—to being asked to nod through a mechanism whereby another place is fully engaged in this process.
Mr. Jack: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend with care. Where, in the rewritten Capital Allowances Bill that the Committee will consider, are measures that raise the fears that he mentions in the context of the supremacy of this House to determine tax matters?
Mr. Forth: I do not need to refer just to that Bill because the Minister told us, if I heard her correctly, that a series of Bills would be referred to the Committee. It is not just the Bill on the Order Paper with which we should be concerned, but any future Bill that comes to the Committee, designated by the Government as a tax simplification Bill, regardless of content, and containing within it the possibility of taxation by stealth and modification of tax burden or rates by incompetence or deliberately—I know not yet.
It is not only the Capital Allowances Bill, to which we will come in due course later in the evening, about which we should be concerned, although we are right to be concerned about it. I know that my right hon. Friend has made a detailed study of it and I look forward to his comments. However, we should be concerned about whatever Bills may follow that are designated as tax simplification Bills, which may contain within them the sort of drift or stealth process of which I am so fearful.
Mr. David Ruffley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that future tax simplification Bills of the kind to which he refers are already known about—to wit, the first income tax Bill covering employment and possibly social security and pensions income, which we are told will be ready in November 2002? There is also a second income tax Bill of a simplifying kind, which will cover trading income, property income, savings and investment income.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of something of the kind. It occurs to me that even a cursory glance at the Capital Allowances Bill to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde referred, and now, more speculatively, the matters that my hon. Friend talks about contain at least the possibility of an increase in tax rates or burden or a change in the basis on which some taxes are assessed or levied in a way that is not yet clear or predictable. However, we know that the process through which the motion proposes that these Bills will go then allows the possibility of such changes.
60
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out not long ago, the very words
subject to any minor changes
admit the possibility of changes, but try to provide reassurance by designating them as minor. However, my right hon. Friend has been around long enough to know that what is minor to one person may not be minor to another. We have no indication—and I am not aware of any in the provisions, the motion or any of the Bills—whether there is any limitation or cap on what can be deemed or designated as minor. In that respect, I believe that this mechanism gives rise to an open season.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made the point that the Joint Committee's scope for future consideration of Bills is wide, and he helpfully adumbrated a couple of examples to make the point. However, will my right hon. Friend accept from the other end of the spectrum that the scope is not that wide? Does he agree that the signing away of a variety of tax privileges that we enjoy, under the auspices of the so-called harmful tax competition working party, is not a matter under the guidance of this Treasury that is subject to a Bill, and would not therefore be—and has not been to date—subject to scrutiny by any committee?
Mr. Forth: That is part of the problem; we are left wondering about the effectiveness of procedures that we always thought were well established—I will not say that they were foolproof, but we certainly thought that they were well understood. They enabled the voter and the taxpayer to be reassured that their interests were properly safeguarded when it came to raising and spending money. My fear is that the proposed mechanism may well breach that reassurance—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is straying into repetition. I have heard certain points made several times—I must warn him on that.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I can now move on to the next part of my argument, in which I again refer to the January 1997 report of the Procedure Committee that gave rise to all these matters. Interestingly, paragraph 21 states:
The perceived advantages of having a Joint Committee—
the very subject of the motion—
are avoiding duplication or the process of scrutiny by oral evidence being undertaken in both Houses.
The interesting point is that the presumption is that it is highly desirable for that small group of Members of both Houses—seven from this place and six from another place—to be brought together in the Joint Committee and then to engage in the process of taking oral evidence all in one go.
I can see the superficial attraction of that, but I want to turn the argument on its head: there is a far greater attraction in the sequential taking of evidence by one House and then the other, so that each could examine the evidence given to the other and build it into their own taking of oral evidence. The apparent and seductive efficiency offered by the Procedure Committee's suggestion contains a danger. It is all very well for that

61
cosy little group of people to get together, to take their oral evidence and to say, "That's that then", but I should feel as reassured—probably more so—if we had proceeded in the more traditional way, whereby each House took evidence separately, perhaps taking into account what the other had done in developing both the argument and the taking of evidence.
The second of what the report fairly characterises as "perceived advantages" refers to
using the level of legal expertise available in the Lords to the mutual benefit of both Houses.
Again, that may or may not be the case. I am not sure whether the legal evidence available in the Lords is not avail able to the Commons—we might want to consider that point. It certainly seems to be a slender argument on which to base the dramatic move suggested.
The report notes—giving the lie to a matter to which I shall return in a moment—that the third perceived advantage is
spreading the workload between the Houses; as the Howe Report observed "peers have fewer other duties".
We are really in some sensitive and interesting territory, are we not? We are being told that one of the main reasons for setting up a Joint Committee is that their lordships have so little to do that they will be able to spend quite a lot of time on the Committee, whereas Members of this House are so busy that they will, presumably, be unable to give much time to the Committee.
Looking around the Chamber, it is obvious that Members of this House are certainly so busy that they have been unable to attend this evening's debate—notwithstanding its important substance. However, the Procedure Committee had the gall to suggest, in January 1997, that the reason for setting up a Joint Committee was that their lordships had fewer other things to do and would thus, by implication, be doing most of the work. That Lords element in the Committee worries me—and, I should like to think, other Members of this House. It worries me that the Lords should be involved in taxation at all.
Those were the reasons given by the Procedure Committee for taking that path. I, for one, am reluctant to accept much or any of them. The report made several recommendations. It stated:
It is important to bear in mind that the committal of tax simplification bills to a Joint Committee would set a precedent.
Well, you can say that again, Madam Deputy Speaker—it would indeed set a precedent; a very worrying one. Such a precedent, if we were mistaken enough to accept this motion, could be prayed in aid for many other developments.
My rooted objection, which is reflected in the passages I cited from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries—
Dawn Primarolo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forth: Yes, of course.
Dawn Primarolo: I am listening carefully to the important points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the supremacy of this House in taxation matters. What puzzles me is that Standing Order No. 60 was agreed when his party was in government, and when
62

he was, I think, a member of the Government. If these matters worry him so much, why did he remain silent when his Government introduced Standing Order No. 60 and voted it through the House?
Mr. Forth: Because I was on the payroll. I suspect that the hon. Lady may not necessarily agree with everything that her Government have done since May 1997—although she will not admit it at present, she will when she is in opposition again. Her colleague, the Financial Secretary, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench beside her, may share that view. Ministers do not make such a powerful argument as they think when they tell someone such as myself, who had the privilege of serving in government for almost nine years, that if I signed up to something during that time, I cannot possibly argue against it now. The answer is that that was then and this is now. I was on the payroll then and judged that the matter was not one on which to resign. I suspect that if the hon. Lady and I were to have a quiet drink together, I could probably winkle out of her that she was pretty unhappy about a few things done by her Government during the past three years, but that she did not think them quite important enough to resign over—[Interruption.]—perhaps she is about to confess.
Dawn Primarolo: No, I was about to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that my inquiry was genuine. His answer to the House is perfectly acceptable. He might have said that he did not have time to consider the matter because he was a busy Minister or for other reasons. I do not for a moment cast aspersions on the validity of the reason—I was interested to hear it.
Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to the Minister.
The Procedure Committee stated that the matter would set a precedent. It then noted that:
It is likely that a Joint Committee would only be generally acceptable if it was plain that the Commons was in a sense the driving force.
Helpful as ever, the Minister told us that the Committee would consist of seven Members from this place and six from another place. I leave others to judge whether a majority of seven members over six is a "driving force", especially as the Committee pointed out a few paragraphs earlier that the House of Lords members would do what Americans call the "heavy lifting" because the House of Commons members would be too busy. I realise that you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should love the House to inquire into what Members of the Commons could possibly be doing that made them too busy to attend that important and influential Committee. We shall have to leave that matter on one side at the moment—although I might return to it when we talk about the quorum.
Suffice it to say that the Procedure Committee was clear that the Commons should be the driving force. For the moment, I shall leave hanging the question of whether seven members as opposed to six could be categorised as a driving force. The report continued:
There is however something to be said for the House of Commons to have a majority on the Committee, if only for formal purposes and as a symbol of its primacy in this area.
That is all it will be; it will be either a driving force or for formal purposes. Within a few lines of the report, there is, apparently, a contradiction.

63
The report states:
We therefore consider that there should be one more Member from the Commons than from the Lords.
In one respect, the motion reflects that point. The report continues:
A Treasury Minister will also have to be included, since it will be the Minister responsible for the bill who will have to defend it in both informal discussion and in the process of consideration of any amendments.
Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Procedure Committee were genuinely concerned that this House rather than the other place should be the driving force of the Joint Committee, it would have been open to the Procedure Committee to propose that the quorum should comprise more Members of this place than of the other place? It could have specified a larger quorum: say—for the sake of argument—six members rather than the four we have weaseled out of the Government. That would have been a ratio of 4:2, and might possibly have offered some modest succour or reassurance to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Forth: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I promise that I shall mention the quorum later. It is the subject of a separate part of my argument and for the moment, in my unimaginative way, I am plodding through the motion in sequence. If my hon. Friend rushes me, I might lose my thread, and he would not want that to happen. The quorum is a later heading in my notes and I cannot miss it.
My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister tried to reassure the House that the Chairman of the Joint Committee will be a Member of the House of Commons but, quite properly—as ever—the hon. Lady said that she was unable to predict who the Chairman would be because it was a matter for the Committee. I was pleased to hear her confirm that the Chairman will be a Member of this House, but it is not in the Standing Orders. In addition, we are unable to discuss my amendment because it has not been selected for debate.
The Minister told us that the Committee will select its Chairman. Let us suppose that when the Committee convenes to do that, the majority of its members are from the other place and they decide to elect a Chairman from their own number. That would be only natural because we have been told that they will do most of the work and have most of the expertise. That is the thrust of the Procedure Committee's rationale for the motion. In that case, I do not understand how we or the Minister can guarantee that the Chairman will be from this House. We cannot determine who will be present, and because the quorum is so pitifully small, it could be decided by five people, three from another place and two from this House. That inevitably challenges her reassurance, which was no doubt given in good faith.
How can the Minister reassure us that the Chairman of the Joint Committee will come from the House of Commons rather than another place? We must bear it in mind that the Procedure Committee recommended that the Chairman should be drawn from the House of Commons. The Minister is reflecting that view, but I cannot see
64
anything in the motion—which will be a Standing Order—to give effect to that, which is why I tabled an amendment.
Mr. Redwood: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, has he thought about the possibility that the Minister herself—or another Minister, were one to serve on the Committee—could become the Chairman? Would not that be unfortunate? Surely a Minister should be separate from the chairmanship of the Committee. Should not the proposal cover that? Does he agree that that has not been clarified?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am sure that the Committee would be honoured if the Minister were prepared to chair it, but the hon Lady would have to make a commitment to do that and, understandably, she might be unable to do so.
If the House—mistakenly, in my view—approves this poorly drafted and poorly thought-out motion, we will discuss the next motion, which deals with the Committee's membership. I am looking forward to that and will have something to say on the matter. I have looked at the proposed members, and the Minister is, indeed, one of them. Perhaps we will be able to return briefly to the issue of the Chairman when we debate that.
Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Standing Order does not oblige a Minister who chairs the Committee to be present throughout its proceedings, he or she would be expected to be present as a matter of courtesy? On the strength of last week's experience, does he also agree that such an idea and arrangement might not commend itself to a Minister? In the context of an earlier Committee—about which I shall not dilate because you would not allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), attended a meeting that a mere Whip had told him would last for five minutes. He seemed in a state of considerable perturbation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. We are wandering wide of the motion.
Mr. Forth: I shall not directly follow my hon. Friend's point, but it gives rise to another thought. Let us suppose that the Committee follows the Minister's direction and elects a member from this place. If he or she is sometimes unable to be present, will there be a designated Deputy Chairman, or will the most senior member preside? If so, how will that be defined? Will it be on the basis of length of service? If so, will that start from the period of election to this House and the taking of the oath in the other place?
Those are important matters. We have been told that the Committee will follow the Commons rules for Select Committees. The Chairman will have a specific and important role. Even if the Chairman is from this House, we do not know how the Committee will conduct its business in his or her absence. It is simply not good enough for the Government to come to the House with a motion that is becoming increasingly inadequate and shot full of loopholes, doubts and dubieties. However, I do not want to digress too much. I am anxious to discuss the quorum, which has attracted the attention of the House and was the subject of my modest amendment.

65
We are talking about a Committee of 13—seven members from the House of Commons and six from another place. The Procedure Committee, which is a Committee of this House, said in its report:
Experience with the Joint Committee on Consolidation suggests that the Lords Members play a dominant part and that there are indeed frequent problems with ensuring sufficient attendance of Commons Members to provide the quorum.
That is in black and white. I hope that I am not giving away too many trade secrets if I say that it is not unknown for Select Committees of the House of Commons to struggle to get a quorum to conduct their meetings. Within the context of what the Procedure Committee said, we should have real anxieties about how the quorum of the Joint Committee will be sustained and how it will do its work.
We know from the motion that the Commons quorum will be two. We are pitching our expectations pretty low. Perhaps that is because the people who framed the motion took account not only of what the Procedure Committee said, but of the recent attendance record of Members of the House of Commons to their own Select Committees. I know not, but it is increasingly clear that this important and influential Committee, as someone else described it, may be scratching around to get a quorum to meet and do its business.
The Minister cleared up an earlier confusion and confirmed that a quorum will require two members from the Commons and two from another place to be present. Therefore, it will be able to deliberate and decide on matters relating to tax even if only four out of 13 members are present. If three members from the other place and two from the Commons—five in all—are present, the members of the other place could decide on tax matters in the United Kingdom.
If the motion on the Committee's membership is accepted, the situation will be even worse. I calculate that three members of the Government payroll—Ministers and their hangers-on, who are usually described as Parliamentary Private Secretaries—are to be proposed as Committee members. It is entirely possible that the three members of the payroll would turn up for the Committee along with the two Members of the House of Lords—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the membership of the Committee. The motion on that follows.
Mr. Forth: Yes, I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to reassure you by saying, as I led into my argument, that I was dealing with the fact that the quorum is two. I am trying to illustrate the problems that could arise from having such a low quorum. Three of the members present could be members of the payroll, and only two not on the payroll, and so the Government could drive the Committee. However, I will not linger on that if it makes you uneasy, Madam Deputy Speaker. One can readily see that by setting the quorum at only two for the Commons element and only two for the Lords element, all sorts of difficulties could arise, either with the Lords determining tax matters or the Government dominating the Committee. That gives me considerable unease.
I turn now to the text of the motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham anticipated this point when he properly pointed out that the Joint Committee's
66
remit, bland as it may sound at first reading, contains potential difficulties. The motion says that the Committee is charged with the responsibility
to consider tax simplification bills.
We do not know what safeguard there is against the Government designating any old Bill a tax simplification Bill, and trying to smuggle through measures in that guise. That matter has not yet been properly examined. It may come up in the debate on the Capital Allowances Bill.
The motion goes on to say that the Committee is charged with the responsibility
in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law.
That is a matter of interpretation. Those in favour of this process will say, "Don't worry folks. This is all good stuff. It is simplification, that's all." However, we are discovering that an unrepresentative number of the members of the Committee, which may be dominated by the Government or by the House of Lords, depending on who is present, could deem that any measure preserves the effect of the existing law, in their judgment.
That is bad enough, but the motion goes on to say that the Committee is charged with that task,
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
That almost encourages a process of making changes in the name of simplification. Obviously, the motion gives considerable scope to the Joint Committee, composed as it is of Members of the Commons and of the unelected House of Lords, to make changes to the tax regime in the name of simplification. Indeed, it almost invites it to do so, and that is potentially very dangerous.
Paragraph (6) of the motion says:
The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee
in our procedures. That increases the importance of the person who is selected to be Chairman and the traditional and proper powers that we give Chairmen in our procedures.
Mr. Bercow: The subjective nature of the remit is becoming ever clearer as my right hon. Friend remorselessly takes us through the issues. At what point does a minor change become a major change? Would it not be helpful if the Paymaster General were to set out indicative circumstances, which would show, at least as far as the Government are concerned, which changes fell into one category and which the other?
Mr. Forth: That would indeed be helpful. However, I suggest that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath waiting for that because we can almost anticipate that the Minister will say that those matters are to be determined by the Committee. That takes us back to where we started. I should have hoped, at the very least, for some reassurance to taxpayers, who are also voters, but who will have no vote concerning the members of the Committee. I should have thought that taxpayers would want such reassurance because what constitutes a minor change is highly subjective and a matter of judgment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman once again that we are straying wide of the mark, and he appears to be repeating himself. Perhaps we could move on.
Mr. Forth: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker.

67
I want gently to bring my remarks towards a conclusion.
Mr. Redwood: On the point about minor changes, given that we start with extremely complicated tax laws owing to the actions of successive Governments, are not changes essential for simplification? Might the Committee not find that important changes were needed to achieve its overriding objective of simplification? My right hon. Friend is being a little too cautious because the Committee will of course need to make changes if it is to simplify tax law.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We may return to that point when we discuss the Capital Allowances Bill later. That will be a proper discussion about whether simplification inevitably involves change and whether change can take place without a substantive increase in the tax burden, tax rates or anything else to do with tax.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. His forbearance is legendary, although it is not quite on a par with your own, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To pursue the point a little further, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is at least possible that the only available minor change in a Bill could have the effect of making tax law more, rather than less, complicated? What would he say to the notion that a major change that achieved simplification might be greatly preferred over a minor change, even though the motion does not allow for that eventuality?
Mr. Forth: It is interesting that my hon. Friend should say that because I have here the 2000 Hardman memorial lecture, which was to form part of my peroration. The lecture was given by the right hon. the Lord Howe of Aberavon, CH, QC, who is well known to and revered by us all, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. It was entitled, "Simplicity and Stability: the Politics of Tax Policy", and delivered on Thursday 9 November 2000. It was a seminal work in the matter to which we are now giving consideration.
Interestingly, and directly relevant to what my hon. Friend said, Lord Howe said that
those who have studied the problem…conclude that, so far from seeking a "big bang" solution, we need instead to identify, define and establish not an event but a process.
The motion endeavours to establish that process, and the mechanism whereby the review will take place.
Lord Howe went on:
We must, in other words, establish a comprehensive mechanism, through which the problems can be addressed and managed tenaciously over a period of years—not unlike the Tax Law Rewrite project itself.
The Minister told us, when she introduced the debate, that we will have a series of Bills over a number of years, of which the Capital Allowances Bill is only the first.
Lord Howe can rightly make a substantial claim to the parenthood of the motion that we are considering, because he said later in his remarks that
we can learn from the Rewrite Project, even though its purpose-built Parliamentary procedure has yet to be tested.
68
That gives another indication of how new all this is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, we are in the early stages of this process and therefore cannot really be sure about what it means.
Lord Howe continued—there is not much more of this, Madam Deputy Speaker—by saying:
The crucial feature is that Rewrite Bills should go—not unlike present Consolidation Bills—for detailed consideration after Second Reading, not to the usual Commons Standing Committee but to the equivalent of what is known as a Special Standing Committee. This…would include members of both Houses (under the chairmanship of a Commons Minister)—
that reflects the view of the Procedure Committee—
and be able to hear evidence about the Rewrite Bill before—or in parallel with—more form d consideration of its contents.
We will want to return to Lord Howe's remarks in the later debate. I do not want to draw excessively on his comments at this stage; I just wanted to give a flavour of them because they are important in the context of the Capital Allowances Bill.
All in all, in the brief comments that I have been able to make in this packed debate, I am very unhappy about the motion. I was unhappy right at the start of the debate when I heard both Front Benchers say how consensual, cosy and comfortable they were with the matter. That set alarm bells ringing in my head. When I listened to interventions on the Minister and to my own speech, I developed more and more doubts about what all this means. Subject to what the Minister may say, there are far too many serious questions and by no means sufficient answers. I am minded not to support the motion unless I receive much more assurance.
Come the day when we have a properly elected, representative upper House, I will be much more comfortable with the process. Given the constitutional and historical allusions that I made earlier and, whatever respect I may have for the other place, its Members and their expertise, my unease about enabling and, indeed, encouraging them to participate on taxation matters, the Minister will have to make an awful lot more good and persuasive arguments before I support the measure.
6.31 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests, but I guess that that is not strictly relevant as we are assured that the intention of the proposal is not to change or affect the law.
There have been some diversions of opinion on the Opposition Benches, and I should like to pull those strands together. We are basically agreed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that the proposal could pose a substantial threat, but I hope that he will reflect on the matter a little. I believe that the Paymaster General is being honest when she says that the intention is not to change the law, that such changes would normally be made through a Finance Bill, and that the Government are trying to simplify the way in which the law is phrased without making serious tax changes. Although my right hon. Friend is understandably suspicious, because sometimes Governments do things about which they have not told us, he may be a little too worried. I suspect that the Minister is trying to keep the law as it is.
To reassure my right hon. Friend, I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) that, with a different

69
Minister, the matter could be more serious. Inadvertently, I fear, even with this Paymaster General, we might find that we got into difficulty with the procedure, as my right hon. Friend so sensibly set out. There are many concerns and all sorts of worries.
Mr. Bercow: I hope that, despite his characteristic generosity of spirit, my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Paymaster General is safe and unthreatening.
Mr. Redwood: I was saying that, on this issue, I believe that the Paymaster General is speaking honestly and honourably, as a Member of this House should strive to do, but that we have on occasions felt rather misled by the Government. I do not think that the Minister has any intention to mislead us. The Government have been trying to come up with a system that might meet the cross-party spirit. We want to simplify our tax laws, but if the Government wanted to change tax rates, introduce more stealth taxes or do all the other things that the Paymaster General's boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is so good at doing and has done on so many occasions, we would still want proper, robust debate and different procedure.
My main concern relates to the phrase in the motion
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable
about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is also concerned. Our tax laws are so wide-ranging, complicated and difficult to understand that the task before the Committee is herculean. The Minister must concede that substantial change in the way in which tax law is written will be required if the Committee is to fulfil its rather grand remit and not to disappoint or simply make matters complex in a way different from the complicated and Byzantine legislation that we inherit.
Dawn Primarolo: Just to clarify matters for the right hon. Gentleman, the Joint Committee will be checking that the tax law rewrite committee, which has already done all the work on simplification of the Capital Allowances Bill, has not changed the underlying policy of the law—in line with his comments and those of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Mr. Redwood: I quite agree; that is the point that I am trying to make. The task is difficult because the law is so complicated. I am sure that the Minister does not intend that the law will be changed as a result of the process, but the experts undertaking the rewrite and the Joint Committee, which is the eyes and ears of this House and the other place, may well find that almost impossible. Achieving the objective of simplification will require so many changes that it will be very difficult to ensure that the law is not changed.
My worry is about inadvertent change. Because we have extremely complicated legislation—Ministers will always say that that is for good reasons, but I am not sure that I am entirely persuaded of that—the job of determining it often falls to tax accountants, lawyers, experts and specialists. Very often, important issues are resolved not in the House of Commons but in courts of law. We know that lawyers, paid very large fees for their expertise, intelligence and high training in such fields, are very good on behalf of their clients at highlighting any slight shift in the weight of words, in punctuation or in the way in which a sentence appears in the overall text.
70
It would be possible for the Joint Committee to nod through a Bill that had been drafted with the best of motives. The word of the law would then be slightly different—presumably, that is the whole point of the simplification exercise. The Government could be embarrassed by the courts construing a law revised under the procedure in a way that had not been expected. Far be it from me to want to protect the Government from embarrassment, but I want certainty and clarity in tax matters. Inadvertently, the House, the Joint Committee and the proposed procedure would have failed because a change in the law would have occurred.
Such inadvertent change would be even worse: as there had been no debate about changing the law, as is normal, and Ministers had not intended to change the incidence of tax, people would be without warning. They might not notice that anything important had changed; they might have said to themselves that they need not read the new version of the law because it implements exactly the same policy as the Budget or Finance Act they had previously studied. However, because the words had changed, there had been a court case and lawyers and a judge had construed the law differently, such people might suddenly discover an unexpected tax liability.
Mr. Jack: In preparing his remarks for the debate, my right hon. Friend will no doubt have looked at the Capital Allowances Bill, which the Committee is to consider, and come to his own conclusions. Will he give me an illustration of the concern that he thinks might cause difficulty for the Committee, as he has described?
Mr. Redwood: The point of my argument is no, I could not do so because we are talking about very complicated and detailed issues for which one needs to be a tax lawyer or specialist concentrating on such matters on behalf of one's client. Those who are paid big sums of money will of course look very carefully at a Bill such as the Capital Allowances Bill for evidence of any change. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right that those drafting the Bill will have tried to avoid that, but he surely at least concedes the theoretical possibility that one day a change of words—he will agree that the words must be changed in order to simplify—could trigger such a court case, much expense and even a change in interpretation.
Mr. Burnett: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had in mind clause 153(1), concerning whether a ship is a qualifying ship or not. It is not if it is used "for sport or recreation". Perhaps a ship could be used partly for one and partly for the other. Might not that be the sort of discussion in the Joint Committee or the House?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point on which I had not alighted. The example he gives could be only one of many cases in which the form of words is changed from the underlying legislation to the new and allegedly more simple legislation. Wherever a change occurs, lawyers and accountants will pore over it, and although I happily accept that, in 99 per cent. of such cases, they will conclude—reluctantly—that, because the underlying intention is clear, they cannot bring a case or advise their client to pay good fees for bringing the change before the courts, there might be cases into which clever lawyers and accountants will probe and delve. We know that at times the courts construe tax legislation in a

71
way that was not envisaged by the Ministers who originally introduced the legislation, with the result that, because not everything has been thought through in advance, the Government has to return to the House to tie up loose ends or amend the law yet again—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman confine his remarks to whether or not the Joint Committee should be established?
Mr. Redwood: I shall indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are quite right.
I pass on to paragraph (2) of the motion, which states that
The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House—
And—
to report from time to time.
That reinforces my argument. In the motion, we see clearly envisaged a difficult task for the Committee. It will have to look at a complicated rewrite of the law and ask itself two crucial questions: is it more simple than it was before and, at the same time, is it exactly the same as it was before? My argument is that it will be difficult to meet both requirements. Paragraph (2) reveals that the Government accept, rightly, that the exercise will be difficult, long-winded and probably expensive.
When the Paymaster General rises to allay some of the fears expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me, I hope that she will explain how long she thinks the process will take in relation to a Bill such as the one that we are shortly to discuss, and how much money might be spent on
specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
It strikes me that that could be a fairly large budget item, because the Paymaster General must have in mind expenditure on extremely expensive tax lawyers and tax accountants. If, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we want to make sure that no slips occur, the Committee and the Government will need to employ lawyers and accountants who are every bit as sharp and as good as those who will be examining the issues from the other side.
Mr. Ruffley: In that context, is my right hon. Friend aware that many City partners who practise tax law at the high levels to which he refers charge about £500 an hour or more?
Mr. Redwood: I am sure that that is true and that, in some cases, they are worth every penny of their fee, given the complexity of the law and the way in which they can legally arrange their clients' affairs to ensure that they pay what is necessary without paying too much toward the funds which the Government wastefully disburse around the country and spend on all sorts of things. That is a real concern, so the Paymaster General should tell the House what sort of budget she has in mind to back up the motion and how long she thinks it might be necessary for the Committee to examine a Bill of the complexity of the one that is shortly to come before us. In that way, we can get a feel for how much the exercise might cost and how long it might take.
Mr. Bercow: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, I always favour specificity over ambiguity. I am, therefore,
72
genuinely troubled by the reference to the scope for "minor changes". Is it his understanding that, in that context, each minor change will ordinarily be considered independently of every other such minor change, or is the consideration to be of the cumulative impact of all of the minor changes, which might be to bring about a major change?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes another good point. I fear that, if the Committee is to discharge its duties fully and to the letter, it will have to examine both every clause and every phrase that is changed separately, and the collective impact of the changes. The two might differ because of changes in the way in which phrases are juxtaposed or placed in relation to each other, as well as changes in the phrases and clauses themselves. That is why the process will be so complicated and time-consuming.
Those who sit on the Committee will deserve a medal for the work they have to do. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says, the work is important, it will not attract the headlines or glamour that is sometimes sought by Members of Parliament. Although the work will be of great importance, it will tend to be hidden from the light of day, so colleagues will need encouragement to engage in it. They will have to make a substantial commitment of time if they are to fulfil the remit which is in some ways fairly exacting and in others rather loosely drafted.
On the question of the quorum, I am relieved to hear that the wishes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have been fulfilled to some degree. He thought that four was better than two and I entirely agree with him. I understand his concern that four in the form of two plus two, from the different Houses of Parliament, is not as strong or as good as it might have been, but it marks a dear improvement on the original draft as he and I understood it: we thought that the quorum was two out of a Committee of 13 members, seven drawn from the Commons and six from the other place.
However, I continue to share my right hon. Friend's fears and I hope that the Paymaster General will deal with them in full. I believe that it would be better to have a quorum that required three Members of the House of Commons, given the combination of hon. Members on the Committee that might result from the next motion on the Order Paper. The House would be reassured by having a larger quorum of Members of the House of Commons. It would reinforce the message, which I am sure the Paymaster General wants to send, that the House of Commons is in charge of taxation matters and members of the Committee drawn from the House of Commons will be important in relation to voting and forming a quorum, even if Members of the other place have expertise on which the Committee wishes to draw.
I am intrigued by the fact that each member of the Committee

shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
That would not give a Committee selected shortly very long, if we correctly understand the Prime Minister's intentions. However, if the condition applied from the beginning of a new Parliament, members of the Committee would be asked to take on a commitment of

73
extremely long duration. Does the Paymaster General have a reason for imposing that condition, other than a desire for continuity? The nature of the work is technical and, if one was interested and amused by such work, it would be satisfying to see through at least one complete Bill.
Mr. Forth: Given that two Parliamentary Private Secretaries have been proposed for membership of the Committee and that they might expect promotion in the lifetime of this Parliament or the next, were the Government to be re-elected, might we not expect a considerable number of what might be called by-elections to the Committee? Continuity is by no means guaranteed under the current proposals.
Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend has foreseen an issue that might arise later. I am concerned about pursuing his point, but I understand it.
I believe that membership of the Committee should be related to tasks, rather than to the duration of a Parliament, which is subject to the vagaries of prime ministerial will and electoral balance. It might be better—perhaps working through the usual channels—to ensure that a member of the Committee is selected to carry out the review of one, two or even three Bills, depending on that person's wishes, availability and inclinations and the time needed to scrutinise and consider pieces of legislation that are long and complex. A task related duration of membership might be better than making it continue for the remainder of a Parliament, which is a variable feast, depending on the point reached in the lifetime of a Parliament and which Parliament is involved. We are considering a procedure that will not only apply to the tail end of the current Parliament, but flourish and move forward into the next. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are keen to get it right and why we are worried about the loose drafting with which we have been presented.
I also have concerns about the chairmanship. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has urged that the Committee should elect the Chairman from among its members I think that that is a democratic and sensible procedure, and I am glad that the Minister came to the same conclusion—perhaps for her own independent reasons, or perhaps she has an inkling of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would have wished to move this evening, had he been given leave to do so. However, that degree of agreement is welcome.
Now that the Minister has adopted the proposal, I hope that she will deal with the question of whether there should be any limitations on the proposal. Should the Committee be able to elect a different Chairman every time it meets, to reflect its different membership? More than one person may wish to be Chairman. Will the chairmanship change, depending on when the Committee meets and who turns up? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was generous in saying that it would be wonderful if the Minister herself was on the Committee and chaired it.
Mr. Forth: I am a big fan.
Mr. Redwood: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is such a fan of the Paymaster General. There are many
74
worse Ministers in the Government, and I have never had to criticise her in the way that I have her boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose sins are obviously much greater.
Mr. Ruffley: That is not saying much.
Mr. Redwood: There we are: praise indeed across the Floor of the House just before an election.
I am worried, not about the personality of the Paymaster General, but about the principle of a Minister chairing the Committee. Given the worries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that minor changes could become major changes, and given my worries that an inadvertent change could trigger a court case which then extended the tax to persons or companies who were not then paying it—or vice versa—it seems invidious for the Paymaster General to chair the Committee, as that would place her in a rather difficult position. It is better if the Paymaster General is in the Committee on behalf of the Treasury and the Government, but there should be a more independent Chairman. I should like the Chairman to come from the Back Benches, rather than the Government Front Bench.
Dawn Primarolo indicated assent.
Mr. Redwood: I see the Paymaster General nodding in agreement, and I am delighted that what I suggested is true. As we seem to agree on this point, is there a way of embedding it in the resolution or the procedure to be followed? It would be better for the House if we had the reassurance that someone dedicated to the task, who had more time than the Minister and came to it with a more independent mind, could be Chairman on a continuing basis.
I would prefer a Chairman from this House, rather than the other place, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested. It would be good if some kind of arrangement on that could be reached. I hasten to add that I do not seek to be on the Committee: I do not seek that honour. However, one of my Back Bench colleagues who is interested and expert in that area could discharge that honour extremely well.
In summary, my worry is that the proposal has been hastily cobbled together, and has not tackled the underlying difficulty of all tax simplification measures: how does one simplify without inadvertently—or, sometimes, deliberately—making changes that impact on who pays the tax and how much they pay. Not for one moment do I think that any changes from the review Committee and the Joint Committee would mean a change in tax rates. Of course not: such matters would come before the House in a Finance Bill. However, it is possible that changes could be made affecting who had to pay a tax, and which category they fell into. Such things can turn on wording, and Members are trying to change the wording through the procedure.
I therefore urge the Minister to give us more information on how much advice will be given and what quality it will be. Will it equal the weight of advice of those who are trying to prove that the proposal has changed things in a way that favours them? I should like a little more information on the quorum and whether, to reassure people, it can be rather larger. I should also like

75
to hear something on the independence of the Chairman of the Committee. Having received those assurances, I believe that the proposal may be rather better.
6.54 pm
Dawn Primarolo: All of our debate this afternoon has revolved around four points: the question of the quorum; the remit of the Committee; the importance of the House of Commons in retaining absolute control over issues of tax; and the question of the definition of a minor issue, and how that is dealt with.
May I deal first with the quorum? Select Committee quorums are normally between one third and one quarter, and require three members out of a total of 11. Departmental committees normally require four out of 13, but sometimes the Treasury departmental committee requires three out of 12. The procedure taken in the proposal is the normal procedure for quorums.
The issues raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) go to the heart of questions about the power of the House. Members of Parliament will have the majority in the Joint Committee at every opportunity and can assert their supremacy. There will be seven such Members on that Committee.
Mr. Forth rose—
Dawn Primarolo: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time, and I covered many issues in my opening remarks. However, it is right that clear answers should be given to the House.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked about the remit of the Committee and its powers. As he knows, paragraph 25 of the report on legislative procedure for tax simplification Bills states:
The committee should have the standard powers of select committees—
That answers many questions asked by Conservative Members in the House—
including the power to appoint specialist advisers. That power is in our view a useful adjunct should the occasion arise to require expert advice independent of both the Government and those from outside bodies who might be expected to be called as witnesses.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked a legitimate question about the role of this House—and this House alone—in determining tax issues. The main features of the project on the tax law rewrite can be summarised as follows: it aims to restructure existing legislation into a more logical order than its present purposes allow. Its remit is not to revise the underlying tax policy. Anything that happens in the Joint Committee comes back to the House of Commons, and it will be for the House to determine what happens. Given the dedication that Members have shown this afternoon to what is quite a small matter, I have every confidence that, when we move on to more substantive matters on the power of the House of Commons, they will assert the same precision and concentration in targeting the main issues.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made many points about excluding the House of Lords from decisions, starting with an example from 1671. Tax will remain for the House of Commons. As I said, after
76
the Joint Committee has considered a Bill, it will come back to the House of Commons for final agreement. It is not open to the other place to change rates, tax or any of those issues.
There was also a question about how tax should be decided by the House of Commons and how the House set in train those procedures. The Joint Committee does not diminish the role of the House of Commons because, ultimately, it will be for the whole House to decide if a Bill proceeds or not. However, the House has long had procedures for Bills that restate the law with, or without, minor amendments. Tax simplification Bills are a new type of those Bills. Tax legislation has long benefited from the courts' decisions and judicial interpretation. We are using the expertise of other people in much the same way. I should say that the House agreed overwhelmingly to that principle after the debate on 19 December 2000 on a motion providing for the Joint Committee to be appointed in the way suggested.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that this is a new proposal. However, the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills—which are of a very similar type to tax simplification Bills—was formed in 1894. Legislation of 1949 allowed minor changes to consolidation Bills and, of course, what is minor is a matter for the House of Commons to determine. That brings me to the final point of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said that simplification inevitably entails change. The project is to simplify the language and structure of the legislation, not the underlying tax system.
Minor changes include such things as legislating for extra statutory concessions or repealing obsolete legislation, and of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions are ultimately a matter for the judgment of the House. What is or is not a minor change needs to be scrutinised very carefully, and he will see 66 changes in annexe 1 of the explanatory notes. Where the Bill varies from the legislation in respect of such a minor change is specifically identified—clause by clause, line by line—to assist the Joint Committee to undertake its work.
The House's powers on tax are defended and preserved; the House will make the final decision; the quorum proposal follows normal practice; Select Committees have a right to have advisers and, therefore, to call expert witnesses, should they decide to do so; and the Chairman of the Committee will be a Back Bencher.
I expect all members of the Committee from this House to ensure that they defend the House's rights on tax matters, attend the Committee and vote for such a Chairman.
Question put:—
The House divided:Ayes 279, Noes 4.

Division No. 51]

[7.1 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Ashton, Joe

Ainger, Nick

Atherton, Ms Candy

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Atkins, Charlotte

Allan, Richard

Bailey, Adrian

Allen, Graham

Ballard, Jackie

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Banks, Tony

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Barnes, Harry

77

Barron, Kevin

Flynn, Paul

Bayley, Hugh

Foster, Don (Bath)

Beard, Nigel

Foulkes, George

Begg, Miss Anne

Gapes, Mike

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Gardiner, Barry

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Berry, Roger

Gerrard, Neil

Best, Harold

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Blackman, Liz

Godsiff, Roger

Blears, Ms Hazel

Goggins, Paul

Blizzard, Bob

Golding, Mrs Llin

Borrow, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Hain, Peter

Bradshaw, Ben

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Brake, Tom

Harvey, Nick

Breed, Colin

Healey, John

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Browne, Desmond

Hendrick, Mark

Buck, Ms Karen

Hepbum, Stephen

Burden, Richard

Heppell, John

Burgon, Colin

Hill, Keith

Burnett, John

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Hope, Phil

(NE Fife)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cann, Jamie

Humble, Mrs Joan

Casale, Roger

Hurst, Alan

Cawsey, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Chaytor, David

Jamieson, David

Clapham, Michael

Jenkins, Brian

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Jones. Helen (Warrington N)

Jones. Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Joyce, Eric

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Clelland, David

Keen, Ann (Feltham & Heston)

Clwyd, Ann

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Coaker, Vernon

Kemp. Fraser

Coffey, Ms Ann

Khabra, Piara S

Cohen, Harry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Coleman, lain

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Connarty, Michael

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Cooper, Yvette

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Corbett, Robin

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Corbyn, Jeremy

Laxton, Bob

Corston, Jean

Lepper, David

Cotter, Brian

Leslie, Christopher

Cousins, Jim

Levitt, Tom

Crausby, David

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Cummings, John

Lock, David

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Love, Andrew

Dalyell, Tam

McAvoy Thomas

Darvill, Keith

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

(Makerfieid)

Dawson, Hilton

McDonagh, Siobhain

Dismore, Andrew

Macdonald, Calum

Dobbin, Jim

McDonnell, John

Donohoe, Brian H

McFall, John

Doran, Frank

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Dowd, Jim

Mackinlay, Andrew

Drew, David

McNamara, Kevin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McNulty, Tony

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Efford, Clive

McWilliam, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Mallaber, Judy

Etherington, Bill

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fisher, Mark

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

78

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Miller, Andrew

Snape, Peter

Mitchell, Austin

Soley, Clive

Moffatt, Laura

Southworth, Ms Helen

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Squire, Ms Rachel

Moran, Ms Margaret

Steinberg, Gerry

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

Stevenson, George Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mountford, Kali

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mudie, George

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Stoate, Dr Howard

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stringer, Graham

Oaten, Mark

Stuart, Ms Gisela

O'Neill, Martin

Stunell, Andrew

Öpik, Lembit

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Organ, Mrs Diana

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

(Dewsbury)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pike, Peter L

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pollard, Kerry

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pond, Chris

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pope, Greg

Timms, Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Tipping, Paddy

Powell, Sir Raymond

Todd, Mark

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Primarolo, Dawn

Touhig, Don

Purchase, Ken

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rammell, Bill

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rapson, Syd

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Raynsford, Nick

Tyler, Paul

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tynan, Bill

Rendel, David

Vaz, Keith

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Walley, Ms Joan Ward, Ms Claire

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wareing, Robert N

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Watts, David

Rooney, Terry

White, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Roy, Frank

Wicks, Malcolm

Ruddock, Joan

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Ryan, Ms Joan

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Salter, Martin

Willis, Phil

Sanders, Adrian

Winnick, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

Woolas, Phil

Savidge, Malcolm

Worthington, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Wray, James

Shaw, Jonathan

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Sheerman, Barry

Wyatt, Derek

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Singh, Marsha

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Mike Hall.

NOES

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Chope, Christopher

Mr. Eric Forth and

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Mr. David Ruffley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following Standing Order be made—

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of seven Members, to join with the committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills, to consider tax

79
simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.

(2) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(3) The quorum of the Committee shall be two.

(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(5) The procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of select committees of this House when such procedure differs from that of select committees of the House of Lords.

(6) The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee under paragraph (3)(a) of Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees).

Tax Simplification
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Chris Pond and Dawn Primarolo be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
7.15 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This is the motion for which we have really been waiting—the previous motion was a taster. Having set up a rather ill-begotten Committee, against my better judgment, with all its loopholes and rules that we do not quite understand, we come to the exciting stage of considering whether the Members proposed for it are appropriate. It is always invidious—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Members should leave the Chamber quickly and quietly while we continue with the next debate.
Mr. Forth: It is always invidious for the House to have to judge its colleagues. However, we are forced to do so in this instance because the Government have brought forward a list of proposed names for the Committee. As we teased out in the previous debate, the Committee may well be able to have an effect on rates and the burden of taxation, albeit in alliance with Members of another place, without knowing who they will be. The Minister helpfully told us earlier that she believed that the other place may be deciding on its membership of the Committee this evening, but at this stage we are unable to know. We are being asked to give consideration to our membership of the Committee without necessarily knowing who the members from the other place will be.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that means that we shall not know what the political balance of the Committee will be because we do not know who the other place will nominate? Secondly, we will not know what the expertise will be. We do not know what areas of competence will come from the other place. That being so, we will not know whom we should seek to appoint.
Mr. Forth: I intended to move on to competence.
The Minister told us that she believed that in another place there would be proposed two Labour members of the Committee, two Conservative members, one Cross-Bencher and one Liberal Democrat. We know what the Minister thinks the other place will do, but whether it will jump to her instructions remains to be seen. We have a hint from the hon. Lady of what the possible political composition of the delegation from the other place will be, but we cannot know what their competence will be. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is right about that. In that sense, we are operating in a vacuum. We must deliberate and decide on the qualifications and relevance of the Members who have been proposed to us on the basis of our own knowledge of them.
Mr. John Bercow: One of the problems is that there appears to be something of a hybrid, which

81
is a cross between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his understanding that both the hon. Members for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) and for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) are currently Parliamentary Private Secretaries? Will he confirm also that the convention in relation to a Select Committee is that its members—this is extremely important—do not confer, still less collude, in the course of their proceedings with members of the Executive? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the importance of these two PPSs having no discussions in advance of meetings of the Joint Committee with a member of the Executive?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend would intervene on himself and talk about pigs flying. I intended to move on to the point that he has made. However, I want to go through the list of names in a slightly mote orderly way, so that we can establish whether the House is happy with the proposed list of names.
The first is the very senior and distinguished hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who was first elected in 1968. It is a pity that he is not present to hear such praises heaped upon his head. I understood from the public prints that the hon. Gentleman had announced that he was retiring from the House at the end of this Parliament. If that were the case—he is not here to confirm it or otherwise—it would seem rather odd that we are being asked to approve the appointment of a colleague to an important and influential Committee, as we have repeatedly been told that it will be, when that person may serve but a few weeks, if an election is coming upon us as rapidly as is speculated.
The hon. Gentleman, very senior as he is, and respected and loved by us all, spent most of his life before entering the House as a journalist. He spent a brief time as a Government Whip. Whether that qualifies him as being of stoutly independent mind or whether it means that we should be slightly suspicious of where he might be coming from, with regard to his membership of the Committee, I leave it for others to judge.
In "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", the hon. Gentleman gives as his interests the media, trade unions and the national lottery. Whether that qualifies him for membership of such an important and influential Committee, I leave the House to make its own judgment. Media, trade unions and the lottery do not strike me at first glance as being the ideal interests and qualifications for a member of the Committee.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been focusing on the first-named in the motion and dealing with the matter of continuity. One thing that is certain about tax law is that one needs to study it and understand it over a period of time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who is appointed to the Committee by the motion should have a good prospect of serving in the House after the next election and bringing to the Committee such continuity?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is partly the point that I had intended to make. When I get down the list to one of the other members, I shall raise a slightly different query. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw is, regrettably, not present. I am beginning to wonder what level of commitment we can
82
expect from the members of the Committee, who apparently cannot be bothered to turn up for the very debate in which the House is expected to decide to entrust them with the job of serving on the Committee.
A few moments ago we discussed the quorum, and some of us expressed an anxiety that members of the Committee may not be able to fulfil even the modest quorum requirement. If they cannot be bothered to turn up to be praised and lauded and perhaps, depending on the view of the House, to be appointed to the Committee, I am rather pessimistic about whether they will turn up to the Committee itself.
Mr. John Redwood: I am reluctant to interrupt my right hon. Friend's train of thought, but before he moves on from the first hon. Member named in the motion, may I point out that "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" to which he referred states that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is interested in travel and do-it-yourself? I wondered whether either of those has any bearing on the Bill. Have I missed something? I assumed that the Committee would not be one of those travelling Committees that are so popular with some hon. Members, and I thought that the idea was that one did not DIY when it came to tax reform, but perhaps I got it wrong.
Mr. Forth: Perhaps we had better not tell the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that the Committee will not travel. If that is one of his interests, he may attend the Committee even less than we suspect.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that most of those named in the motion are not present, with the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Minister and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), the Parliamentary Private Secretary. Is it possible that other members of the Committee whose names appear on the Order Paper have not been informed of the honour that is about to be imposed upon them?
Mr. Forth: We will want to hear about that from the Minister who, uncharacteristically, if I may say so, did not catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye when she introduced the debate. I do not know whether the Minister was ashamed of the list of names, or whether she thought that the House would nod it through. She should understand that under the exciting and radical modernisation proposals, nothing gets nodded through the House. The House insists, properly, on scrutinising everything that comes before it, so the Minister should not be too surprised that we want to give full attention to the matter. That is what I hope to encourage the House to do.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has provoked me to a further thought. The reason that the hon. Lady moved the motion formally and did not wish to speak to it may be that she recalls that during the 1992 election campaign in Bristol, South—where, I confess, she was not only triumphant, but a very courteous opponent—she was decidedly and perhaps even gratuitously rude about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe

83
(Mr. Clarke) who, at the time, if I remember rightly, was Secretary of State either for Health or for Education. May that be why—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the motion that we are discussing.
Mr. Forth: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—he is next on my list—so my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is simply anticipating me. At his invitation, I shall come to our right hon. and learned and distinguished and senior Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who is nominated as a member of the Committee. It goes without saying that our right hon. and learned Friend may be more qualified than almost anyone else to take part in the deliberations of such a Committee.
My right hon. and learned Friend's qualifications must be above and beyond question, but I wonder whether he has been asked how much time he will be able to give to the Committee and its deliberations. As we know, he is an extremely busy man, and a senior man much sought out in international forums and other important meetings. I raise only the slightest scintilla of a question about whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give to the Committee and its deliberations the amount of time and commitment that we would expect, particularly in the light of the question mark that we raised over the quorum in the earlier debate.
Mr. Hogg: Surely the House should not approve the names in the motion unless we have the opportunity of hearing from the Members named, to the effect, first, that they knew they were to be appointed, and secondly, that they are willing to commit the time that, as my right hon. Friend suggested, will be necessary.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am beginning to think that it might be a good idea to adjourn the debate to give those right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to come to the House, seek to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye, and tell the House briefly whether they are prepared to make that degree of commitment. That would be an extremely good idea. We have touched on only two Members, one of whom may be retiring at the end of this Parliament, and the other who, for reasons that we all understand, is a very busy man. Questions arise after only two potential members of the Committee have been discussed briefly. You may wish to consider, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it would be proper for the debate to be adjourned.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to the commitment that will be required of members of the Committee. Has he considered that, at this moment, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) may be diverted? It is proposed that the Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill will take place next Monday. As our right hon. and learned Friend is deputy chairman of British American Tobacco, I wonder whether that Bill will distract him from his membership of the Committee—rightly, as it is an important Bill which he, like us, will undoubtedly
84
want to resist. I wonder also whether he may have a possible conflict of interest if the tax simplification measures extend to tobacco.
Mr. Forth: That is an important point, which our right hon. and learned Friend will have to ponder. He may have to recuse himself from the Committee—that is an American word of which I am extremely fond, which we heard quite a lot during the recent presidential election. If, in the event of a conflict of interest, our right hon. and learned Friend had to recuse himself from the Committee, that would threaten the quorum. Time and again, as we go through the motion and think about the matter, we may see the sense in the quorum being set at such a low figure. I suspect that many of the Committee members will hardly ever be there.
Mr. Hogg: Those of us who have a high respect for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), would not wish to impose on them the obligations of belonging to the Committee unless we had been assured that they wanted to be members of that Committee. Is not it strange that we do not know whether they do or whether they do not?
Mr. Forth: We may find that out, because I get the feeling, as we develop this little debate, that the Minister will enlighten us. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) may help us by giving his view of the degree of commitment that we are giving to the Joint Committee. I know that his commitment will be total—we can take that for granted, because he is here with us and we know the assiduity with which he approaches his responsibilities.
Mr. Hogg: Silence is not acquiescence.
Mr. Forth: Well, I think we may want to hear a little more from our hon Friend, and certainly from the Minister.
Mr. Bercow: Before my right hon. Friend proceeds to the next prospective member of the Committee, will he agree with me that, subject to a guarantee of conscientious attendance, there could be two great merits in having my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on the Committee? The first would be the considerable expertise that he would bring to its deliberations as a result of his service as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second would be that it would minimise the amount of time available to him to indulge in Euro-babble.
Mr. Forth: I shall not follow that tease, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can be sure of that. I shall leave it hanging in the air where it probably deserves to be.
Mr. Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but I am anxious to get on to the next member of the Committee, because that will be real fun.
Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend think it would be easier for us to judge the commitment required

85
and the aptitude of the candidates if the Minister had helped us in the previous debate by explaining how often she thought the Committee would need to meet to consider a Bill such as may be introduced at a later stage? If we knew the timing and how much detail she, as a perspective and leading member of the Committee, will want it to indulge in, it would be easier for us to judge how busy someone could be and still do a good job on the Committee. I hope that all the proposed members can do a good job, but I find it difficult to judge without knowing how much time is required.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has raised a matter that has not come up in this or the prior debate. We are wandering about in a bit of a fog, because until we know the frequency of meetings envisaged for the Joint Committee and the length of time it is likely to sit, it will be difficult for us to judge whether the commitment that we expect of our colleagues will be forthcoming. That is another important issue that the Minister may be able to help us with, and that will allow us to judge the suitability of these candidates as we develop the argument and when we vote on the motion, which I suspect we will have to do.
We now come to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The good news about him is that he is styled as a management consultant. That leads me to believe that he has some expertise and experience that have a bearing on the matter in hand. That is my hope, but it is the only good news about him. The bad news is that he is a Liberal Democrat, so he may or may not be able to bring much of value to the Committee. The even worse news, which follows the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is that the hon. Gentleman has a parliamentary majority of 56. For the benefit of those who do not follow these matters closely, that means that his chances of holding his seat at the next general election, which we are led to believe will be soon—
Mr. John Burnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Forth: Yes, I shall give way in a moment.
The parliamentary majority of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton puts a large question mark over the likelihood of his being in the House to make a contribution to the Committee after the next election.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Burnett rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the motion refers to membership of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
Mr. Forth: That is correct, Madam Deputy Speaker, but knowing this place as I do, it is likely that the usual channels will want to roll these people forward after the
86
next election, except for the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. If I am correct, he is not standing again, so why are we nominating him in this Parliament?
Mr. Hogg: Following the Chair's ruling, I contend that during this Parliament it is likely that a Member with a majority of about 56 will be away from his parliamentary duties rather a lot.
Mr. Forth: I do not want to impugn the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some affection and not a little regard. I will give way to his hon. Friend.
Mr. Burnett: I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's comments. He has a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and so do I. Does he agree with me that my hon. Friend is eminently well qualified to be a member of the Committee? Furthermore, he knows that he is to be appointed, and he wishes to serve.
Mr. Forth: I am glad to hear that. That is the first time we have had such an assurance about a prospective member of the Committee. We shall watch the hon. Gentleman's attendance in the Committee closely, if and when it meets—I am beginning to wonder whether it will.
Mr. Redwood: The Liberal Democrats have not pointed out that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is regularly used by them as a spokesman on radio and television shows. I wonder what would happen if an interesting offer from the media clashed with a Committee sitting, as it undoubtedly will. I have a terrible fear that the hon. Gentleman may be tempted to offer himself to the media rather than attend the Committee.
Mr. Forth: That remains to be seen. Suffice it to say that, although the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) believes that someone styled a management consultant is an expert, that is a matter of some debate. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is another question mark over this proposed name.
We now come into difficult territory. It is a tradition of the House that such matters and Select Committees—if, indeed, the proposed Committee is to be a Select Committee—are free of Government influence as far as it is possible for them to be so. I exonerate the Minister from that because the Procedure Committee, no less, made it clear that it was important for the Minister to be part of the Committee.
I am delighted to say that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) has an MSc in economics, which would eminently qualify her for the Committee. That is the good news. The not so good news is that, according to "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is studying assiduously, the hon. Lady is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That gets us into some difficulty, because the question must arise whether it is proper for someone to be a member of the Committee who is also a member of what is known in the trade as the payroll—which is a bit misleading in this case, because although the hon. Lady is a PPS, she does not get paid any more. However, as a PPS she is bound to the

87
Government by conventions of loyalty and obligation. That must surely raise a question mark over the hon. Lady's ability to act as an impartial and, in her case, expert member of the Committee.
I regret to say that the same argument applies to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). He glories in having a BA in economics—regrettably from Sussex, which probably puts it in a slightly different light. That is good news, but he is also PPS to the Paymaster General.
Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend forgive me if I am slightly less courteous than he has been? Should not the House be cautious about the proposition that the Committee should contain three members of the payroll? Does not that suggest that the Government want to control the Committee that they are putting forward as independent and impartial? In fact, they are trying to make it a creature of the Government.
Mr. Forth: That is the worry. In the previous debate, some of us expressed anxiety that the Committee could be used as a vehicle for stealth taxation or for the inadvertent, incompetent or even deliberate raising of taxes—be it tax rates or the tax burden. Suspicion is raised by the names being nominated to the Committee. The fact that the hon. Member for Gravesham is PPS to the Paymaster General raises considerable doubt about his ability to take an independent view on these matters.
I seem to recall that, in a previous life, the hon. Gentleman played an honourable and expert part in poverty issues. Whether being an expert on poverty makes him an ideal candidate for membership of a Committee considering taxation is an interesting question, but I will not go into it too far. I will say, however, that the hon. Gentleman could favour either increasing taxes to impoverish even more people, or increasing taxes to transfer their money to others who are in poverty. Which he would do I know not; we may learn that only when he starts to deliberate in the Committee.
Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider another question? Is the hon. Member for Gravesham on the list because of his expertise, or because he is the Paymaster General's PPS? If the latter is the case, should he cease to be the Paymaster General's PPS, will the House be invited to replace him with someone else? That, surely, is something that we are entitled to know now.
Mr. Forth: We may have to consider that further. The hon. Members for Gravesham and for Bolton, West may have to confront an important choice: they may have to decide whether they value their roles as PPSs more than their roles as members of the Committee, if the House approves their membership. The need to allow them to make that choice might constitute a good reason for postponing a decision.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: According to convention, a PPS appointed to a Standing Committee does not speak. He is present to assist the Minister, especially in his relations with officials. In Select Committees, it is axiomatic that all members have equal weight, and equal authority to speak. However, given the Paymaster General's membership of this Committee, will it not be rather
88
difficult for her PPS—distinguished though he is, and although he has a voice of his own—to speak without merely repeating her words?
Mr. Forth: That is true. Furthermore, Parliamentary Private Secretaries—busy people that they are, carrying bags all over the place—may not even have time to attend Committee meetings.
It appears that the Committee is to contain a member who I believe will soon retire, a very busy former Chancellor of the Exchequer, someone with a majority of only 56 who, if he has any sense, may spend most of his time in his constituency—he is up against a formidable opponent, our former hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who will probably win the seat—and two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who may either—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is again repeating arguments that the House has already heard.
Mr. Forth: Indeed. That allows me to go on to consider my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South. I will not embarrass my hon. Friend by lavishing praise on him. Suffice it to say not only that he has wide experience and has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, but that he is here with us now, attending to his duties, showing an interest in the matter, and being modest enough not to have spoken on his own behalf so far—although he may be tempted to give us some of the reassurances that we have sought. I do not hesitate to endorse his membership, because he has none of the shortcomings that, regrettably, we have identified in all the other potential members.
That brings me back, briefly, to the Minister. The Procedure Committee recommended her membership; moreover, she has—characteristically—sat through this and the last debate, has been utterly courteous throughout and has done her best to inform us. She did not feel inclined to answer a simple query of mine during her summing up of the earlier debate, but I have already forgiven her for that. Nevertheless, I hope that at the end of this little debate she will give us the reassurances that we expect, not least about the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and of her colleagues.
During our brief canter around the course I have been uncharacteristically brief, because I know some of my hon. Friends want to speak before we move to other items on the Order Paper which, I am delighted to see, are open-ended. I hope, however, that so far our little debate has illustrated the real difficulties we may face in setting up the Joint Committee and in appointing its members. I am thinking of their degree of commitment, their freedom to be impartial, their freedom to speak and their ability to fulfil the needs of the quorum, low as we may have set them.
I have some qualms about whether the House, as opposed to the other place, will be adequately represented. We await the names of those who will represent the other place—as the Minister said earlier, the other place may be deciding them even now. I hope I have persuaded my hon. Friends to approach the matter with some trepidation, and not to accept on the nod—with no debate or examination—the cosy arrangement made by the usual channels or those on our Front Benches, and to view these issues as they should be viewed, in a critical way.

89
Although this involves our colleagues, love them though we do and respect them as we invariably must—at least according to convention—we must consider whether the proposed membership is the most appropriate for a Committee that we have repeatedly been told is both influential and important.
7.46 pm
Mr. John Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right to argue for a short and penetrating debate on the selection of members to serve on this important Committee.
My worry relates primarily to the nature of the work involved, and whether it is properly married to the individuals and personalities concerned. I freely admit that I would not be the right person to serve on such a Committee, because I am interested in lowering taxes. I am interested in tax policy, so I would want to change taxes because I think that they are too high and that there are too many of them, and I do not like stealth taxes. I would find it difficult to concentrate on the minute detail, to try to ensure that the proposals being made had not changed tax policy. I would be saying to myself, "But I want to change tax policy." That is one reason why I stood for Parliament: those who wish to take such action should obviously put their case to a wider group of people and try to gain endorsement.
I suspect that at least two of the Labour Members on the list are like me, in that they came here because they had views and wanted to campaign and advance their arguments. I fear that they would find their work in the Committee rather tedious and difficult, given the nature of their minds. We are fortunate that one of them is with us tonight, which implies that he may even be slightly interested in the appointment that is about to be thrust upon him. I refer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond).
When I read about the hon. Gentleman's record—he held interesting jobs before coming here—I see a man who, like me, cares a great deal about poverty, although he has reached slightly different conclusions from mine as to how it should be dealt with. Now he is putting up with carrying a Minister's bag. Tonight—he is giggling a bit, because he knows how implausible it is—he even seemed to be suggesting that he likes to spend hour upon hour in Committee, trying to guarantee that the same tactics are imposed on the poor at the end of his deliberations as were imposed at the beginning. Why does he not say, like me, that he would like to take taxes away from the poor, because that is one way of taking people out of poverty, and also take taxes away from other people?
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I agree with what he says. Would it not be helpful, however, if the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) took this opportunity to tell the House how he envisages his function on the Committee, the extent to which he will feel able to speak freely, and whether he thinks he can remain a member when he ceases to be a PPS? Are we not entitled to know, as the hon. Gentleman is apparently a candidate, how he sees his role? Indeed, he might care to tell us what he thinks the Committee will do.
Mr. Redwood: I fear that my right hon. and learned Friend's implication is correct. I have the impression that
90
the hon. Gentleman is rather reluctant to take on the task. As he has not expressed a view that is distinctive from others that we have heard in the two debates on what the Committee should do, and has not said how he would like to do his work, I begin to fear that he will not enter into it wholeheartedly. I fear that he will not speak with an independent voice, but will be looking out of the window and dreaming of a time when he might have an interesting job enabling him to do the things about which he has written and spoken in the past with such passion and concern.
I have exactly the same fear about the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). Like the hon. Member for Gravesham, she has written and thought a lot about policy. She is clearly interested in getting into the big debates about policy, how the economy works, what the Chancellor should do and so forth. She finds herself cursed or burdened with the task—it looks as though it has been thrust upon her; she is not here to say how much she welcomes it, or wants to take it on—of sitting on a detailed, technical and probably long-winded Committee that must do crucial work to ensure that all the things that she wants to change have not changed as a result of the deliberations.
Mr. David Ruffley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Redwood: I will, but I must make some progress.
Mr. Ruffley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly unlikely that two PPSs would even consider disagreeing with the Paymaster General on any issue raised in the Committee?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he rightly hurries me on to my next important argument.
My second worry about the choice of the three members representing the Government is just that—we have three members representing the Government on the Committee. My recollection of when I was a Minister with a PPS is that PPSs were required to follow the line precisely. On one occasion, my PPS erred a little in what he said one morning on the radio. I was not too worried—I thought that it was just one of those things—but the Chief Whip was extremely worried. The PPS, who is now no longer in the House, was severely reprimanded for saying something that I could not have said or did not want to say, but that he had wanted to say for himself, so I have a feeling that the two PPSs, in a Government who pride themselves on being highly controlled, will have to take the Government line.
That raises an interesting point in relation to Select Committee procedure. Will the PPSs receive the official briefing beforehand? Is that within the rules of the procedure, or would they find that an embarrassment? Normally, Select Committees are distant from the Executive.
Clearly, the Minister will have to know the Government's official line because she is there to represent that on the Committee. I suspect that, rightly, the PPSs will want to be fully apprised of the Government's line, so three people, if they all turn up to the Committee at any given time, will be charged to say exactly the same thing. Indeed, the two PPSs will be under

91
pressure to ensure that they do not say anything different to prove that they are loyal and attentive members of the Administration.
Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider this point? We do not know the composition that may emerge from the other place, but is it not possible that one or more of the Labour appointees will themselves hold ministerial office? Therefore, we will have a Committee almost entirely dominated by the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. We could have four or even five members of the Committee all coming along, if they turn up on the same occasion, to say exactly the same thing. That does not seem a sensible use of their time. It is certainly not a sensible use of the Committee's time.
I have every belief that the Minister could read out the official Government position perfectly adequately without needing two PPSs and perhaps one or two spokesmen or Ministers from the Lords saying exactly the same thing, but, more importantly, does that not make it an impoverished Committee? The purpose of this type of open procedure is to apply a wide range of different minds to what are technical, not political questions—they are not huge, but they are important—as to whether the law as amended is exactly the same in its impact as the law that the measure seeks to replace. The next question is: if so, has it simplified anything? I still find it difficult to believe that one can do both those things satisfactorily, but I hope that I can be proved wrong. However, I believe that the more minds there are to puzzle over those conundrums the better, and the House would be foolish to allow three, or perhaps four or five members of the Committee all to say exactly the same thing as the Minister.
That brings me to the other proposed names. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I am happy that a Minister should be on the Committee. Indeed, it would be bizarre if the Government did not have one of their chosen ministerial spokespeople putting forward their view on important technical taxation measures. I am sure that she will take the official brief and do the job as we would expect her to—in her distinctive and charming way.
Unlike my right hon. Friend, I have no worries about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am sure that he must be aware that his name has been put forward. I guess that he is not here because he is happy with that. I am sure that he will realise that time will be needed to sit on the Committee, but his task would be easier—our task would certainly be a lot easier—if the Minister told us how much time is involved. I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is normal when setting out a job specification, even in this august place, for people to be told a little more about what is entailed before they are signed up, or put into the position of perhaps having too many commitments.
In agreeing with my right hon. Friend, I have serious doubts about the ability of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to turn up often enough. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), another Liberal Democrat, is pricking up his ears. I was
92
not about to disparage the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but he is a busy man. I would have thought that anyone with a majority of 56 wanted to spend a lot of time in the next few weeks in his constituency, particularly when he has an energetic candidate against him. I know that he has various media commitments, which he obviously thinks are important. I worry that those could conflict with the time required for the important but technical work on the Committee. Therefore, I urge him perhaps to think again, or I urge the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon to have a word with him and say that it has become a matter of debate. He might like to come to the Chamber to clarify the matter.
Mr. Hogg: There is a bright aspect about the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) not being able to attend the Committee. In reality, the Liberal Democrats are part of the Labour party. If he is not able to turn up, that will have the beneficial effect of reducing Labour control by one.
Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend takes me in an interesting direction. There are considerable worries that the Liberal Democrats are often not a party of opposition, although they choose to occupy one of the Opposition Benches. They seem to agree with the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be going rather wide of the motion.
Mr. Redwood: I will endeavour to keep my remarks precisely on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton could do what the Liberal Democrats often do, effectively, and take the payroll line. We could then be in a position where we had not just the three whom we know about from the House of Commons, but the two who could be appointed from the other place, if that is the Government's wish, and the Liberal Democrat who, if he did manage to get to the Committee, might say to the Government representative, "What is the line on this?", as Liberal Democrats often do and then go along with it.
Mr. Hogg: And the Liberal Democrat from the other place.
Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend points out that a Liberal Democrat from the other place could be on the Committee. We are told by the Minister that there is likely to be a Liberal Democrat representative. I dare say that the Minister and the usual channels have enough control to know what they are talking about on these matters. A Liberal Democrat from the other place could add to the payroll opinion, so hon. Members can understand my concern about the possibility of a large number of members on the Committee having no independent view, in an area where independence of mind—the critical skills, the aptitude of members—should be the main consideration. It is not high politics or high drama. We are looking not for great actors and actresses, but for people who are seriously minded to go into all the detail of the legislation.
Mr. Burnett: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and

93
Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is a thoroughly independent person who will exercise a profoundly benign effect on the Committee. He is an utterly reliable and independent individual.
Mr. Redwood: I hope that that is right, but I have a fear that, on the occasions when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton does turn up—I hope that he does, although I still have my worries—he might dash in, having been too busy and had too many other things to do, not properly prepared and not having read all the detailed papers, which clearly a Committee member would need to read. The Liberal Democrats could be tempted to turn to the Minister or to the PPS and to say, "What is the line on this? We do not want to rock the boat. It does not matter to us. It will not win any votes in Kingston and Surbiton", or wherever.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the right hon. Gentleman is repeating the argument that he advanced earlier when I brought him to order.
Mr. Redwood: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was provoked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. It led me into a little repetition. I will go on without hesitation or, I trust, repetition, so that you will regard me in order again.
That brings me to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I know him to be an experienced and hard-working parliamentarian. He spends a lot of time in and about the House. If I can make him blush a little, he is likely to have the best, or certainly one of the best, attendance records of any Member whom we end up appointing to the Committee. Attendance is very important.
My hon. Friend will also be one of the few Committee members who will take the brief mg papers home in advance, despite their bulk and weight, and go through them. I see him smiling in agreement with me on that crucial point. I can see him salivating already at the thought of all those fascinating papers that he could be reading rather than watching "Match of the Day".
I am a little worried that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) might find "Match of the Day" more exciting. He might have to decide whether Italian football, on a Sunday afternoon, is more exciting than those very bulky papers that he needs to read over the weekend to be well prepared for the Committee. It would be lovely today to see him in the Chamber and to hear how he would put those temptations behind him, and how—in the remaining weeks of this Parliament, as it splutters towards its conclusion—he would wish to give his undivided attention to the crucial matter of tax reform.
I should like all the Committee members to be independent, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and fully briefed, to have read all the papers and taken a bit of independent advice, to make use of the large budget that the Minister was too coy to tell us about in the previous debate, and to ensure that they are properly apprised of all the crucial issues that will come before the Committee. Looking at the list of Committee members, however, I just fear that we shall end up with some people who have not read the papers, and quite a few people who just take the Government's line. If that is the case, I fear that the Committee will not be able to do its work as well as it should.
8.1 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not wish to detain the House for long, because my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have done an extremely good job of surveying the issues. Nevertheless, I should like, in a moment, to return to one or two of the points that I made in interventions on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
Like my right hon. Friends, I agree entirely that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is extremely well qualified to be a Committee member. He spent many years at the Treasury, navigating the country back to economic prosperity and into a fit state, which the current Government inherited, and he will certainly bring a fine mind to the Committee. Nevertheless, I recognise that his other commitments will inevitably limit the time that he can give to the Committee.
I also agree with my right hon. Friends that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is extremely well qualified and will serve well on the Committee. He and I have something in common, as we both have a picture in the parliamentary calendar; his for December, and mine for September—[Interruption.] I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) understands the significance of the pictures, which are perfectly honourable. A year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and I both submitted pictures for the parliamentary exhibition and, fortunately, they were both chosen to be used in the parliamentary calendar.
I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who is a substantial improvement on his predecessor. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) might have two difficulties in serving on the Committee. First, we are unquestionably approaching a general election, and his small majority will inevitably draw him down to the south-west extremities of the capital. Secondly, it is fair to say that, on so many of the key issues, Liberal Democrat Members seem to be in bed with the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is engaged in repeating arguments that have already been made more than once in the debate. I must urge him not to persist with that line.
Mr. Howarth: I take your guidance entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to reinforce the argument made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Wokingham. My comment on Liberal Democrat Members was made only in passing.
I have already made the substantive point, on the nature of the Committee, in an intervention, and I should now like to expand on it. Last week, we had an extensive debate on the constitution of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I were to try to discuss that Select Committee, and I do not wish to do so. However, I do wish to draw to the House's attention the clear parallel between the motion on that Committee and today's motions.

95
Two weeks running, we have been seeking to create hybrid Committees. However, not one member of the Select Committee on Defence was proposed to serve on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. In relation to today's motions, at least it can be said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is undoubtedly well qualified to serve on the Select Committee. The Paymaster General is clearly wholly qualified to serve on the Committee—and is therefore safe from my strictures. However, as my right hon. Friends have asked, what qualifications do some of the other proposed members—other than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—have? I shall, however, not revisit that issue.
It is also fair to point out that the Select Committee will not be a Select Committee in the sense that each of its members will be a free agent, charged by the House with a duty quite independently to examine the issues that it considers. Tax simplification is an extremely important issue. I do not know what discussions the Paymaster General has had with her accountant, but my accountant tells me that he is tearing out his hair at the complexity of the tax regulations. No one can dispute that tax simplification is an extremely important issue both for the accountancy profession, and by definition, for members of the public.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend introduces the very interesting idea that it will be a hybrid Committee: not quite a Standing Committee in which the Parliamentary Private Secretary does not speak but merely helps the Minister, and not quite a Select Committee all of whose members are independent. Does my hon. Friend have some intelligence from the Government that I missed on how the hybrid Committee might work? Will the PPS vote and speak? Will they speak only in line with the Government, or will they have an independent judgment? Has he been given information on that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been given no such information, as it would not be relevant to what we are discussing now, which concerns the names of those who have been proposed to serve on the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman persists in straying outside that, I shall apply Standing Order No. 42.
Mr. Howarth: I have no intention of straying outside that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I entirely understand your strictures. However, I hope that you will agree that it is fair to make the point that we are being asked to approve the membership of a Select Committee although we do not think that its members will be able to behave in accordance with the conventions of the House and in the manner that is usually expected of Select Committee members.
I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the previous business that we discussed. Paragraph 5 of the previous motion states:
The procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of select committees of this House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that matter, and I am not prepared to hear further argument on it now.
Mr. Howarth: We are debating a Select Committee. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that the
96
House is entitled to be assured about certain matters. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and I know that I am not beholden to my Front Benchers and that I am a free agent. Much as I like the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), I do not know whether he will have the approval and authority of his boss, the Paymaster General, to convey his own views to the Committee. Conversely, will he be bound by other conventions of the House which prevent Parliamentary Private Secretaries—I was once one—from speaking on certain matters?
Mr. Ruffley rose—
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Howarth: I shall give way first to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. (Mr. Hogg).
Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that the conventions are plain and that Parliamentary Private Secretaries must follow the Government line? In all probability, they will not be entitled to speak and must keep strictly to the Government brief if they do so. Those are the conventions and practices that will be operating; there are no others.
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes the point succinctly. I share his view. The House is entitled to know whether the conventions that he described will be applied to the Committee or whether it is intended that they will be dispensed with. Especially in the light of the manner in which the Government operate, I cannot conceive that anybody who is on the payroll, paid or otherwise, will be allowed to depart from the official line. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Paymaster General would give us her thoughts on the matter. As I understand it, the point applies also to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly).
Mr. Ruffley: Will not the likely role of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) in the Committee be similar to that which he will play on the Standing Committee that considers the next Finance Bill, if there is to be one? Will he not merely carry the Minister's notes to the civil servants' Box and back again?
Mr. Howarth: As far as the Committee that considers the Finance Bill is concerned, I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right.
I was briefly Parliamentary Private Secretary to my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, sadly after she lost office. I was debarred in 1991 from voting against the Government on any issue, because such a vote would have been perceived as a vicarious vote by my noble Friend. Roy Hattersley mentioned the matter when I abstained from voting on the Maastricht treaty in December 1991. The House has a clear and long-established convention, but the motion invites us to establish a Select Committee from which one of the key features of such a Committee is excluded. A Select Committee should be independent of the Government and should comprise hon. Members who are allowed to express their individual views and are not subject to the Whip. The House is entitled to some clarification from the Minister on that point, as well as those made by my right hon. Friends the Member for

97
Bromley and Chislehurst and for Wokingham with regard to the Committee's other members. I hope that the Minister will deal with those points. I rest my case.
8.13 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friends the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
A number of serious points must be made about the motion. I begin with considerable anxiety about the Committee process. I voted against the motion on the establishment of the Joint Committee, which was considered previously, because I am concerned that tax simplification will be turned into a form of tax changing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was not here for a considerable part of the previous debate. The points to which he refers have been amply rehearsed, so I cannot hear anything further from him on that subject while we are considering the current motion.
Mr. Hogg: I had the opportunity to address the House on the matter in December, when, as you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was last debated. It is relevant to the point that I am about to make. We need to understand where we are coming from. A Committee such as that which is proposed, which is ostensibly about simplification, can also be used as a mechanism for changing the law. It is, therefore, especially important that we consider its membership. That as why I stressed my first point.
On membership, the first question that one is entitled to ask is whether the hon. Members who are nominated wish to serve on the Committee. With the exception of the Liberal Democrat member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), I do not have a clue about that. I assume that silence from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) means that he wants to do so, but he has not told the House that. I have no means of knowing whether the hon. Members who are named in the motion want to serve on the Committee. Even if they want to do so, can they devote to it the time that the House has a right to expect of them? That, too, is something about which we are entitled to know before we vote on their names.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Paymaster General and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South will devote the proper time. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Gravesham is her creature, so I am prepared to accept that he, too, will be present during the Committee's proceedings, although what else he will do is another matter. What about the rest of them, however? Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), for whom I have the greatest respect and affection, be able to devote the necessary time? Will the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) be able to do so, especially as he is standing down at the next election? I think that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has a majority of 56, so he will most certainly be cultivating his back garden.
98
The chances are that the majority of the hon. Members who are nominated will not be able to devote the proper time. It would be helpful if they were present in the Chamber to assure the House, which is being asked to decide on their names, that they will be able to devote that time. Their absence suggests that they are heavily committed elsewhere. If that is the case, why should they be present during the proceedings of the Committee? Their absence makes me very cautious.
Furthermore, I have to ask how the nominated hon. Members were identified for membership in the first place? I did not play a part in their nomination, although I might have done so; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is an admirable candidate. Who selected them for consideration? It is the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South knows that I am extremely cautious about the usual channels, down which some pretty rum things flow. I am very cautious when I see a coterie of names that has been cobbled together by the usual channels.
It is a great pity that we cannot amend the motion, but must either accept it en bloc or reject it en bloc. I would like the ability to pick and choose, a la carte, and to make other suggestions. I approach the matter with considerable caution.
Mr. Redwood: Were my right hon. and learned Friend to be a member of the Committee, would he not want to be present in good time for the next debate, which will provide a practical working example of how the tax reform process might work? Is it not rather strange that some of the nominated hon. Members are not present? They might have thought that we would have proceeded to the next business, as we all want to make progress.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is correct. He raises the important issue of continuity, which was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Study of the tax law involves continuing experience. It is a fairly boring and esoteric subject. No doubt the Paymaster General has begun to master it after three and a half years, but it takes an extremely long time to do so. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw will not be present in the next Parliament and it is likely that the same will apply to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Consequently, hon. Members will serve on the Committee only for a short duration. Where possible, the names will be rolled over into the next Parliament, but I have a strong suspicion that some of the hon. Members will not be available for consideration next time round.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made an important point about Select Committees, in respect of the general position of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The motion describes the Committee under discussion as a Select Committee. Select Committees are expected to display a sense of independence. However, this Select Committee will not be independent of the Government. The Paymaster General will be on the Committee, and we shall be pleased to welcome her to it. However, there will also be two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and you know as well as I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the conventions are: PPSs are the creatures of their ministerial bosses. They may carry messages, and they may even be allowed to carry the bag, but they will certainly vote as

99
the Minister tells them to vote. If they are entitled to speak at all, which I doubt, they will speak precisely to a script, if they are wise, which I am sure they will be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now not only repeating the arguments of his right hon. and hon. Friends, but repeating his own argument, which he made in an intervention. I must ask him to desist.
Mr. Hogg: It was a form of emphasis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think was worth making. It will be even more worth making when one bears in mind that there will be members of the Committee coming from the other place who may be tainted in a similar way. After all, there are to be two Labour nominees from the other place. We do not know who they are or what their competence or status will be. Let us assume—there is nothing improbable about this assumption—that they hold Government office or that they are former ministerial sidekicks all clad in ermine. At that point, one would have one Minister and four sidekicks. Is that really what one wants on a Select Committee?
As we are talking about sidekicks, we shall also have the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on the Committee. He is a Liberal Democrat and therefore a Government sidekick. There will also be a Liberal Democrat from the other place, so there will be five or six Government nominee sidekicks, who will do precisely what they are told. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that something that you and I, as old serving Members, really wish to see? I leave that question hanging in the air, lest you should suggest that I am being in some way improper. However, it takes me back to where I started.
Mr. Redwood: What worries me is that the Minister has not intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend to say that the two Committee members from the other place will definitely not be Ministers or Government representatives. That leads me to fear that my right hon. and learned Friend is right, and that we could have five members of the Committee all saying the same thing. I hope that the House would not want such a Committee.
Mr. Hogg: I would hope so, too. We are all looking forward to the Paymaster General rising to her feet in due course to tell us rather more precisely who the Committee
100
members from the other place will be—or, at least, who the candidates are—and what expertise they will bring to bear.
This brings me back to the point with which I started, and the reason why this matter is important. A tax simplification committee is well and good if it simply tidies up anomalies. I do not mind that. However, I mind very much if the Committee extends itself and starts to change substantive law. I shall not be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am never out of order if I can avoid it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall be the judge of that, and I have already ruled against the right hon. and learned Gentleman once on that point. I hope that he will not persist.
Mr. Hogg: I shall be very cautious not to do so.
If there were a serious risk of the Committee acting in the manner I have described, one would have to address the question of its composition. If its membership were not genuinely independent, and its functions were as enlarged as I fear likely, substantive law could be changed at the dictates of the Government and their nominees. I suspect that that is what the House is being asked to agree to, and I am very much against this process.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
Hon. Members: No.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put —
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.
Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Chris Pond and Dawn Primarolo be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.

Orders of the Day

  Capital Allowances Bill
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I call Mr. Richard Ottaway.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway rose—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that a Division had been called. Why has it not proceeded?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I put the Question prior to the appointment of the Tellers, the Ayes were not challenged. Therefore, no Tellers were appointed and I decided the Question on taking the voices. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. John Redwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Were the Tellers notified—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The long-established practice of the House is that, after two minutes have elapsed, the occupant of the Chair puts the Question again and calls for Ayes and Noes. I called for Noes, there was silence. Therefore, the matter was decided in the affirmative.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take your point that you call for the Ayes and Noes two minutes after the Division is called. I have just seen the clock change to two minutes. I wonder whether you might perhaps have been a little bit hasty on this occasion.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be extremely careful about challenging the Chair. These matters are governed by the Clerks of the House, using a precise timing mechanism. That is what guides the Chair.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no further point of order.
  Mr. Ottaway: I presume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government moved the Second Reading motion formally.
  Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)indicated assent.
  Mr. Eric Forth: What is going on?
  Mr. Ottaway: I am proceeding on the assumption that the motion was moved formally. However, I know that
  102
  the Paymaster General was not present at the time. If she wishes to make her speech now, I shall be happy to resume my seat—provided that I have your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to recommence later.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to believe that we are embarking on Second Reading of a Government Bill although the Minister declines to introduce that Bill to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Second Reading was moved formally.
  Mr. Forth: What?
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Division was called and I went into the Lobby. In the confusion, I was not here when the debate began, so the Government Whip moved Second Reading formally. I would be happy to speak now—or I could allow the hon. Member for Croydon, South to speak now and I could speak during the debate. Unfortunately, what happened was caused by the incompetence with which the Opposition called the Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the confused circumstances that have arisen, the Bill has been moved formally and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has begun his speech. It might make for better order if he were allowed to continue and the Minister's speech were to follow his.
  Dawn Primarolo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I help the House? As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman offered to resume his seat and allow me to speak at this stage. I think that, if it would be in order, it would help the House to proceed through the debate—but I need to be guided by you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there is general agreement in the House to that somewhat unusual procedure—I understand that there is—I shall call the Minister. It is to be hoped that the House will give its consent to the hon. Member for Croydon, South when he attempts to address it a second time.
  8.31 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for being in the Chamber, rather than in the Division Lobby, at the appropriate time.
  I am pleased to be opening, in a somewhat unconventional way, the Second Reading debate on the Bill, which rewrites our current legislation on capital allowances. This is the first Bill to be produced by the Inland Revenue tax law rewrite project—a long-term undertaking to modernise our direct tax legislation and make it clearer and easier to use.
  As this is such a significant milestone in the work of the project, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few introductory words about it, before dealing with the Bill itself.

  103
  The tax law rewrite project was set up in 1996 to rewrite all, or most, of the UK direct tax code—more than 6,000 pages of legislation, enacted over the past 200 years. That is no small task. Following extensive consultation by the Inland Revenue, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in what proved to be his final Budget statement, announced that the project would proceed. Commending the undertaking to the House, he said:
  The project will bring the benefits of clarity and certainty to businesses and ordinary taxpayers. It has been widely welcomed and deserves the continuing support it has enjoyed in all parts of the House.—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 170.]
  I give all due credit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the vision and foresight that he showed in authorising the project—no doubt the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) also played his part in the Treasury ministerial team of the day. The project commanded our full support at the time, and now that we are responsible for its continuing progress, I am happy to confirm that we remain as fully committed to its success as they were.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe showed rather less foresight in his prediction that the first rewrite Bill would be ready to enact in the 1997–98 Session. The task has proved even more difficult and complex than was predicted when it began. It is sufficient testimony to the importance that people everywhere attach to the project that, although its progress has been slower than was hoped, there is still widespread support for it, both in Parliament and throughout the UK tax community. This is because everyone recognises that it is vital that the work is done properly rather than quickly. Much has changed in the past four years, but the support for the tax law rewrite is a constant.
  The main feature of the project can be summarised as follows: its aim is to restructure the existing legislation into a more logical order for its present purpose. It is not simply, as has sometimes been claimed, a plain English makeover. The restructuring is probably the main benefit of the rewrite process, and it is the main reason why the work is taking so long. However, the results of this painstaking process are enormously appreciated by tax professionals. As one leading figure in the tax world has commented:
  I need to be able to find the legislation that is applicable, understand how it operates and advise my clients accordingly. For me, the Capital Allowances Bill represents a revolution in accessibility. It has a logical structure and for the first time in my experience it has actually been designed to help the user.
  That is no mean praise.
  Other features of the rewrite process include shorter sentences, modern language, clearer signposts related to provision, more constant definitions, greater use of reader aids and helpful methods of showing the statements that are made in the Bill.
  I have said this before, but I think that it is important to emphasise again that the remit of the project precludes any changes in the main tax policies. That issue has engaged the House's attention in the debates on the two preceding motions today. All members of the Joint Committee will surely be there to ensure that the rewrite does exactly that, and does not change main tax policies or question policy.
  104
  There is general agreement among those who have been involved in the extensive consultation on this work that some minor changes in detail might be proposed where those will further improve the legislation. Examples of such changes are new provisions to fill in the gaps in the existing legislation, abolition of obsolete material, correction of minor anomalies and, as I mentioned in the previous debates, the inclusion of extra statutory concessions into the legislation.
  Major changes to the body of our tax law will always be matters for the Finance Bill. However, there is a general consensus that such minor housekeeping matters as I have described can be proposed for these Bills, always provided that they are flagged up clearly in the consultation process so that people can consider them properly.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Could the Paymaster General define a little more clearly what constitutes a minor change in her view? Is it a change that affects only a few people or one that affects people only up to a certain quantum in their potential tax liability? Can she quantify how many people or what quantum of tax change might constitute "minor"?
  Dawn Primarolo: This question came up in a previous debate this afternoon when the right hon. Gentleman was unable to be present. Ultimately, it is for the House to decide, in tidying up the legislation, whether an issue is minor. As has been pointed out by right hon. and hon. Members in the previous debates, what is considered minor by one person may not be considered so by another. However, the tax low rewrite project was asked to concentrate only on issues to remove legislation that was obsolete, to tidy up legislation where the use of slightly different language did not change the meaning but made it more accessible in terms of understanding and to deal with the extra statutory concessions that I have just mentioned.
  Regardless of whether members of the Committee are Treasury Ministers, such as myself, or Back-Bench Members, they will need to ensure that the tax law rewrite simplifies the structure without removing or changing the underlying policy of the tax unless the House is satisfied, by a vote, when the report comes back from the Committee, that the changes are minor and assist the flow and understanding of the legislation but make no huge difference.
  As a Minister, I take the view that it is for Finance Bills and Treasury Ministers to consider the underlying changes in policy and for debates to be held in the House; it is not for tax law rewrite committees to do that. Today's debates have shown clearly that every Member of the House also understands that point. Although the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is not one of the House of Commons members of the Joint Committee, I am sure that, when the Bill comes back, he will cast his experienced and beady eye over the detail of those matters in which he considers there is some vulnerability so as to ensure that the House discusses them properly.
  Mr. David Ruffley: When the Joint Committee decides that a change is minor, will the hon. Lady tell the House by what means and in what

  105
  manner the House will be able to scrutinise such a recommendation? Will it be debated on the Floor or elsewhere?
  Dawn Primarolo: May I direct the hon. Gentleman to the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill? Annex 1 of the second volume lists the 66 changes that are considered minor; they either remove anomalies or tidy up the measure. The clause, line and, I think, the page numbers are given, so any Member—whether or not a member of the Committee—can address those issues. Certainly, when the Committee reports back, hon. Members will be able to make points on those changes.
  It is most unusual for there to be two volumes of explanatory notes. They give an excellent history of capital allowances, and explain their purpose and structure, who benefits from them and their current intent. There is also a clause-by-clause explanation. The document identifies the 66 incidents of change, followed by a number of further helpful notes and explanations. It gives a thorough and clear explanation of the Bill that will go to the Joint Committee and then return to this place for consideration by hon. Members.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the hon. Lady assure us that all the current extra-statutory concessions that apply to capital allowances will be incorporated in the Bill?
  Dawn Primarolo: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, as I do not know whether every extra-statutory concession was added to the Capital Allowances Bill. I do not have that information to hand. A rule was not set that all extra-statutory concessions should be combined; the rule was that, if a concession fitted easily into the legislation, that was the best place for it. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, all Governments—including the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government—consider the role of extra-statutory concessions and whether they should be moved in primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in that point, I shall ensure that I give him exactly the right answer. If I am unable to do so before the end of the debate, I undertake to write to him to explain which concessions have been included.
  From the outset, the project team was committed to a full process of consultation with the UK tax community and other interested parties. That is a hallmark of the tax law rewrite. I refer hon. Members to the first volume of the explanatory notes. It lists not only those Members who were on the tax law rewrite steering committee, but the members of the consultative committee and their expertise. It goes on to list the people who have been consulted at each stage, with the proviso that only those who did not ask for their responses to be treated in confidence were included. Some people asked for that confidence and we could not, therefore, include that information.
  The project's work has been overseen by a high-level steering committee, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) sits on it and it is chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose interest in, and enthusiasm for, the process is now legendary. Other members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament, the judiciary, the legal and accountancy professions and business and consumer
  106
  interests. There is also a consultative committee, the members of which are drawn from the main representative bodies of the tax world in business and consumer affairs. For wider consultation, the project publishes periodic exposure drafts that contain blocks of rewritten legislation, with commentaries.
  I pay tribute to the invaluable contribution that all those involved in the consultation process have made, and continue to make, to the success of rewrite project. I greatly value their commitment to helping the project team ensure that the work is accurate and of high quality. I also recognise the time that they have devoted to the process. That should be commended.
  With regard to the Bill, the House might find it helpful if I say something about the capital allowances legislation to give a flavour of the subject, which may be unfamiliar to some hon. Members. Capital allowances are relevant to everyone who is involved in business, from the largest multinational enterprise to the single trader. They broadly take the place of depreciation charges in commercial accounts for business, with some additional incentives, such as 100 per cent. first-year allowances for information and communication technology, and research and development.
  Capital allowances are needed because, in general, taxpayers cannot deduct capital expenditure on investment in their businesses when arriving at their income or profits. Depreciation in commercial accounts is not allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. The estimated value to business of that regime is about £18.8 billion in 2000–01. It is therefore very important to those businesses.
  Capital allowances give relief for certain types of expenditure, and the Bill deals with who gets the relief for what expenditure, when and how. The tax law rewriters addressed that and it is clearly laid out in the explanatory notes. There are different allowances for plant and machinery, industrial and agricultural buildings, research and development and various expenditure. The Government are committed to encouraging enterprise and innovation. It is, perhaps, appropriate that the subject matter of this first rewrite Bill should be directed towards that aim.
  The Bill will make it easier for businesses, or the people who advise those businesses, to understand their rights and obligations in terms of capital allowances under our tax system. It brings together 300 pages of legislation. The main legislation with which it deals is the Capital Allowances Act 1990, which itself was a consolidation Act that brought together earlier legislation, much of which dated back to 1945. The House will not be surprised to learn that that has been amended every year in the 10 years since it was enacted. Other provisions, such as those dealing with patents and know-how, are included in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Finally, other provisions are scattered throughout several Finance Acts.
  I have already mentioned in general terms the extensive consultation process that is the hallmark of the rewrite project's work. For this Bill, there have been successive rounds of consultation on four separate exposure drafts, published at relatively early stages between October 1998 and February 2000. Most recently, a final round of consultation on a draft Bill was published in August 2000.

  107
  Not only does this Bill represent a worthwhile project, which will modernise our current direct tax system, making it clearer and easier to use, but it is the first Bill to mark a milestone in the work of the project. Although much difficult work remains, the Bill shows that improvements are possible. It makes minor amendments to make the language and structure more accessible, to give extra statutory concessions and to remove legislation that is obsolete and therefore no longer required. The House must satisfy itself that, in suggesting those changes, the rewrite project has not questioned or changed the underlying policy decided by Finance Acts and by the House. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to the debate.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Any proposal that simplifies the law will always be welcomed by the House. In 1986, Philip Hardman, the well known campaigner for tax law reform, said:
  Some of the finest brains in the country are trying to understand tax law when they would be better employed producing wealth.
  That says it all. Anybody who had the dubious privilege of sitting through the Committee proceedings on the previous Finance Bill, now the Finance Act 2000, will be in no doubt about what he meant and of the need to simplify tax law.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although the finest brains might not be producing much wealth for the country, they certainly get quite a lot of wealth for themselves, and perhaps that is the object?
  Mr. Ottaway: From what I heard from the Labour Members on the Committee considering the Finance Bill, I am not sure that there is a paucity of wealth, and some people may be playing poverty. None the less, I am endeavouring to make a moderately non-political speech, so I shall leave that point before I am tempted away from that aim.
  In the 1998–99 Session, I led for the Opposition on the Greater London Authority Bill, which at 473 pages then set the record for the longest Bill ever. Little did I know that just 12 months later, that record would fall and yet again I would be involved. I do not know what I have done to deserve being involved in the Committee proceedings on the two longest Bills in the history of Parliament, but in the previous Session I found myself exiled to the Committee Corridor for the Finance Bill, which set records in length and complexity. Leaving aside the politics of the Finance Act 2000, at 613 pages, it represents a challenge to all involved, whether they be professional advisers, the judiciary, civil servants or politicians—not to mention taxpayers, both personal and from the business community.
  As a member of the Opposition team, with just a handful of advisers and limited resources, one does one's best to test the Treasury's vast resources. However, while one can pick up a few salient political points and make the best of them, the state of the Bill is the Government's
  108
  responsibility. I shall give just one small example of a provision from the Finance Act 2000. Schedule 14, on enterprise, says:
  Paragraphs 10(7) and (8) (determination of value of shares) applies for the purposes of paragraph 47(1)(g) as they apply for the purposes of paragraph 10.
  If anyone can understand that, they are a better man than I.
  I take a quote of a schedule of the Finance Act 1986 that deals with capital allowances:
  If, in a case where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10 above applies, neither sub-paragraph (1) nor sub-paragraph (2) above has effect in relation to the expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of that paragraph, then for the chargeable period related to the disposal or cessation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph, any allowance in respect of that expenditure shall be a balancing allowance.
  I am sure that everyone gets the point that I am making.
  During consideration of the Finance Bill 2000, I led for the Opposition on the subject of tonnage tax. That part of the Bill was written very much with the rewrite principles in mind. I flip to a sentence, which states:
  If the cost of providing a ship exceeds £80 million, the lessor is not entitled to capital allowance in respect of the excess.
  That is clear, precise, to the point and understood— certainly by myself and, I felt, the rest of the Committee. That makes the point.
  Much of our tax legislation is incomprehensible, indecipherable and virtually incapable of analysis, and under this Government, spreading like the plague. So, it is with pleasure that I give a warm welcome to a Bill that has been well received by experts and those in the industry. It has clearly achieved its aim of making tax law easier to understand.
  The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants said:
  The draft Bill is an impressive achievement by the Tax Law Re-write Team and we congratulate everyone involved. The Capital Allowances Act 2001 will demonstrate clearly the value of the Tax Law re-write process in improving the intelligibility of the tax legislation.
  Mr. Maurice Parry-Winfield, a consultant for the institute, writing in The Tax Journal said:
  What stood out, however, was the professionalism of the job the re-write team had done and the light it shone on the notoriously opaque areas of the Tax Law.
  Peter Bickly, the tax manager of the institute's tax faculty, said:
  Although the project has taken a good deal longer than the original estimate of five years—
  to which I shall return
  the quality of the draft reflects the enormous amount of work undertaken by the revenue in consultation with organisations such as ours. It is a high quality product. It is simpler and therefore easier to understand.
  Those are all powerful tributes in which I join.
  Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the regulatory impact assessment states that it has not been possible to establish with any certainty whether the cost to businesses will reduce as a result of this enormous Bill?
  Mr. Ottaway: I will come to that point, although there is a difference between simplification and simplification of the law. My hon Friend is referring to simplification

  109
  of the law rather than simplification and clarity of the language, which is all that the tax law rewrite project attempts to achieve.
  I should like to go back a few years to look at the origins of the tax rewrite project. It is with great pride that I say that it was very much a baby of the previous Conservative Government. The report on tax simplification was introduced in 1996 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the entire project is Mr. Tim Smith, Member for Beaconsfield until 1997. Although my noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon was making noises about the need for tax simplification in his maiden speech in 1964, Tim Smith kick-started the project.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to Mr. Tim Smith, who joined the Opposition in Committee to defeat the then Government.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Paymaster General has second-guessed my next remark, which is that, during proceedings on the Finance Act 1995, Tim Smith proposed a new clause requiring the Inland Revenue to prepare a report on tax simplification and lay it before Parliament.
  Mr. Lilley: Does my hon. Friend anticipate any similar independence of mind being shown by the members of the Committee appointed to serve on the examination of the Capital Allowances Bill?
  Mr. Ottaway: It was made crystal clear earlier today that all members of the Select Committee will be free to express their views as they wish.
  Let me return to the role of Tim Smith in this important project. He had been irritated by a 1994 Finance Bill that was 463 pages long and a 1995 one that was 380 pages long—I am not sure how he would feel about the length of legislation today. He tabled the motion, it was carried and the pressure was on. As a result of his initiative, in December 1995, the Revenue published a report on tax simplification which set the whole process in motion.
  It is important to pay tribute to Tim Smith today. Most of us will recall the trauma of his withdrawal from politics during the 1997 election campaign. Despite intense media intrusion, he accomplished that with dignity having recognised the difficult position in which he was putting his party. I am sure that all his friends and those who respect his work in the House, particularly on tax law reform, will be pleased to hear that he and his family are rebuilding their lives in the west country. I am sure that everyone will join me in wishing them well.
  Prior to the publication of the report, in his November 1995 Budget speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said
  We shall propose that the Revenue tax code is rewritten in plain English—a major task. The House has a duty to set out clear legislation, which in that area we have not done. We in the House will need to look at our procedures to see how that tax rewrite can be sensibly handled.—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1066.]
  The report was published in 1996. It concluded that
  The language of existing tax law can be simplified, that the benefit should substantially outweigh the costs; and that a rewrite of most of the existing code could be accomplished over a period of about five years.
  110
  The report was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He pointed out that it supported the Government's deregulation initiative—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)—and confirmed that the Chancellor had asked the Inland Revenue to proceed with the preparatory work. Those early stages were driven by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work on this major project and to his current work on the rewrite steering committee.
  At the time, it was envisaged that the rewrite would take about five years. It would use a variety of techniques, all of which have been incorporated in the Bill. First, there would be a new, more logical structure; secondly, there would be shorter sentences and better use of definitions; thirdly, modern language would be used, as long as it was possible to do so without changing the law or making its effects less certain; fourthly, there would be better signposts and similar rules would be grouped together to make the rules easier to find; and, fifthly, a new format and layout would be used to make the legislation easier to read. All of those features are embodied in the Bill.
  Having arrived at this point, it is important to recognise the role played by Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe of Aberavon, who between 1979 and 1990 served first as Chancellor of the Exchequer, then as Foreign Secretary and then as Leader of the House. He initially became president of the tax law review committee set up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in autumn 1994. Its purpose was independently and objectively to ask fundamental questions about whether the tax system was working as intended. The committee concluded that it was not. Fortunately, as the committee published its final report, the Treasury reached a similar conclusion about the need for reform and Lord Howe was appointed chairman of the rewrite committee. In both capacities, his contribution has been immense.
  In the Hardman memorial lecture, when defending himself against the charge of having done nothing about the need for reform when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howe gave a reply that graphically illustrated why busy Ministers find it hard to address such issues when they have so many other pressing matters on their mind. He quite candidly said:
  I was too busy doing other important things. I was struggling to manage public expenditure, Civil Service pay, the nationalised industries, the International Monetary Fund, the European Community budget—not to mention the Prime Minister.
  Lord Howe's second defence was to point to the huge forces, powerful institutions and time-hallowed processes, the weight of which is all stacked against reform of any kind. He quoted Douglas Hurd's memorable words:
  Inertia can develop its own momentum.
  The role that Geoffrey Howe has played in the reversal of the momentum of inertia has been of great significance, and I am sure that the whole House pays tribute to him today.
  That illustrates the need for a separate body, detached from Government, such as we now have, that can carry out that important, independent process. One has to turn to Adam Broke's 1999 Hardman lecture to fully understand the challenge that faces the tax law rewrite project in reversing the general perception that the tax system is too complex. He said that there are four components that make up the complexity of tax law: diversity, volume, drafting and language.

  111
  First, diversity. There are about a dozen principal taxes. The main direct taxes include income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The indirect taxes include value added tax, excise duties and a number of smaller taxes. Then there is stamp duty and payroll taxes in the form of national insurance contributions. The first problem is that it is now impossible for any one individual to advise across the range of taxes, which is far too broad.
  Turning to volume, there is a perpetual incoming tide of tax law. We have a Finance Act every year because of the historical oddity that income tax is an annual tax that needs to be re-enacted every year. The result is a complete industry or what my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) once described as "an unstoppable juggernaut". Many people feel that that aspect needs to be reviewed.
  On drafting, not for one second do I seek to criticise parliamentary counsel, who do a fantastic job in difficult situations. I have never met one, but I am sure that one of them has a slogan over his desk saying, "Overworked and underpaid". At very short notice, they are asked to draft amendments, clauses and new clauses of intense complexity. Those provisions are complex yet, as Adam Broke pointed out, one of the most successful pieces of legislation is the Partnership Act 1890, which, as a lawyer, I frequently had to consult. Its statement of short, clear principles have long stood the test of time and effectiveness.
  Adam Broke's final point concerned language. To convey a point, in the past, draftsmen have often used language of a higher plane or language that is not in common use. However, it is fair to point out that, as far back as 1853, Gladstone complained in the House:
  The nature of property in this country, and its very complicated forms, render it almost impossible to deal with for the purpose of Income Tax in a very simple manner.
  Although it has taken 150 years, we are about to prove Mr. Gladstone wrong. For all those reasons, which cover the points made by Adam Broke, it is perfectly clear that complexity is a problem and that it matters.
  Of course, we should not ignore the question of compliance costs. As I said at the outset, such is the complexity of tax legislation, it is estimated that compliance costs amount to 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product—which is £12 billion a year, with more than 25,000 people employed full-time in the private sector tax industry alone. For that reason, this has to be a project worth undertaking for the gain to the British economy.
  Looking back, taxation in the 18th century was simply to pay for the armed forces. Taxes were simple. Land taxes, poll taxes and excise duties formed the bulk of tax gathering, but, irresistibly, social engineering—using the tax system to affect behaviour—was not far away. For those of us who complain that the Chancellor cannot stop tinkering with the tax system for social purposes, it is worth noting that in 1796, Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, increased excise duty on spirits, arguing:
  Consumption is so pernicious with respect to spirits that no man could wish there should be any limit to the duty so far as is consistent with the means of safely collecting it…
  Duty free would not have lasted long in his day.
  112
  From then on, the situation declined with the relentless growth of the Government's instinct to tax and spend. The instinct to simplify is an old one. Lord Callaghan argued that the reform of corporation tax in his 1965 Budget would so simplify the system that it would put accountants out of business. That was not the first time that he was wrong.
  That comment fires a salutary warning shot to us all: we should not get too excited about the whole project, the history of which was dealt with at length by the Paymaster General. Therefore, I shall not detain the House on that aspect save to make two further points. First, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), simplification has two meanings. The Bill seeks to address one —rewriting the law in a way that makes it easier to understand. The second is to simplify the policy of taxation.
  To give but a small example, many think that the capital gains tax system—while seeking to provide a fairer base and, particularly, to assist those in the business sector—has resulted in a complex set of laws. The task of the next Conservative Government will be to simplify those laws. Although that may be a legitimate political objective, it is different from the task that we have set out to achieve through the Bill. Were we to add to the tax simplification procedures that we shall test for the first time today and in the coming weeks and were we to superimpose all the political debate on the changes to tax law, I strongly suspect that the tax law rewrite project would founder. Although I look forward to challenging the Government in the forthcoming Budget debate, the Bill should not be the vehicle for the inevitable exchanges of views that will take place.
  My second point is on the direction of the rewrite project. The Finance Act 2000 is 613 pages long—nearly twice as long as the rewrite project's first production after four years' work. As Geoffrey Howe pointed out in his Hardman lecture:
  It is like trying to repaint Brighton Pier at a time when its owners are trying to extend it to the French Coast…
  There is no doubt that resources will have to be increased if the initial enthusiasm of the rewrite project is to be sustained. Compared with the high compliance costs in the tax industry, to which I referred earlier, the modest investment by the Government must be worth it and I urge them to reconsider the point. It is essential that those involved remain independent of the Government and, as far as possible, remain able to focus exclusively on the project without being removed to assist in Budgets and other Treasury matters. Unless all Finance Bills are drafted within the rewrite principles, we shall always take one step forward and two backwards.
  On preliminary analysis, the Bill's 340 pages—which, rather amusingly, are supported by explanatory notes of 380 pages—no doubt represent a clearer document and are easier to understand. We add our congratulations to all those involved in the drafting. However, sight has not been lost of the dictum of Jean-Baptiste Collhert, the French Finance Minister, who remarked:
  The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing…
  Although it is hard to evaluate whether the cost of claiming capital allowances will reduce as a result of rewriting the legislation, there is no doubt that it should

  113
  be easier to establish the true position. However, there will still be many feathers flying and much hissing, as I suspect that there will be in the coming election.
  I hope that in the drafting of legislation the tax law rewrite team will have learned from its experiences and will be able to draw on them for the future benefit of all those involved. The Opposition congratulate the team on its efforts and will give the Bill a fair wind.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help if I remind the House that the Bill, as its long title says, is a measure
  To restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances.
  I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will bear that limited purpose in mind and will not seek to broaden the debate to cover general issues of taxation or budgetary policy.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: Before coming to the Chamber to debate the Bill, I had a very quick look again at the Capital Allowances Act 1990. I do not pretend to find the Bill a particularly relaxing or amusing read, but it is certainly far better than the obscure and arcane provisions that it will replace. I also wish to pay tribute to Lord Howe of Aberavon, his steering committee, the consultative committee and all the individuals who have contributed to bringing the Bill forward, now or in the past.
  The Bill's layout makes the difficult subject of capital allowances more easy to follow. The contents section is useful and intelligible and acts almost as an index to the Bill.
  The initial clauses provide a useful introduction to what the Bill proposes to cover and include helpful and general points leading into the specific allowances for specific items of expenditure. The headings on each page are also helpful. The accompanying notes are detailed and intelligible and provide a good guide to the Bill's provisions.
  Before I raise some policy issues in relation to capital allowances, I shall make a general point about the drafting of the Bill. I am sure that members of the steering and consultative committees would agree that deeming provisions should be avoided at all costs. However, these provisions continue to creep into the Bill. I refer the Paymaster General to clause 297(2), for example, which relates to industrial buildings allowances. The subsection begins:
  This Part has effect in relation to the person to whom the relevant interest is sold as if…
  I am sure that the steering committee would agree that such clauses should deal with charging and the actual event that occurs: they should not pretend what has happened and provide for the consequences.
  In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the Paymaster General said that she would write listing the omitted extra-statutory concessions—in other words, the concessions that will remain that will not be incorporated into the Bill. I hope that she will send me a copy of that letter.
  Dawn Primarolo: My explanation was correct in that if the extra-statutory concession could go into the Bill to
  114
  improve the legislation and was clear, it went in. I can give the hon. Gentleman the lists: on clause 23, extra-statutory concession B50; on clause 29, extra-statutory concession B16; also roads on industrial estates, extra-statutory concession B3. Those were incorporated. There are remaining extra-statutory concessions: these are B1, part of extra-statutory concession B16, and extra-statutory concession B49. Those were not incorporated either because they would have made the legislation more complex, would have removed flexibility or because we felt that other changes would be more appropriate. I have placed my understanding on the record. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to do so.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for responding in her usual courteous and prompt manner. However, we believe that it would be beneficial to deal with tax legislation in primary or sometimes, necessarily, in secondary legislation.
  As the hon. Lady knows, the concessions to which she refers and which are not included and also statements of practice impact upon capital allowances. Concessions that are not included and statements of practice do not have legislative force, but they are frequently relied on by taxpayers and their advisers. It is time that we as the legislature ensured that those important concessions—that is, those that have been omitted—and statements of practice were debated and given the force of law. At least that would provide certainty for taxpayers.
  Although the Bill will be given detailed scrutiny in Committee, I shall raise two matters of principle in relation to the capital allowances legislation, and I ask the Paymaster General to consider them between now and the Committee stage. My first and main point relates to balancing charges, particularly as they impact on the small business sector.
  As the House knows, for plant and machinery generally, if the asset is a short-life asset, the allowance will be 25 per cent. on a reducing balance basis. At present there is a first-year allowance of 40 per cent. Long-life assets have a 6 per cent. per annum capital allowance, again on a reducing balance basis.
  I hope that we shall get some certainty about the rates of capital allowances and the law. Since they were elected, the Government have chopped and changed on those allowances, which causes confusion for the business sector and taxpayers generally, and makes business planning and development difficult.
  The Bill defines small companies and small businesses. I refer the House to clauses 47 and 48. The problem for the small business sector is that the balancing charge comes in one hit. All the disposal proceeds from the sale of the relevant asset are brought into account in the year of receipt. I hoped that the Government would consider for small businesses and small companies the introduction of a balancing charge on a reducing balance basis. In other words—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He may not have appreciated the full import of the ruling that I gave earlier—that it is not permissible in this debate, on this Bill, to move into areas of policy or to put forward suggestions about changes of policy in respect of capital allowances.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I take your point. I wanted to give the

  115
  Paymaster General an indication of some of the topics that might be mentioned in Committee. I hope that in due course we will have a more benign system in relation to balancing charges for small businesses and small companies.
  The second point, which I have previously raised on the Floor of the House and which I will not labour further, is the matter of capital allowances for sea-going vessels that are not ships—that is, floating production and storage offshore vessels and drill ships. They should be brought into the short-life asset regime, as are ships, to assist our British shipyards.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to what I said. He cannot speak about policy matters.
  Mr. Burnett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I seek a further assurance from the Paymaster General. Capital allowances legislation will probably change with every Finance Bill. It has done so in the past 10 years, and I dare say that it will continue to do so. Will the hon. Lady assure us that in any future changes, drafting techniques similar to those in the Bill will be used, and any changes to capital allowances legislation will be incorporated into the Bill? We do not want to go back to the position of taxpayers and practitioners having to hunt around numerous Finance Acts to get to the law on capital allowances. Simplification should continue.
  The Bill is welcome. Nevertheless, the policy remains complex, so the Bill remains complex. It is up to the Government to simplify, not complicate, tax policy. For many, tax simplification is a contradiction in terms, but the Bill simplifies the law on capital allowances, includes some welcome policy simplification, and is far more comprehensible than the existing law.
  I congratulate Lord Howe, the steering committee, the consultative committee and all those who contributed to the Bill. We shall support it.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the introduction of the Bill as one of the first fruits of the labours of those who established the tax law rewrite process and the process of simplification. I declare various interests in the Bill. All Members of Parliament have an interest because the Bill contains provisions dealing with capital allowances and MPs' accommodation. I have declared business interests, and those businesses would also be of interest under the Bill.
  I congratulate the Paymaster General and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on the way in which they eventually introduced the debate on this measure. Tonight is an unusual event in the consideration of any legislation on taxation and finance by the House. We are discussing the whole of the tax legislation on capital allowances at the same time, whereas Finance Bill debates usually consider only small parts of it. It is an education in itself to be able to see the tax code in its entirety, and to appreciate the interaction of one part with another. When Finance Bills are drawn up and enacted, we are usually concerned only with the part of the Bill that affects the law on capital allowances.
  116
  Part of the problem that the rewrite exercise has had to cope with and which the Bill seeks to address is the almost Topsy-like way in which our law is modified over time, but we are never able to stand back and see the total effect.
  In her opening remarks, the Paymaster General said that this exercise was not simply about rewriting a plain English version of the tax on capital allowances. I have always likened it to the equivalent of the plain English version of the Bible, because the drafters of that had the same problem of making the message more accessible and understandable without changing the fundamentals. In drafting the new English version of the Bible, they referred to many orginal texts as well as to the King James version, and in even more difficult circumstances they faced the problem of ensuring that the basic message was not altered. It is right to pay tribute to the rewrite exercise, because it has not fundamentally changed the law on capital allowances.
  Much has already been said about the complexity of our tax law, and that is replicated and underscored by the provisions of the Bill. As tax practitioners know, we live in a complicated world, and tax has had to adapt to that. That is why such complexities are incorporated, albeit in clearer terms, in this new legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said that this Chancellor enjoyed fiddling with the tax system, sometimes with the aim of achieving questionable results. Even in its redrafted form, the capital allowances legislation replicates some of the inevitable fiddling that has taken place over time. Again, it is worth considering the consequences of that approach in a little more detail.
  One aspect emerges with remarkable clarity in the new Bill. I refer to the number of clauses dealing with anti-avoidance legislation. Much of the difficulty of any part of our tax code reflects the fact that, over time—and again in a piecemeal fashion—the legislation that the Bill seeks to replace has had to cope with people's efforts not to pay their taxes, or, in this instance, to adapt an allowance for greater advantage. Any such activity is usually detrimental to the generality of taxpayers, in that costs rise and, somewhere in the tax firmament, someone must pay.
  Let me make a general observation. If we are to proceed with the exercise of clarification, the accounting profession, the business profession and indeed the Inland Revenue will have to revisit the difficult territory of tax avoidance. I know that the Government have already shied away from general avoidance legislation, and I think they were wise to do so at this juncture, because it is difficult territory; but much of the complexity of this Bill and others reflects the problem of protecting revenue, and preventing abuse in the tax system.
  I want to concentrate on three subjects: the tax law rewrite exercise itself, the contents of the Bill arid the implications of the first two issues for the future of tax law reform. Any analysis of the Bill raises interesting questions about what could happen, and what would be the next stages. There may be opportunities for Ministers to consider changing or enlarging the remit of the rewrite exercise to incorporate what—as I have seen, as a member of the steering committee—is already emerging as a series of good ideas, in tie first instance to make the existing tax code better. A second agenda addresses the more complex, and perhaps sexier, more exciting areas of tax

  117
  debate, relating to how we should simplify our tax system. But if, as I said at the beginning, the world is complicated and tax law affects that, the holy grail of real simplification—which means, perhaps, less tax law—is still some way off. I think that the Bill underscores the difficulty in that respect.
  I too pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Howe for the tenacious and assiduous way in which—ever since his involvement with the Institute for Fiscal Studies' work in this area—he has pursued the starting and continuity of this rewrite exercise. As we know, he is a man of dogged determination, and at times has wrought remarkable changes with his words. I consider this exercise to be one of the lasting testaments to his determination in terms of the parliamentary process.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said about my former parliamentary colleague Tim Smith. I had to deal with him during discussion of various Finance Bills, and I know how tenacious he too was in ensuring that the exercise not only went beyond what was in the Finance Bill 1995, but saw the light of day in the report on tax simplification that was produced during my time at the Treasury.
  I shall never forget the then vice-chairman of the Inland Revenue, Mr. Steve Mattison, coming into my office at the Treasury with the tax code as it had been in 1950—half a dozen thin volumes. He contrasted that with the 6,000 pages of legislation of which this Bill still forms a part. He made the point about the way in which our tax system has developed over time. Anyone looking through the Bill will see how measure upon measure has been added, not just in the capital allowances sector but across the piece, to reflect the growing complexities of the world in which we live and some of the challenges to the tax system itself.
  I was glad when the Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) enabled the exercise to go forward, although, like others who have spoken, I concur with him that his thoughts about how long the exercise would take were heroic. Instead of five years, we could be looking at anywhere between 10 and 15 fully to rewrite all parts of the tax code. As the Paymaster General indicated, with experience the process may speed up, but the first process has been wise to take a measured approach to the system of exposure drafts, consultation and final review to ensure that a quality item has resulted.
  The new Bill is without doubt a good example of how to reorder tax legislation with advantage. Lord Howe reflected on the matter at the press conference effectively to launch the process. He commented on the state of tax law now:
  The endless elaboration of existing rules to deal with changes in the outside world has fed upon itself. Even a simple change may interact with a mass of existing provisions. So getting that change to fit in properly will extend the jungle, and make it even more impenetrable.
  He elegantly summed up the challenge that the tax law rewrite exercise had to tackle. The new simpler Bill at least makes it easier to see how the interactions take place. When my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to a piece of impenetrable tax law, we could see how difficult that was in reality. The praise that practitioners have heaped on the outcome of the rewrite exercise reflects the greater access to the understanding of tax law that comes from the exercise.
  118
  It is perhaps worth reflecting briefly on those who need access to the understanding of tax law, even in the context of self-assessment. Only about a third of taxpayers fill in the form. For two thirds, the tax system is on auto-pilot. For them, many of the complexities, at the moment at least, do not entertain their thoughts.
  I am delighted that the exercise has done as well as it has. I pay particular tribute to one or two people whom the Paymaster General, for understandable reasons, might not have been able to pick out. I am glad that the documents that accompany the Bill list the people who gave their time, particularly on the consultative committee. Those people are tax practitioners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) pointed out, they make an hourly charge in the commercial context. They have given their time to the exercise free of charge. By and large, they have been the ones who have ensured a good quality of drafting in the exposure drafts. They deserve parliamentarians' undying thanks for the assiduous way in which they have conducted their exercise.
  Less onerous, but nevertheless burdensome has been the work of the steering committee, of which I have been a member. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who have stuck to the task in making certain that Parliament was represented on the steering committee. I also pay tribute to Neil Munro of the Inland Revenue, who has given dynamic leadership to the tax law rewrite exercise. Without that, there would not have been the progress to date.
  Mention has also been made of parliamentary counsel, who are often the unseen and unsung heroes of our proceedings. It is right, particularly in relation to this Bill—if it is not invidious to do so—to highlight the work of Heather Cauldwell. She has worked 70, 80 and sometimes even 90 hours a week to ensure that the law is properly drafted. That is no mean feat, and she and the other parliamentary counsel who have been working on the Bill should be thanked for all their efforts. Although those on the Treasury Bench have occasionally been a little naughty by hijacking parliamentary counsel for pressing work on the Finance Bill itself, I think that the message of permanency has been made clear in the Bill's drafting.
  As I said, one of the results of the exercise is the identification of the need to go further. In his 1998 stocktake report, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe, commenting to the Chancellor, said:
  Many people would like the project to go further towards simplification of the underlying tax policy. The process of rewriting the legislation is highlighting many archaic or cumbersome aspects of the tax code which they believe could be improved.
  Sadly, as the Paymaster General said, the exercise in which we are now engaged—to approve the Bill's Second Reading—prevents us from addressing some of those issues. However, perhaps the greater transparency and clarity emerging from the exercise will trigger a future debate.
  The exercise has also been very educational even for people in the Revenue. As I said, it is not often that they have the opportunity of such an overview of legislation and to consider the interactions that that legislation involves. I very much hope that the good ideas resulting from the exercise will find their way into legislation.

  119
  In fairness, the Paymaster General may not have had time to mention that the previous Finance Bill made it possible to incorporate into this Bill a change in the law to revise the legislation on car-pooling arrangements. I congratulate the Treasury on using the Finance Bill in that way. I encourage the Treasury, when there are good ideas, to work with the rewrite committee in using future Finance Bills—perhaps creatively—to enhance further the operation of our tax law. Whatever our views on the freestanding tonnage tax—which is not dealt with in this Bill—it demonstrates that lessons learned in drafting can be applied to forthcoming legislation. Clearly, the Inland Revenue and the Treasury are learning a great deal from the exercise.
  I draw the House's attention to some very interesting and sage words in the minute of the 25th steering committee of the tax law rewrite exercise. Although the comment was on an employment income exposure draft, it very clearly demonstrates the challenge that the exercise has had to face and will have to face. The minute states:
  The team had found the legislation particularly difficult to rewrite because of its complexity. There were many issues to unravel, many connections between provisions to untangle and a number of fictions and hypotheses to sort out. A good example was section 198, which seems relatively uncomplicated in itself but is used by other provisions in a variety of ways. Sections 156(8), 193(3), 193(7) and 200A all latch on to the rules in section 198 in different ways.
  It goes on to say:
  What works well in one respect does not work well in another. But the current arrangement is seen as the best compromise.
  I am sure that the same analysis occurred to those who wrote the Bill. It demonstrates the sheer complexity of the exercise.
  Much mention has been made of the explanatory notes. I congratulate those who wrote them. Even though the new legislation is drafted in plain English, it is useful to have such an overview, which might be called the Ordnance Survey equivalent of tax law. However, I ask hon. Members to scan page 7 of the notes and to consider the variety of matters with which capital allowances must deal: plant and machinery, industrial buildings, agricultural buildings, mineral extraction, research and development, know-how, patents, dredging, assured tenancy and contributions. There are also supplementary provisions. At some stage, it must have been argued that the inclusion of each of those items in capital allowances legislation is vital, even though each is highly complex.
  One of my wishes on the explanatory notes would be to include in the Bill the excellent summary diagram on pools on page 18, which provides for the first time a visual means of exploring the meaning of a Bill. I think that Revenue officials must have remembered from my time in the Treasury my Roland Emmett-type diagrams, which tried to follow the flow of money as it was influenced and affected by different elements of legislation. The table on page 18 of the explanatory notes, which is delineated as figure 1, has remarkable clarity and much greater understanding. It is an excellent means of providing an overview of how something works. One of the great advantages of the Bill as redrafted is the elegant explanations at the start of clauses, which say in plain terms to whom they apply. If illustrations such as the diagram on page 18 could also be included in legislation, we would go a long way towards further improving clarity and understanding in these matters.
  120
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, the list of chapters almost resembles an index to the Bill. I refer anybody who wants to understand the Bill's full import to the arrangement of chapter headings in the Capital Allowances Act 1990, which it replaces. Part I of the Bill has an introduction and a logical exposition of its contents that leaves one in no doubt of what is involved. However, the existing legislation is arranged in a topsy-turvy way, with no logic whatever. That element of clarity in the Bill is much to be commended.
  I undertook to compare and contrast the new with the old. [Interruption.] The Paymaster General laughs, probably because six has tried the same exercise.
  Dawn Primarolo: I apologise for laughing. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks reminded me of the large number of Finance Bill Standing Committees on which we have served together. In those Committees, he usually began his sentences with the words "compare and contrast".
  Mr. Jack: I am delighted that my words have seared their way into the Paymaster General's mind. I hope that my proposals about lessons arising from the exercise will have a similar effect.
  Interestingly, section 23 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 bears the title "Information relating to first-year allowances". The fin t thing that one reads about first-year allowances is the following statement:
  A claim … for a first year allowance in respect of expenditure to which 22(4)(c) applies … shall be accompanied by a certificate …
  I shall not bore the House by reading out the rest of that opaque legislation paragraph by paragraph, but I cite it to contrast it with the start of first-year allowances in the Bill, in which clause 52 states, straightforwardly:
  A person is entitled to a first-year allowance in respect of first-year qualifying expenditure: …
  and goes on to give details of the circumstances in which the allowances are applicable. Then, for the first time that I can remember, there follows a clear table laying out the types of expenditure and the allowances for which they qualify. The introductory section then provides an example of the signpost that the hon. Lady mentioned that points people to other parts of the Bill in which further information can be found. This is a remarkable change.
  This is the only part of the Bill that I could find in which one could try to contrast the new with the old, but I would commend that exercise as a way of reassuring my right hon. and hon. Friends who have expressed concern about, for example, the nature of what constitutes a minor change, and about what the Bill seeks to do. Once one has looked at the before-and-after effect, one understands that minor changes have had to be made to enable this clearer exposition of the existing fundamental tax code to take place. If one overlays that with the appropriate incorporation of the extra statutory concessions, one begins to understand what the exercise is about.
  It is also worth looking at the second document that the Paymaster General mentioned: the explanatory note annexes. She prayed in aid the document to illustrate where definitional changes had been made. I would like to look at one or two of those definitional changes, as they illustrate some of the problems with which the Bill has had to grapple.

  121
  When I was in the Treasury, I had a big argument with the Inland Revenue over a provision about capital allowances on caravans. One would not have believed the number of definitions in law of a caravan. You and I, Mr. Speaker, would know what a caravan was if we were sitting behind one in a traffic queue. However, a separate piece of law that exists for council tax purposes defines a caravan, and there are two definitions of them in the tax code: caravans on touring caravan sites, and caravans of a more fixed nature. In terms of capital allowance legislation, those definitions had different effects until I managed to persuade officials that they described one and the same thing.
  The new definition on page 3 of the explanatory notes annexes states:
  The main significance of the extended definition in the present context is that it includes structures that can be moved only by being put on trailers.
  That is a great breakthrough in the definition of a caravan, but it also illustrates the problem of tax law having to cater for special circumstances, which someone, at some time, thought was a good idea in terms of protecting tax expenditure or revenue in the context of capital allowances. This exercise, as illustrated by the Bill, will highlight the anomalies, and the need to do something about them will present considerable challenges to the Government.
  Annexe 2 on page 73 of the same document highlights one of the challenges that has had to be met in terms of the language of the Bill. As the Paymaster General mentioned, clause 3(1) provides that
  No allowance is to be made under this Act unless a claim for it is made.
  It is intriguing to think about the legal cases that lie behind the decisions about the terms on which capital allowances can be claimed. The explanatory notes say:
  It was argued by the Inland Revenue that, because trading expenses are automatically deductible in computing trading profits, the effect of making a capital allowance a trading expense was to obviate the need for the allowance to be claimed and to make it automatically deductible.
  Somebody, in the case of Elliss v. BP Oil Northern Ireland Refinery Ltd., had wanted to determine in law when a claim could be made. That is one of the real difficulties of our tax code, and although the Bill writes the tax law in clearer language, it will not stop people questioning exactly what the words mean.
  In tax law we are dealing not with precise scientific formulae but with words capable of interpretation. Page 75 of the explanatory notes, which is about clause 5, gives us another example on the same theme of the ownership of an asset. Obviously, the determination of when a capital allowance can be claimed is related to when someone acquired the asset—and again, there is some interesting case law that determines when ownership occurs. Ownership could begin on the day when someone bought an asset at auction, or it could begin when it was delivered to his premises. I shall not detain the House with a detailed exposition—
  Mr. Ruffley: Go on.
  Mr. Jack: No, I shall resist my hon. Friend's encouragement.
  122
  I put those two examples on the record because they illustrate some of the real problems that arise when people say that we should have less complex tax law. Such people will criticise the Bill and say, "It doesn't look any less complex to me; it's simply that now I can understand the complexity better." However, when we realise that people go to law over questions of precise timing, and exactly when an asset becomes owned, we understand why our tax law is complex. As the Paymaster General said, £18.8 billion in tax is forgone as a result of the allowances that are at stake, so it is not surprising that it is necessary to ensure that the law is tightly drafted.
  I have one or two criticisms of the layout of the Bill. I have talked to tax practitioners, and I know that there was real disappointment that three-part numbering could not have been incorporated. When the legislation was launched, especially in its exposure draft stage, all the practitioners commented on how much clearer things were with three-part numbering. In fairness to the Paymaster General, she supported that proposal—I hope that I have not embarrassed her by revealing that in public.
  Sadly, upon immediate inspection, the present version of the Bill looks exactly like any other piece of legislation. Three-part numbering, which would have enabled practitioners more readily to identify its component parts, was denied the light of day because, we were told, the law had to be written so as to be compliant with everything else, not with the new form of numbering. A real opportunity has been missed to add to the clarity of the exercise.
  I have already mentioned the idea of incorporating a table, and that leads me to make the point that, in commenting on its overall layout, some practitioners have said that the Bill should have had better spacing and a more modern look. That would have been an advantage, especially bearing in mind the unique nature of what we are doing here. Perhaps, in time, it will be possible for us to consider that proposal. I hope that the layout will be reconsidered, which would not detract from the content of the Bill.
  Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, gave us proper counsel about not straying too far into policy issues. I shall respect his ruling entirely—save to say that I have been thinking about some of the individual capital allowances mentioned in the Bill, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced some interesting analysis that makes us question the real-world effectiveness of some of the measures, however transparently they are drafted. Therefore, I—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.

  Capital Allowances Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Tax Simplification (Joint Committee), Tax Simplification. Human Rights (Joint Committee) and Human Rights and proceedings on the Capital Allowances Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 8.

    Division No. 52

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cotter, Brian

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainger, Nick

    Crausby, David

    Allan, Richard

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Allen, Graham

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cummings, John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Ashton, Joe

    Dalyell, Tam

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Darvill, Keith

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Dawson, Hilton

    Banks, Tony

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Barnes, Harry

    Denham, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Dismore, Andrew

    Battle, John

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bayley, Hugh

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Beard, Nigel

    Doran, Frank

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Dowd, Jim

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Drew, David

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Benton, Joe

    Efford, Clive

    Berry, Roger

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Best, Harold

    Etherington, Bill

    Betts, Clive

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Blackman, Liz

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Fisher, Mark

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flynn, Paul

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foulkes, George

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gapes, Mike

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Browne, Desmond

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gidley, Sandra

    Burden, Richard

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burgon, Colin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Burnett, John

    Goggins, Paul

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Golding, Mrs Lin

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Hain, Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hanson, David

    Cann, Jamie

    Harvey, Nick

    Casale, Roger

    Healey, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hendrick, Mark

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Chaytor, David

    Hill, Keith

    Clapham, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hoey, Kate

    Home Robertson, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hope, Phil

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hurst, Alan

    Colman, Tony

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Connarty, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jamieson, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Corston, Jean

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    124

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Joyce, Eric

    Purchase, Ken

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Rammell, Bill

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Rapson, Syd

    Kemp, Fraser

    Raynsford, Nick

    Khabra, Piara S

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rendel, David

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Laxton, Bob

    Rooney, Terry

    Lepper, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Roy, Frank

    Levitt, Tom

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Linton, Martin

    Salter, Martin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Lock, David

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Love, Andrew

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Singh, Marsha

    McDonnell, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McNamara, Kevin

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

    McNulty, Tony

    Snape, Peter

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Soley, Clive

    McWalter, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Stringer, Graham

    Merron, Gillian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Stunell, Andrew

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Timms, Stephen

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

    Tipping, Paddy

    Todd, Mark

    Mountford, Kali

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Mudie, George

    Touhig, Don

    Mullin, Chris

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Tyler, Paul

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Tynan, Bill

    Pearson, Ian

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pike, Peter L

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pollard, Kerry

    Watts, David

    Pond, Chris

    Webb, Steve

    Pope, Greg

    White, Brian

    Pound, Stephen

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    125

    Wills, Phil

    Wyatt, Derek

    Winnick, David

    Woolas, Phil

    Worthington, Tony

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wray, James

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    NOES

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Ruffley, David

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. Eric Forth and

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Mr. Christopher Chope.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    10.13 pm
    Mr. Jack: Before the Division, I was referring to the complexity of the legislation. For the record, I want to make an observation on chapter 10, which deals with long-life assets. I am delighted that it retains the exceptions from long-life asset expenditure. They include railway assets, which reflect the proper assistance that the previous Administration gave in the capital allowance regime to encouraging investment in railways.
    The privatisation of the railways is sometimes criticised, especially in current circumstances. Certainly in tax terms, the retention of those exceptions in the rewrite Bill is important. However, the fact that there are exceptions, even from something as straightforward as differentiating long-term from short-term life assets, again illustrates the complexity of tax legislation. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can anticipate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to say. Hon. Members must be quiet in the Chamber.
    Mr. Jack: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
    One of the most interesting observations in the debate was made in a commentary by an outside body. It is interesting to carry out on the Bill the, benchmark exercise occasioned by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in its publication on a better tax system, in which it identified 10 tenets of taxation. The tax system should, for example, be statutory, certain, simple and easy to collect and to calculate. Certainly, the Bill is statutory. Greater certainty is introduced by the improved language. However, the Bill begins to fail on the question of simplicity because, as I have already demonstrated, it contains complexities re-enacted in plainer language. Will the Bill make tax easier to collect and calculate? It will probably be easier for people to calculate their tax position, but the Bill does not deal with collection.
    The fifth tenet is that tax law should be properly targeted. That goes beyond the terms of this debate.
    Sixthly, it should be constant, and changes to the underlying rules should be kept to a minimum. In rewritten legislation, the changes are as defined by the
    126
    Paymaster General. However, the greater transparency of the rewritten legislation shows that many changes and exceptions have been built into the law.
    Another interesting tenet is that legislation should be subject to proper consultation. On that point, the rewritten legislation scores very highly. That raises an interesting point for the future of our tax system. Many have argued that there should be a separation of the mechanics of the tax system and the more contentious legislation on new tax policy introduced in the Budget. The exercise that accompanied the new Bill, which involved a great deal of consultation with practitioners, has shown how high-quality tax legislation can be produced as a result of the consultative process. The lesson for the Treasury is that, in tax management Acts, wherever possible, more consultation should be the order of the day.
    The eighth tenet is that tax rules should be regularly reviewed. I shall say more about that, and about other lessons that have been learned from the rewrite exercise, in my concluding remarks.
    The ninth tenet is that tax law should be fair and reasonable. I shall leave others to comment on whether the Bill meets those conditions.
    The final tenet is that tax law should be competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South touched on that earlier, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether there would be any saving to business as a result of the rewritten legislation. The greatest potential for progress in that respect is that the Bill teases out those parts of the tax code—in this context, those on capital allowances—which may be causing business problems. For example, on the 100 per cent. allowance on investment in films there is a question whether the investment is good. I trespass no further than that, except to say that the clarity with which the Bill is written will itself be the precursor for greater debate on issues such as competitiveness and the cost of administering the tax.
    What of the future? What does the Bill offer?
    Mr. Forth: Not a lot.
    Mr. Jack: I ever so slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend because the Bill will have certain results.
    The word "simplification" is used in the context of both the proposed procedures and the Bill, but constraints on rewrite legislation have made taking out some of the complexity difficult to achieve. Let us consider the overall debate on simple tax. My right hon. and hon. Friends will remember Nigel Forman, the former Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who did much work on the concept of flat tax—a simple, no-allowances based system, with a single rate of tax.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps unintentionally, he is going wider than the content of the Bill.
    Mr. Jack: I entirely respect your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to illustrate that the holy grail of simplification is easily stated, as it has been by former Members, but much more difficult to achieve. The minutes of the steering committee, the work of the consultative committee, which gave rise to the Bill, and the Hardman lectures commenting on the matter, to which

    127
    my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred, take us to the heart of the matter of how we might achieve greater simplification.
    My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe said that part of the problem, which is reflected in the Bill, is that the provisional collection of taxes legislation almost gives the Treasury carte blanche to introduce yet more change every year. Part of my right hon. and noble Friend's recipe to try to simplify matters was to desist from that practice.
    If we are to learn something from the exercise, we should establish a committee—preferably a parliamentary committee, but involving outside advice—to re-examine every element of tax law, questioning, for example, whether we need the provisions in the rewritten Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is going beyond the scope of the debate.
    Mr. Jack: I understand your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Mr. Speaker. Forgive me for thinking of you as you were and not as you are. Old practices should not die hard in this place. I mentioned the point because the Paymaster General referred to the exercise in introducing the Bill. Some of the lessons that we should learn from that merit some mention—
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Passing reference is one thing, but detail is another. He has made passing reference to the matter. Perhaps now he can move to something else.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. The last thing that I would want to do is fall foul of your advice. I conclude my en passant reference by saying that the Bill should be followed up by the Treasury forming a committee to consider in a wider context the fruits of such labour. That would benefit all those who have supported the exercise so fully, as both Front-Bench spokesmen said.
    Without doubt, the Bill brings transparency and clarity to capital allowances. It should command the support of everyone in the House. I look forward to consideration of it in the Joint Committee. Adequate signposting in the explanatory notes of the changes should answer some of the points about the difference between major and minor changes. In its first line, the Bill states clearly that the measure deals with "minor changes". After textual analysis of some of its parts, I would say that it has achieved that. However, it is difficult directly to compare the old and the new, because the new is radically different. The exercise deserves our support as a signpost for the way in which tax law should in future be written. The Bill will have my support.
    10.25 pm
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I welcome the fact that the first tax simplification Bill deals with the subject of capital allowances. For me—as, I suspect, for other hon. Members who entered the House at the same time as I did—it has a nostalgic feel about it.
    128
    In 1983, when I was first elected to Parliament, simplification of the tax system was in vogue, and capital allowances were the first in the proposed list of candidates for simplification. I remember when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Lawson of Blaby, summoned a meeting of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and other ambitious young men and women to take their views on what he should include in his forthcoming Budget, which was the first of a new Parliament. I think that the first person to speak was Tim Smith, who proposed that we should go for a tax-simplifying Budget, central to which would be the simplification of capital allowances. It is fascinating to recall that everyone at that private meeting agreed with him—all concurred that that was the way to reduce tax rates by spreading the burden of tax more widely.
    I confess to being the only person who demurred: for what it was worth, I argued that changes so radical should be introduced to the tax system only if there were substantial benefits, and preferably when one was reducing the overall burden of tax, rather than merely shifting it from one set of taxpayers or from one activity to another, which was all that would have been achieved by the changes supported by Tim Smith and the others. I argued that those changes would merely reduce the burden on some taxpayers, who would never thank the Chancellor—no one is ever grateful in this life—and increase it on others, who would resent the Chancellor for making the changes.
    The consequence of my arguments was that, shortly thereafter, I was made the Chancellor's Parliamentary Private Secretary. That might have been because he liked those who were sufficiently strong-minded to disagree with him, or because, he wanted to shut me up—I have never bothered to ask. However, it meant that I worked with him as his humble bag carrier and ears and eyes around the House. I sat alongside him on the Committee on the Finance Bill in which he carried through the reforms of the capital allowances system in his simplifying Budget, which I think was a couple of Budgets later.
    The paradox facing the House today is that the first tax simplification Bill introduced under the new process is to simplify the very element of the tax system that was previously simplified back in 1968 under the radical reforms introduced by the then Chancellor. My question is, in what sense does the Bill further simplify our existing tax system? Several different senses of the word "simplification" can be applied. The first is to make the system shorter, terser and more succinct, but I have to say that the Bill does not qualify as a short, terse and succinct statement of the tax system as it applies to the single element of expenditure—capital expenditure—to which it is addressed. It is 334 pages long, not counting the accompanying notes, which are almost as long, or the annexe explaining how it relates to existing tax law. So it is not a shortened tax Bill.
    The second sense of simplification is clarification and moving towards plain English, which is welcome. I have always been an advocate of legislation in plain English, wherever possible. That is applied to a much greater extent in the United States and some other Anglo-Saxon countries. Of course, that does not involve any change in the incidence of taxation and who pays tax. Although the Bill is not, as the Paymaster General said, exclusively about moving to plainer English, it is undoubtedly a

    129
    clearer statement of the law than we have had in the past, and is therefore welcome. Opening it at random, the first clause I came to was clause 344, which states:
    A highway concession in respect of a road is to be treated as extended if—

    (a) the person entitled to the concession takes up a renewed concession in respect of the whole or a part of the road, or

    (b) that person or a person connected with him takes up a new concession in respect of—

    (i) the whole or a part of the road, or

    (ii) a road that includes the whole or a part of the road.

    I do not query the fact that that is simpler than that which may have gone before. However, it is certainly difficult for a person of limited mental capacity such as myself to understand offhand. When I was a Minister, I had a rule that I would not read any submission from any official that contained a sentence with more than four lines. That clause is a single sentence of six lines. I am sorry that the Government do not go in for greater abbreviation of sentences in the procedure.
    The third sense in which simplification is involved in the process concerns consolidation: bringing together provisions from a variety of different. Finance Acts so that it is easier for people to find their way round them. That had to be done, and it is a great and welcome advance. Of course, it means that we will need to go through the same process again when future changes are made, to consolidate those in the Bill. Simplification also makes the layout of the Bill more accessible, although, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I regret that the Government have not adopted the simpler numbering system, which the experts thought would make it far easier to keep track of the law and future changes in it.
    Mr. Chope: The Bill now contains 76 chapters, which are not numbered in numerical order. It is therefore not possible to refer to a particular chapter without specifying the part of the Bill to which it refers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is confusing for people who read books and are used to chapters that start at number one and go to the end? Will he explain why the committee rejected that proposal?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Of course, I cannot answer on behalf of the Government. We shall have to wait for the winding-up speeches—which, I am sure, will be, fairly soon—for an explanation.
    Will the Minister say whether it will be possible, under the procedures under which the Bill will be considered, for us to amend the Bill to include a different numbering system? Could we improve it as many experts outside the House want by introducing that numbering system and, if so, how would that be achieved? Although I suspect that it could well involve a complex set of amendments, that process would be worth while given that the Government have failed to undertake it. Obviously, the House would want to embark on it only if it were not persuaded by the Government that there were sensible reasons for not going down that route.
    Mr. Jack: To pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made, the committee did not reject three-part numbering. The system
    130
    of producing our legislation did not enable it to be introduced. I refer my right hon. Friend to the final exposure draft of the new Bill, which is all laid out in three-part numbering.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that illumination of the genesis of the Bill. It is all the sadder, therefore, if the Bill was laid out in such a way that the experts outside, who will have to use it, found helpful, but subsequently remitted. I cannot understand why it is beyond the capacity of the House to insist that its legislation be numbered in a way that is convenient for the companies and tax experts outside this place endeavouring to comply with tax law.
    The fourth sense of simplification is tidying up and sanding down rough edges. As I understood the Paymaster General, the measure has been introduced in that sense, which means that there can be slight changes in the incidence of taxation. Some people will pay more tax than previously and others less, but, as she said, the changes will be only minor and it is up to the House to decide what is minor and acceptable as minor in terms of the number of people affected and the change in the tax burden of any of those individuals or companies.
    Finally, there is simplification in the sense of a change in the underlying tax structure to make that simpler. That, of course, will affect the incidence of taxation and it goes beyond what the Bill seeks to achieve and what the procedure under which it is being considered enables us to do. In deciding whether to give the Bill a Second Reading, we must decide whether the simplification that it incorporates, which involves the second, third and fourth senses of that word, is adequate or whether we should not bother to go down such a route because it would be more desirable to simplify either by making the Bill much briefer, terser and more succinct or, in the final sense, by changing the underlying tax structure so that it is easier for everybody to deal with.
    Given that many individuals outside the House took part in the thorough consultation—the Minister paid tribute to the time and effort that outsiders have devoted to trying to complete the process of simplification—and draftsmen and people of great skill were involved in drawing up the Bill, we have to ask ourselves why, after all that effort, we have been left with such a hugely complex measure of 334 pages. The reason is twofold. The real world is complex. A lot of people assume that all the complexities in taxation result from the imagination of the House or our frequent returns to a particular subject, but, even if one wants matters to be simple, the real world is complex.
    When I was Financial Secretary or slightly before—none the less, at some stage in my long and varied career at the Treasury—I said to officials, "Why can't we have a simple tax system of one tax rate, apply that to people's incomes less their expenditure and that's it? We need just a few clauses." The officials looked at me as they had obviously looked at countless generations of Financial Secretaries and Economic Secretaries who had made the same naive points and said, "Minister, how do you define income?" Of course that raises the question whether income includes gambling income, lottery income, benefit income, gifts or rebates and refunds. What moneys should be included? That simple question leads to immense complexity of definition.

    131
    I see you looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as if I am about to elaborate. Of course, I am not. I merely point out that, whatever part of the tax system we try to define, contact with the real world is likely to lead to complexities. We in the House cannot avoid that, but we can add layers to the complexity of the real world by imposing further necessary or unnecessary complexities. Above all, if policy pursues several objectives, it will find itself making several distinctions. Every time we make a distinction, we come up against the complexities in the real world and add a few dozen clauses to our Bill.
    Much of that accounts for the complexity of legislation in this area, which the draftsmen have done their best to smooth down, but they cannot eliminate it if they retain the underlying conflicting and varied objectives that are incorporated in legislation on capital allowances.
    It is only worth going through the process that is before us and putting the Bill on the statute book, in what may be a mildly amended form after its consideration in Committee, if there is no hope of a more radical simplification of the capital allowance structure.
    Even minor simplifications as are incorporated in the Bill have costs. Practitioners will find the new system easier to use in the long run, but they will have to become familiar with it first. They will begin by being familiar with the present unnecessarily complicated legislation. Costs will be incurred in going through new legislation, repulping advisory books and bringing handbooks up to date, for example, to ensure that they deal with the proposed legislation.
    It is worth doing that for the comparatively minor gains in terms of the simplicity of tax law that the Bill incorporates only if it is not possible to move more radically into a simplification of the entire structure of capital allowances.
    The present system, which is incorporated in the Bill, is in large measure the system as simplified by Lord Lawson of Blaby when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He sought through a series of reforms to introduce lower tax rates by extending the tax base by simplifying and eliminating where possible, or reducing the value of, allowances of all sorts. In his first endeavour to deal with capital allowances—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill's purpose is to restate the law relating to capital allowances with minor changes. It is not a vehicle to debate policy on capital allowances, except the extent to which the Bill fulfils the purpose set out in its title.
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    My argument is whether it is worth voting yes or no on that issue. We should vote yes only if there is not a better alternative. We must ascertain whether the structure of the present tax system allows for an alternative. Many would say that there is no possibility of a better alternative and we should vote for the Bill as it stands, but I would argue that there is scope. This is one of the few areas of the tax system where a proposal could sensibly be put forward for radical simplification, which would render the Bill unnecessary.
    132
    When the then Chancellor of the Exchequer created the present system in the 1980s, he put the tax treatment of capital allowances in line with what company accounting systems do for capital expenditures—or at least more in line than they had been initially. When he did so, it was difficult for anyone to argue against taking that course. If companies calculate their profits, which they declare in their annual reports, by subtracting depreciation, whatever it is, and an eighth of their capital expenditure on a particular asset each year from their revenues, surely it is reasonable for the tax man to calculate the profits liable to tax on the same basis. That was the argument then, and it is, in effect, the argument incorporated in the Bill.
    Companies had no argument against that. They were left speechless when the Chancellor came up with the proposal, even though many of them that had previously enjoyed 100 per cent. capital allowances did not like it. Opposition was rather muted at that time to the changes which we are, in effect, enshrining again in this legislation.
    However, there was an alternative answer to that rhetorical question. When companies report in their accounts to their shareholders, they try to provide a measure against which their performance in managing their assets can be judged. They spread their expenditures on their assets over the life of those assets, so that they can be judged on how well they are extracting profit from them, and so that there are no ups and downs in the reported profits, according to the years in which assets were purchased.
    Taxes, however, should reflect a company's ability to pay tax. That depends how much money it has coming in, as opposed to how much money it has going out. Taxes should reflect the tax flow of the company, rather than how it reports for the purposes of assessing how efficiently it is managing its assets. When a company invests in assets, it temporarily has less money. Subsequently, when the assets generate revenues, the company has more money to pay tax, and it is reasonable to tax it accordingly.
    If we were to return to a cashflow basis of assessing the taxation of companies, that would remove the need for many of the distinctions that are incorporated in, and account for, page upon page of the Bill. Yet that is how all other items of expenditure are assessed and treated for tax purposes. We do not think that there is anything anomalous about a 100 per cent. allowance—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has decided that the Bill should be proceeded with as a tax simplification Bill. The House is bound by that procedure, the consequence of which is that the House must consider the Bill, the limited purpose of which the House is well aware. The wider considerations of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks relate to matters beyond the limited purpose of the Bill. I advise him now to return to that limited purpose.
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not suggest that we could or should distort the procedures under which we are operating to bring at out greater changes which I may think desirable and the House may think desirable, but which we cannot incorporate in the Bill.

    133
    Before we decide to give our assent to the Bill under those procedures, we should be aware that all the complexities that exist in it—
    Mr. Mike Hall: That has been ruled out of order.
    Mr. Lilley: I am speaking rather differently from the way in which I was speaking previously.
    I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am responding to a sedentary intervention from the usually speechless Whip, who thought that I was reverting to proposals to introduce a cashflow system of treatment of capital allowances. I have moved on from that point.
    Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Is it in order that he should continually be interrupted by sedentary interventions, which are diverting him from his clarity and train of thought?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already called the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) to order, and suggested to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) that he limit his remarks to the purpose of the debate.
    Mr. Lilley: We must recognise that chapter after chapter of the Bill—admirable though it is for the clarity of its language and the consolidation of the previous legislation, which was scattered among various Finance Bills—exist to make distinctions between buildings and plant and machinery, between software and hardware, between cars and other vehicles, between short and long-life assets, between hired, leased and bought assets, and between ships and offshore facilities. Those distinctions, which require complex legislation, are the result of policy decisions to discriminate between different classes of assets. If we go ahead with this measure, we shall enshrine those distinctions and discriminations, albeit in a clearer and more lucid form. Alternatively, we could abolish them and save ourselves the trouble of an unnecessary Bill. That would save the tax profession from having to adapt to a Bill that will subsequently be overtaken by further Bills that will render it unnecessary.
    We must recognise that all attempts to simplify legislation, of which this measure is a laudable example, are constrained or affected by one of the Lawson's laws of taxation. The more onerous the burden of tax, the more complexities have to be incorporated in the legislation. The more onerous the burden, the more necessary it is to have loopholes and easements where the shoe pinches too tightly, and the greater the political pressures to incorporate special concessions for the more powerful interest groups that are affected by the burden of tax.
    If our aim is genuine simplification, we should not only rewrite legislation, but get the burden of tax down. If we reduce the burden of tax and the rates of tax—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Yet again I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the limits to the debate. It is not about taxation policy.
    Mr. Lilley: I am particularly grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it enables me to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion, as I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily.
    Mr. Forth: There are plenty more of us still to come.
    Mr. Lilley: I want to hear what other Members have to say.
    The measure is good as far as it goes, but it will impose costs on people who will have to adapt to it. It is a missed opportunity for the Government to move towards simpler taxation. They will get simpler taxation only if they reduce the tax burden. Sadly, we shall not get that from the Labour party. We shall have to wait for a general election, a change of Government and a change of philosophy. We shall then get simpler taxation.
    Mr. McWalter: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that many of his assertions are deeply contestable. We could have a tax rate of 90p in the pound, which would involve just one side of A4 paper.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he, too, should confine his remarks to the subject of the debate.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall make my response to the hon. Gentleman doubly brief. I am delighted to contest a point with him—when he stood against me he lost. We could have a 90 per cent. rate, but the only time we did so was for the petroleum revenue tax. We only have to consider how complex that was to realise the validity of the point that I was making in my closing remarks.
    I now happily hand over the baton to other hon. Members to elucidate the importance of the Bill.
    10.54 pm
    Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): I thought that I would welcome large chunks of the Bill, but I have had the great benefit—nay privilege—of listening to important and powerful contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). They said that we were being invited to believe that there could be a rewrite project that would merely simplify existing primary legislation, such that no substantive change to that existing law would take place in the process of the rewrite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, combining simplification with not changing substantive tax law might be a trick that could not be achieved. The more we meditate on that conundrum, the more we recognise the potential inadequacies of the Bill.
    I have some experience of the thought processes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was decided to proceed with the rewrite—and, indeed, of the thought processes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I had the honour of being a special adviser to the Treasury in 1995–96. We also benefited from the wisdom and sage advice of the tax specialist adviser, Mr. Edward Troup, now renowned in his new incarnation as a tax commentator and practitioner of great distinction with Messrs Simmons and Simmons in the City of London.

    When the decision was made formally in December 1996 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, following the Inland Revenue's report "The Path to Tax Simplification", published in December

    135
    1995, the feeling was that we wanted shorter, nimbler drafting. We wanted to deregulate the tax regime in so far as it related to all types to taxation, but particularly as it related to capital allowance taxation.
    The decision to proceed with the rewrite was, I think, a great tribute to the deregulatory instincts of the then Chancellor, his Ministers and, indeed, every other member of the Government. I well remember the objectives of the rewrite that has resulted in this Bill. The aim was to achieve a more logical structure in rewritten tax legislation, involving shorter sentences, briefer, more lucid definitions—indeed, better definitions—and more modern language.
    Mr. Redwood: Ah! Modernisation.
    Mr. Ruffley: I fancy that hints of new Labour lay behind that sedentary intervention, but there is nothing wrong with modernisation in its proper context. I trust that, when my right hon. and learned Friend decided to modernise language via the tax rewrite project, he used the term "modernisation" in the best, Conservative sense, and not in the degraded sense in which Labour Members choose to use it.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend brings considerable interest and expertise to the debate, knowing the attitude of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he initiated the process. Was our right hon. and learned Friend saying at that stage that he hoped that 903 pages of legislation, annexes and explanatory notes would result, just for the purpose of capital allowances? Does my hon. Friend think that that is the kind of simplification and condensation that he had in mind, or would he have been a little disappointed that we have 903 pages before us now?
    Mr. Ruffley: I have always hesitated to speak for my right hon. and learned Friend before consulting him first, but I venture to suggest that my right hon. Friend is right in surmising that he would be gravely disappointed at the outcome of the rewrite project that he set in train in December 1996, which has resulted in the considerable weight and density of documentation with which we are dealing now.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe would be surprised that the proposition to which we are invited to assent is that the tax rewrite project could indeed result in changes, albeit minor, to the substantive effect of pre-existing tax legislation. We have already had an extensive debate about the meaning of a minor change, but, so far as I am aware, what was not in the contemplation of Ministers in 1996 was that the tax rewrite project could make substantive changes to pre-existing tax law. Therefore, I am greatly surprised—I put it no higher than that—that the Bill purports to permit exactly that: substantive changes to pre-existing primary tax legislation.
    The Bill relates merely to capital allowances, but we have various treats in store. We have already been advised that the tax rewrite project will begin with the Bill, but it is but part of a suite, if you will, of tax rewrite Bills. We are led to believe that there will be a first income tax
    136
    Bill, which I am told will come on stream at the end of 2002, relating to employment income and possibly social security income and pension income; and a second income tax Bill, which will come on stream at the end of 2003, relating to trading income, property income, savings and investment income. They will all be subject to the same terms of the rewrite. Those terms will be arbitrated over and scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills, where—I am sorry to have to report it again—the scrutiny will be to see whether each tax simplification Bill
    preserves the effect of the existing law,
    with the killer words
    subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
    There we have it. There we have the concern, brilliantly and powerfully exposed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for Bromley and Chislehurst. I do not believe that, in this debate, we have had an adequate reply to the concern expressed in relation to that point.
    I return to the original purpose of the tax rewrite project, which was initiated in December 1996. The ambition of the project was brilliantly and amusingly summed up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe in his Budget speech. He referred to it as a project that was
    as ambitious as translating the whole of "War and Peace" into lucid Swahili. In fact, it is more ambitious … "War and Peace" is only 1,500 pages long. Inland Revenue tax law is 6,000 pages long and was not written by a Tolstoy. —[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 170.]
    That was an elegant and lucid description of the scale and magnitude of the ambition behind the tax rewrite project—an ambition that has been sadly degraded by the Bill.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude during his introductory remarks, but he should confine his remarks to the Bill and, as I have stated on more than one occasion, to its very narrow purpose.
    Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that typically helpful guidance.
    The need for a tax rewrite in capital allowances was first flagged up in a very important article in the 11 August 1986 edition of the Financial Times. That report drew attention to the provisions of the Finance Act 1986 on capital allowances—which are the subject of the Bill—and to what was regarded as vitriolic comment from accountants and solicitors, who were irritated by the 1986 Act's length and some of its capital allowances provisions.
    The newspaper quoted one paragraph of schedule 13 of the 1986 Act—on capital allowances for mineral extraction, which is dealt with in the Bill—as a classic example of incomprehensible and unacceptable drafting.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret once more to have to remind the hon. Gentleman about the very narrow scope of this debate.
    Mr. Ruffley: I am most grateful for your further guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that the references to schedule 13 of the 1986 Act—which I

    137
    believe is being consolidated in the Bill—would make my previous remarks, and the ones that I was about to make, in order. If that is not so, I am sure that you will correct me once again.
    Mr. McWalter: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by asking simply whether he thinks that the Bill will simplify or further complicate the law on mineral extraction capital allowances—yes or no?
    Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, we do not know whether this consolidation measure will change the substantive law on mineral extraction and on capital allowances in relation to mineral extraction. That is very much an open question which has not been answered to my satisfaction.
    Mr. McWalter: We have had complaints about the Capital Allowances Bill annex, which is more than 200 pages and clearly specifies the Bill's very minor changes to mineral extraction capital allowances.
    Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to that point. What we cannot know, however, is whether very clever silks and lawyers, in litigation and all manner of tortuous processes, will eventually take a different view on the issues from that of the annex's drafters. I am the first to admit that, on the face of it, if we are to believe the documents with which we have been provided, the changes to the capital allowances regime for mineral extraction as outlined in the 1986 Act and consolidated in the Bill may well be minor.
    Litigation, however, is a marvellous thing. It is the glory of the English legal system and enables common law to be created in a living way. It also allows clever solicitors and barristers and their clients to test the law whenever and wherever they can. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to examine as closely as we can whether the changes are in fact minor.
    On the hon. Gentleman's reasonable point about whether the Bill simplifies the law, the measure may achieve the objective of simplifying the capital allowances regime for mineral extraction. However, to explore whether that is correct, I shall read out the non-consolidated version of the relevant provision by parliamentary draftsmen in the Finance Act 1986. That may give the House a flavour of the sheer, unacceptable complexity of the system, which the Bill tries to rectify.
    Schedule 13(12)(4) of the 1986 Act states:
    If, in a case where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10 above applies, neither sub-paragraph (1) nor sub-paragraph (2) above has effect in relation to the expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of that paragraph, then for the chargeable period related to the disposal or cessation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph, any allowance in respect of that expenditure shall be a balancing allowance.
    That is an example not of the gobbledegook that hon. Members speak, but of that that was inflicted on the House during the passage of the 1986 Act. One marvels at the way in which some of that convoluted drafting got through in the first place. The Bill tries, and may even succeed, in simplifying the capital allowances regime for mineral rights. Its provisions may therefore receive a qualified welcome.
    138
    However, I wondered whether there was a case for believing that the tax rewrite and simplification that we are considering would be more welcome as a result of self-assessment. Hon. Members may wonder about the connection between those subjects. The answer is not difficult to find. Self-assessment was announced in the March 1993 Budget by my noble Friend Lord Lamont. It was to apply in 1996–97. Self-assessment is important for tax simplification for the reasons that he gave at the time. When he was Chancellor, he argued that self-assessment should provide a reduction in bureaucracy but that, more important, it should emphasise the link between public spending and the burden—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is straying into the realms of tax policy. We are dealing with a motion on the Capital Allowances Bill.
    Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful for your unfailing assiduity in ensuring that I keep in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely attempting to show a clear link between a self-assessment regime, which requires greater transparency and simplicity to operate effectively, and the measure that we are considering. Many of my constituents are small and medium business men and women. They have occasion to calculate their tax liability because of self-assessment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that there is any relation between that and the motion. I ask the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on the motion.
    Mr. Lilley: Am I correct in suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who knows much more about self-assessment—and probably the tax system—than me, believes that individuals making their self-assessment will need to refer to the Bill to make the proper assessment? If so, wonderfully lucid though the measure is in comparison with existing law, it remains a terrifying thought that people will have to master the Bill to get their taxes right.
    Mr. Ruffley: My right hon. Friend has it. That was the point I was trying to make—inelegantly, as it turned out, because I attracted the strictures of Madam Deputy Speaker, which I did not wish to do. Those who have to pay and who must make calculations about the capital allowance regime and its availability to their businesses do, under self-assessment, have a bigger vested interest in simplified legislation on capital allowances than before. That is why the Bill is so terribly important in the context of self-assessment to so many business men and women who have to calculate their capital allowances. The Bill will not assist them.
    Dawn Primarolo: Why did the previous Government decide—I refer to the report on the legislative procedure for tax simplification Bills—that the direct tax law simplification project was to
    rewrite direct tax legislation … and to make minor changes of substance where that is required to facilitate simplification?
    The previous Government also introduced self-assessment. What point is the hon. Gentleman trying to make?
    Mr. Ruffley: The Paymaster General is being uncharacteristically obtuse. The second point is perfectly

    139
    obvious; self-assessment puts greater burdens on individual taxpayers, whether corporate or not. The Bill proposes to make life easier for them by having a simpler capital allowance regime. As to the first point, I was not a member of the last Conservative Government and I would not even venture to suggest what was going through the minds of those who were.
    Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 14.

    Division No. 53]

    [11.17 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Ainger, Nick

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Coleman, Iain

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Colman, Tony

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bailey, Adrian

    Corston, Jean

    Ballard, Jackie

    Cotter, Brian

    Banks, Tony

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Crausby, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Battle, John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cummings, John

    Beard, Nigel

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Darvill, Keith

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

    Dawson, Hilton

    Best, Harold

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, John

    Blackman, Liz

    Dobbin, Jim

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blizzard, Bob

    Doran, Frank

    Borrow, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Drew, David

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Efford, Clive

    Browne, Desmond

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Etherington, Bill

    Burden, Richard

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Burgon, Colin

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Burnett, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Flynn, Paul

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foulkes, George

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gapes, Mike

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Cann, Jamie

    Gerrard, Neil

    Casale, Roger

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gidley, Sandra

    Chapman, Ben (Wirnal S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Chaytor, David

    Godsrff, Roger

    Clapham, Michael

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hanson, David

    Clelland, David

    Harvey, Nick

    Clwyd, Ann

    Healey, John

    140

    Hendrick, Mark

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hepburn, Stephen

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Heppell, John

    Öpik, Lembit

    Hinchliffe, David

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Home Robertson, John

    Pearson, Ian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hope, Phil

    Pike, Peter L

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Pollard, Kerry

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pond, Chris

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Pound, Stephen

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hurst, Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Jamieson, David

    Rammell, Bill

    Jenkins, Brian

    Rapson, Syd

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Joyce, Eric

    Rendel, David

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Kemp, Fraser

    Rooney, Terry

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Roy, Frank

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Salter, Martin

    Laxton, Bob

    Sanders, Adrian

    Lepper, David

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Leslie, Christopher

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Levitt, Tom

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Linton, Martin

    Singh, Marsha

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lock, David

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Love, Andrew

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Soley, Clive

    McDonnell, John

    Spellar, John

    McFall, John

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    McNulty, Tony

    Stringer, Graham

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    McWalter, Tony

    Stunell, Andrew

    McWilliam, John

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Marsden, Gordon (Backpool S)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Merron, Gillian

    Timms, Stephen

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Tipping, Paddy

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Todd, Mark

    Miller, Andrew

    Touhig, Don

    Mitchell, Austin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Morley, Elliot

    Tyler, Paul

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

    Tynan, Bill

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Mountford, Kali

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Mullin, Chris

    Wareing, Robert N

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Watts, David

    141

    Webb, Steve

    Worthington, Tony

    White, Brian

    Wray, James

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Woolas, Phil

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    NOES

    Cran, James

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Day, Stephen

    Ottaway, Richard

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gray, James

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Hayes, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Mr. Christopher Chope and

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. David Ruffley.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 0.

    Division No. 54]

    [11.30 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Ainger, Nick

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clelland, David

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clwyd, Ann

    Ballard, Jackie

    Coaker, Vernon

    Banks, Tony

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Barnes, Harry

    Cohen, Harry

    Barron, Kevin

    Coleman, Iain

    Battle, John

    Colman, Tony

    Bayley, Hugh

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beard, Nigel

    Corston, Jean

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cotter, Brian

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cousins, Jim

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Crausby, David

    Benton, Joe

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Berry, Roger

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Best, Harold

    Cummings, John

    Betts, Clive

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Blackman, Liz

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Darvill, Keith

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Day, Stephen

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Denham, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Browne, Desmond

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Doran, Frank

    Burden, Richard

    Dowd, Jim

    Burgon, Colin

    Drew, David

    Burnett, John

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Efford, Clive

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Etherington, Bill

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Cann, Jamie

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Casale, Roger

    Fisher, Mark

    Cawsey, Ian

    Flynn, Paul

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chaytor, David

    Foulkes, George

    Clapham, Michael

    Gapes, Mike

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gardiner, Barry

    142

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McWalter, Tony

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Mallaber, Judy

    Gidley, Sandra

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Merron, Gillian

    Gray, James

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Grieve, Dominic

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hanson, David

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Harvey, Nick

    Morley, Elliot

    Hayes, John

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

    Healey, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mountford, Kali

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mullin, Chris

    Heppell, John

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Home Robertson, John

    Öpik, Lembit

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Hope, Phil

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Pearson, Ian

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Pike, Peter L

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pond, Chris

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Pope, Greg

    Hurst, Alan

    Pound, Stephen

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jamieson, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jenkins, Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Rammell, Bill

    Joyce, Eric

    Rapson, Syd

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Raynsford, Nick

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Rendel, David

    Kemp, Fraser

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rooney, Terry

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Roy, Frank

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ruddock, Joan

    Laxton, Bob

    Ruffley, David

    Lepper, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Levitt, Tom

    Sanders, Adrian

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    Linton, Martin

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Singh, Marsha

    Lock, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Love, Andrew

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McDonnell, John

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

    McFall, John

    Soley, Clive

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Spellar, John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    McNulty, Tony

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    143

    Stringer, Graham

    Tyler, Paul

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Tynan, Bill

    Stunell, Andrew

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wareing, Robert N

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Watts, David

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Webb, Steve

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    White, Brian

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Timms, Stephen

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Winnick, David

    Todd, Mark

    Woolas, Phil

    Touhig, Don

    Worthington, Tony

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wray, James

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    NOES

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mr. Eric Forth and

    Mr. Christopher Chope.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

    CAPITAL ALLOWANCES BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Capital Allowances Bill, it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to tax which may arise from provisions restating, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 0.

    Division No. 55]

    [11.42 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ainger, Nick

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Allen, Graham

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Browne, Desmond

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burden, Richard

    Bailey, Adrian

    Burgon, Colin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Burnett, John

    Banks, Tony

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cann, Jamie

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Casale, Roger

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cawsey, Ian

    Benton, Joe

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Berry, Roger

    Chope, Christopher

    Best, Harold

    Clapham, Michael

    Betts, Clive

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Borrow, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    144

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Clelland, David

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Kemp, Fraser

    Coaker, Vernon

    Khabra, Piara S

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cohen, Harry

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Coleman, Iain

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Colman, Tony

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Corston, Jean

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Cotter, Brian

    Laxton, Bob

    Cousins, Jim

    Lepper, David

    Crausby, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Levitt, Tom

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Cummings, John

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Darvill, Keith

    Linton, Martin

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lock, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Love, Andrew

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Denham, John

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Dobbin, Jim

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Macdonald, Calum

    Doran, Frank

    McDonnell, John

    Dowd, Jim

    McFall, John

    Drew, David

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Efford, Clive

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    McNulty, Tony

    Etherington, Bill

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McWalter, Tony

    Fisher, Mark

    Mallaber, Judy

    Flynn, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Gardiner, Barry

    Merron, Gillian

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Miller, Andrew

    Gidley, Sandra

    Mitchell, Austin

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Moffatt, Laura

    Goggins, Paul

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Gray, James

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mountford, Kali

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hayes, John

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Healey, John

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Öpik, Lembit

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Heppell, John

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Pearson, Ian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hope, Phil

    Pike, Peter L

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Pollard, Kerry

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pond, Chris

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Pound, Stephen

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hurst, Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Jamieson, David

    Rammell, Bill

    Jenkins, Brian

    Rapson, Syd

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Joyce, Eric

    Rendel, David

    145

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rooney, Terry

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Roy, Frank

    Timms, Stephen

    Ruddock, Joan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Todd, Mark

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Touhig, Don

    Sanders, Adrian

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Tyler, Paul

    Singh, Marsha

    Tynan, Bill

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Watts, David

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    White, Brian

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

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Spellar, John

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winnick, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Woolas, Phil

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Worthington, Tony

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wray, James

    Stringer, Graham

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    NOES

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mr. Eric Forth and

    Mr. David Ruffley.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Human Rights (Joint Committee)
  11.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That—
  the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
  this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
  the following Standing Order be made:

  (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

  (2) The Committee shall consider—

  (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

  (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

  (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

  (3) The Committee shall report to the House—

  (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

  (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

  (4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

  (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

  (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

  (c) that the order should not be approved,

  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

  (5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

  (6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

  (7) The committee shall have power—

  (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time: and

  (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

  As I told the House last Session on 30 November, in volume 357, column 1226 of Hansard, the motion fulfils the Government's commitment to invite Parliament to establish a Joint Committee on Human Rights. That commitment has been widely welcomed. The Lords have agreed to a remit for the Joint Committee and, once again, I invite the Commons to agree that remit.

  147
  The Committee's terms of reference give it a wide power to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom. It will also have a specific duty to consider and report on remedial orders made under the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Contrary to the impression that some Members may have, the Human Rights Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty. The courts will have no power to strike down primary legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with rights under the European convention on human rights. Instead, they will be able to declare that legislation is incompatible with the convention rights. It will be up to Parliament to decide what action, if any, should be taken following a declaration of incompatibility.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister tell us what will happen if the courts rule that a matter is incompatible, but Parliament decides to take no action? Where will that leave matters?
  Mr. Tipping: That will be entirely a matter for Parliament to decide at the appropriate time. The business will be brought before the House and Parliament will take a decision on what it wishes to do. One will have to make a decision in the light of the individual judgment at that time.
  Mr. John Redwood: I thought that legislation introduced in the House that is drafted on the Government's behalf always states now that it is compliant with the human rights legislation. Is the Minister telling us that he and perhaps his colleagues are introducing legislation that does not make that guarantee, as they accept that the ECHR may be lacking in some areas?
  Mr. Tipping: When we introduce legislation, we will introduce a statement of compatibility. That is standard practice at the moment, and we will continue it.
  Mr. John Gummer: Is the Minister saying that, were the Government to introduce incompatible legislation, they would put a note at the beginning of the Bill stating that—or would they merely leave a gap?
  Mr. Tipping: We shall introduce legislation that is compatible with the Human Rights Act. There will be a statement at the beginning of a Bill—Members are familiar with the procedure—to say that it is compatible.
  Remedial orders, if sought, will follow roughly the same pattern as deregulation orders. Normally, a proposal will be laid and consulted on, during which time the Committee can report. Then a draft order will be laid, which may or may not incorporate any amendments suggested by the Committee. The Committee will report on the draft order. There is also provision, in cases of urgency, for made orders, which have the effect of law immediately, to be laid before Parliament for approval and for amendments to be made to those orders if necessary, taking into account any report by the Committee. So the Human Rights Committee is expected to play a role in examining remedial orders very similar to that played by
  148
  the Deregulation Committee on deregulation orders. It is not known how frequently such remedial orders will be made; I hope and it is hoped that they will be rare. However, whether they are made rarely or not, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be able to provide Parliament with an expert opinion on them.
  The motion also contains the Standing Order that will give the Committee its powers. The Committee is expected to have six Members from each House, on the model of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It will have the powers commonly given to Select Committees plus a power to exchange papers with other Committees. However, because of its United Kingdom remit, it is not proposed that it should have a general power to travel. Rather, it will be permitted to make up to four visits a year to the institutions of the Council of Europe, the body responsible for the European convention on human rights.
  Last November, some hon. Members expressed concern that the Committee would add to parliamentary bureaucracy. I was surprised that parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive should be considered bureaucratic, and I am hard put to think of Committees that could be fairly called so. It will be for the Committee itself to determine its subjects of inquiry and methods of working. I trust that it will be effective and influential in ensuring that Parliament continues its scrutiny of human rights. I commend the motion to the House.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Opposition can welcome a great deal—
  Mr. Forth: No we cannot.
  Mr. Grieve: Well, the official Opposition can, and I must tell my right hon. Friend that he will doubtless have an opportunity to express his reservations, which I am sure he will do pithily. I shall listen extremely carefully. In the meantime, I can tell the Minister that the thrust of the proposal is welcomed.
  Mr. Forth: What?
  Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I can explain why. Doubtless my right hon. Friend will wish to listen to my explanation.
  Whatever view one may take about the merits of having incorporated the European convention on human rights into our law, the fact remains that the interplay between judicial decisions and the role of the House will be extremely important. Many of my hon. Friends who spoke during the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 expressed concern about the dangers of Parliament being overridden. As I see it, far from the proposed Joint Committee contributing to that, it should provide a powerful mechanism to ensure that Parliament would have an input in the event of the judiciary reaching decisions—whether in respect of statutory instruments or of primary legislation—adverse to the apparent intention of a Minister or of the House and on which it could comment.
  Mr. Gummer: I speak as an enthusiast for European co-operation, as my hon. Friend knows, but I am worried. It would be all very well post hoc to be able to have such

  149
  a discussion, but it appears that the Government will not put before Parliament anything that might be in contradistinction with the convention. It may be that Parliament might wish to agree something ab initio that is contrary to the convention. It appears that Parliament will not be in a position so to do. Am I right on that?
  Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend's comments fall into two different categories. First, he talks of the possibility of matters being determined that are thought to be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is abundantly clear that the House retains sovereignty. In that sense, in the event of the judiciary deciding that a piece of primary legislation is incompatible with the Act—notwithstanding that, and having considered the matter carefully—we can determine that we do not want to amend such legislation. If the House so decides in those circumstances, that is the end of the matter; albeit the option might still remain to an individual to take his case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has been done for the past 30 or 40 years. I forget the period over which—
  Mr. Tipping: Fifty years.
  Mr. Grieve: I think that the Minister is correct. We have come to the 50th anniversary, or close to it, although I think that it was slightly later that the right to direct appeal was ratified by the House.
  The second matter is whether we wish to introduce legislation that is, or might be, contrary to the Human Rights Act. The House might decide that it wishes to put it on the statute book. I understand that in those circumstances—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there is nothing to prevent us so doing. It would then be for somebody to mount a challenge in the courts to get them to rule that that legislation was incompatible with the Act. At that point, we would then decide whether we wished to agree that.
  Mr. Redwood: Surely the Government are saying that they will try to ensure that any legislation that they introduce is not incompatible, given the rights and wrongs of the case. Were they to make a mistake, they would try to use the procedures that are before us to remedy the matter immediately. Surely that implies that in effect decisions will be made by justices in the faraway court rather than by Parliament.
  Mr. Grieve: First, I have some doubts whether the imprimatur that appears on many pieces of legislation stating that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act will turn out to be the case. Since the Act has come into operation, I have been extremely concerned that far from it being the baseline for the establishment of rights, as one might have expected, it seems to have been used at times as an excuse for ratcheting down people's rights on the basis that it may still be possible to comply with the Act. That is a worrying development.
  The abolition of trial by jury for certain categories of offences, for example, has been justified on the basis that that is compatible with the Act.
  Mr. Gummer: Hunting.
  Mr. Grieve: I hear my right hon. Friend say "Hunting". That will prove to be an interesting issue. I have serious
  150
  reservations about the compatibility of the legislation on hunting that we shall be considering on Wednesday—or at least one option with which we shall be presented—with the Human Rights Act. That will have to be considered at a later stage.
  It is because I have these anxieties that I can broadly welcome the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses, which will have an opportunity to provide some input on these matters. If I have a reservation about the motion, it is that there is some uncertainty—I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarification—about the scope of paragraph (3)(b), which reads:
  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
  That suggests to me that it is only in the event of a draft order or a remedial proposal being laid before the Joint Committee that the Committee can start thinking more widely about the problem or the topic presented to it, and that the Joint Committee will not be able to comment more generally on the way in which human rights are developing and on the way in which the Government may, for example, be using the Human Rights Act, as I suggested earlier, to restrict rather than enlarge people's rights.
  Mr. Tipping: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee has wide powers, including powers to initiate action. I draw his attention to paragraph (4), which states that
  the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
  That is wide enough to allow the Committee to do virtually what it wants.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. I accept that, with a little ingenuity, that should be possible. However, reading the text with a lawyer's eye suggests that until such a matter has been brought before the Committee, it will not be able to initiate proactively consideration of the way in which the Human Rights Act is progressing. Doubtless, that is a matter to which we can return. If the Committee is successful in its remit, and if it finds that it is being hindered by the wording of the order, I hope that the House will be able to revisit the matter.
  It is extremely important that we should get regular reports from the Committee, stating how it sees the interplay between the role of the judiciary and the legislature and whether Parliament is working, so as to ensure that, as was argued during the passage of Act, the Act is seen not as a creature of the judiciary, but as evidence of active participation by the House in trying to ensure human rights.
  Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He seems to be making a case in defence of the motion on the basis of his anxiety about the likelihood of the Government bringing before the House measures that contradict the human rights legislation. However, the Minister specifically said that the Government will not bring such measures before the House, so my hon. Friend's anxiety is not shared by the Minister. What, in my hon. Friend's view, is the reason why the Minister is introducing the legislation?
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am rather prepared to accept the Minister's word that he,

  151
  and even the Government, do not wish to infringe the Human Rights Act that they put on the statute book. Without wishing to resort to prophecy, I must tell the Minister that I consider it very likely that in years to come it will turn out that Governments, including his own, succeed in doing exactly that. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the Committee is a good idea.
  I had reservations about a number of pieces of legislation, as I mentioned. For example, the legislation that we passed in haste after the Omagh bombings has fortunately never been used, but if an attempt were ever made to use it, it might well fall foul of the scrutiny of the courts in respect of human rights criteria. The Government seem to be aware of that, as no attempt has been made to use the legislation.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he tell us at some stage in his remarks why he favours a Joint Committee with the House of Lords? What is wrong with each of the Houses of Parliament undertaking its own scrutiny and consideration in its unique and distinctive way? Why does my hon. Friend subscribe to the current fetish for Joint Committees with the Lords?
  Mr. Grieve: I have never considered myself a fetishist, but, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I believe that that Committee, which meets Members of the other place, benefits from the input that can be provided by Members of both Houses. I have little doubt that the nature of the Committee and the fact that its remit will be to scrutinise the activities of the Executive make a Joint Committee appropriate. After all, the Joint Committee may report what it likes, but it will ultimately be for this House to decide whether it accepts the Committee's report or wants to take its own view on the matter—my right hon. Friend is a prime example of someone who extols the privileges and rights of the House. I do not see how that prevents a Joint Committee from coming up with sensible reports and suggestions.
  A number of people have been nominated to serve on the Committee. The official Opposition are happy with the names that have been proposed. We hope that they will be able to provide the scrutiny that is needed.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend and I do not want to pre-empt the next debate, which I am sure will be lively and quite lengthy, but is he saying on behalf of the official Opposition that he is content for parliamentary private secretaries to be members of a Committee that is to take the form of a Select Committee and scrutinise legislation?
  Mr. Grieve: Doubtless I will be corrected if I have got it wrong, but my understanding is that no parliamentary private secretaries will serve on this Committee.
  Mr. Tipping: I confirm that that is the case.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation.
  I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. I simply want to conclude with this thought. The operation of the Human Rights Act will undoubtedly be controversial. Many people have serious reservations
  152
  about aspects of the way in which it will work. Indeed, if evidence from my activities as a member of the council of Justice is anything to go by, there has been a backlash against the nature of the Act, and that is perfectly understandable in view of some of the developments that have taken place. That makes it all the more important for the House to have access to sensible and considered reports on its operation, and I hope that the Committee succeeds in keeping the House informed and enabling the operation of the Human Rights Act to remain principally the responsibility of Parliament, especially this House.
  12.12 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am glad to contribute briefly to the debate, because I share the view of the Minister and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the Committee potentially has an extremely important role to play. I want to identify some potential weaknesses in that role under the motion.
  The motion has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time, and, during that period, we have had an opportunity to examine its significance. However, a measure of its potential effectiveness has not been well established in relation to the other important scrutiny Committees of the House: the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. Those Committee are true Select Committees, by which I mean that their membership is from the broad church of the House and their chairmanship is from the Opposition. That has given added significance to reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and that tradition is being faithfully replicated in the Environmental Audit Committee, which is a comparatively new Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that we should follow that pattern in this case.
  Our amendment has not been selected, but it is extremely relevant to the effectiveness of the Committee in scrutinising important issues, if that is to be its role. The independence of this Joint Committee is at the heart of our debate.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful if he would respond to a point about that very issue of independence. Surely the whole function of the Committee is to do the court's work for it: it is to put the court's ruling into parliamentary language. Far from the Committee's being independent, this is the first time we have established a Committee to take orders from a court on what legislation should be put before the House.
  Mr. Tyler: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's constitutional experience and expertise, but I do not think that that is the Committee's proper role. I think that, strictly speaking, it will play a traditional parliamentary role, which is not to take the place of the courts but to scrutinise the preparation of legislation by the Government of the day, and to seek as far as possible to ensure that it is compatible with the law as it stands—law that we have passed in the House. If that is challenged, it will go to the courts. That, surely, is a secondary rather than a primary stage.
  I want to concentrate briefly on the way in which the Committee is to be set up. While perfectly proper reservations have already been expressed about the fact

  153
  that this will be a Joint Committee, the terms in which the House of Lords has constituted its membership are clearly relevant. I hope that the Minister will explain why the motion tabled in the other place is significantly different from the motion that we are discussing. For example—unless a change was made, and the motion eventually passed differs from the draft that I saw—the House of Lords passed subsection (5), which proposed
  That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
  Why does our own motion not contain such a provision? Are the Government afraid to include one on our Order Paper?
  The Government seem to have an odd preoccupation. They appear to be determined—in contrast to the well-established and useful convention applying to other scrutiny Committees—to appoint a Chair from their own ranks. Members may feel that I am over-sensitive, but I think that there is good reason to be sensitive.
  Waiting to take part in the debate, while others spoke at length on other matters, I read The Parliamentary Monitor's information digest for January 2001, which has just reached us. It is usually an extremely reliable source, and I pay tribute to those who prepare it. The first item, headed "Political News", states:
  Paul Goggins, Labour MP for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, has been appointed PPS to the Education and Employment Secretary, David Blunkett. Goggins replaces Jean Corston MP following her nomination as Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Human Rights.
  That is an affront to the House. We have not even appointed the members of the Committee yet. I make no comment about the admirable qualities of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston): I am sure that, should she be appropriate for this task, she will fulfil it with zeal, consistency and commitment. However, the announcement was made before the House of Commons had decided who should be on the Committee, and whether it should be set up at all.
  Why has this happened? Let me take the House back to some simple arithmetic. The other place does not have a majority of Government Members; therefore, there will be no automatic Government majority in the appointment of its six Committee members. This House—which, as we all know, contains at least three major parties and some minor parties—has a slightly different arithmetic composition. But if six and six are put together to make 12, it is possible, as things stand, that there will be no Government majority on the Joint Committee, and that the only way in which the Government can secure a majority will be by securing the Chair.
  Not only do I believe that that is precisely what the Government are about; I believe it to constitute an affront to the House, and a total misunderstanding of the Committee's role. If the Committee will be as important as the Minister has said, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said, and as the Members who are present in such vast numbers obviously realise, it would be outrageous if the scrutiny of legislation that will come before us were subjected to such petty party political considerations. As has already been pointed out, the Committee cannot take executive action. It will have to come back to the House and, indeed, to the other place in making its recommendations, so the primacy of the Commons is not affected by the Committee Chair, but, if the Committee starts on that party political basis, its independence seems to be doomed from the beginning.
  154
  It is important that the Committee should be given a fair wind. It should do its job effectively in scrutinising the material that will come before it as a result of the remit that it has been given and the House's decisions in the past, but it is not right that the Government should effectively hamper the Committee's work by insisting on appointing the Chair. That seems to be the case. It would be utterly wrong.
  12.21 am
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I warmly endorse the remarks by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the manner in which the Government have gone about the appointment of the Committee, particularly its chairmanship. I do not cast any personal aspersions on the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), but I hope that, as a parliamentarian, she will accept that it is not honourable for us to have to read in some lobbyists' journal that the powers that be have nominated her before anyone in the House knows anything about it. Even tonight, we would know nothing about it had it not been published in The Parliamentary Monitor.
  Mr. Tipping: I must confess that I am an avid reader of The Parliamentary Monitor. I have not had an opportunity to review it tonight, but the appointment of the Chairman of the Committee will be a matter for the Committee itself. Whatever The Parliamentary Monitor says, that is a fact.
  Mr. Forth: Pull the other one.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Minister knows, I have a lot of respect and affection for him. He is an extremely diligent Minister. He always seeks to inform the House, but I say in the kindest possible way I can that one is inclined to take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  How come that lobbying organisation—that is what these journals are—has been spun the story? Is it lying? Will the Government press office machinery go into action first thing in the morning to denounce the publication, saying that it has got it completely wrong, that it is a matter for the House and that the Government are deeply offended that the magazine should have thought that they had any intention of pre-empting the decision of Parliament or, in this case, of a parliamentary Committee.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst?
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps the acid test is whether the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) did resign as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If they did, was that the first half of the deal to which the Minister will, unusually dishonourably, not admit but on which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has put his finger?
  Mr. Howarth: That seems to be the case. The information on the basis of which we on the Conservative

  155
  Benches are acting is based on the reference material to hand, which is "Dod's Parliamentary Companion." The one that I have just been looking at is published for the year 2001. We have only just entered 2001, so the information upon which we are working is the latest available information. It suggests that my right hon. Friend is right and that those hon. Members did resign from those positions knowing full well that the Whips Office had told them, "You resign and you will get a nice little number."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There is a danger that the House, led perhaps inadvertently by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, is moving into the area covered by the next motion on the Order Paper. If the House continues much more on those lines, obviously, the occupant of the Chair will take a severe view as to the length of debate on the next matter.
  Mr. Howarth: That is an entirely fair point. I shall not proceed any further in dealing with the matter, except perhaps to take an intervention on it from the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Lilley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I should give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, as I am due to visit his constituency at the weekend. I am looking forward to it, and I should not like to upset him in advance.
  Mr. Tyler: I shall try to ensure that the weather is polite to the hon. Gentleman. The reference in The Parliamentary Monitor's information digest is to the "Parliamentary Select Committee on Human Rights", and is therefore very relevant to this debate. Moreover, the digest items are almost always taken from press releases from the responsible and relevant Department or party.
  Mr. Howarth: That is extremely helpful. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said in the debate, and report to the House on what action will be taken to put right what is generally regarded as at least an affront to the House. I realise, however, that you want us to debate that matter at the appropriate time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Lilley: Although we do not want to discuss now the personalities of those who will serve on the Committee, has my hon. Friend found any reference at all in the proposed Standing Order to the existence of a Committee Chairman? Why are the Government presupposing that there will be a Chairman and that they will have to nominate someone?
  Mr. Howarth: I assume that, at some point, there will have to be a Committee Chairman; generally it happens that way. However, my right hon. Friend is entirely right that the only mention of a Chairman is in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and
  156
  Chislehurst. I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall that the Chairman should be an Opposition Member.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: Yes, but for the last time; I want to speak to the substance of the motion.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intervention is extremely relevant. As I said, in its comparable motion, the House of Lords referred to the chairmanship. Therefore, the fact that we have no mention of it in our own motion is rather extraordinary.
  Mr. Howarth: That is an extremely helpful intervention.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) knows, I am one of those who were intractably opposed to the Human Rights Act 1998. Unlike him, I am not a lawyer. I have generally found that lawyers are more favourably disposed than many lay people to the legislation.
  I seriously wonder what the proposed Committee will do. I think that there is some deception and self-delusion in the matter. The Minister said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield essentially repeated, that there is no power in the 1998 Act to strike down primary legislation. I understand that. I simply ask the Minister to tell us on how many occasions a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights finding the United Kingdom Government in breach has been cast aside and the Court told to take a running jump? If the Minister can tell us on how many occasions that has happened, I am sure that the House would be interested to know.
  Mr. Redwood: None.
  Mr. Howarth: The Minister's sedentary silence is confirmation that on no occasion has a British Government—the current Government or the previous, Conservative one—done anything other than roll over, accept a decision of the European Court of Human Rights and change the law. The essential point is that, in the early 1950s, when we signed up to the European convention on human rights, we did so only once the then Government were absolutely satisfied that our laws were compliant with it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a little rope in the hope that, as he promised, he was going to talk about the substance of the motion. However, he seems to be wandering away from the substance. I must urge him to come back.
  Mr. Howarth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you agree that I am entitled to respond to the Parliamentary Secretary's claim that there is no power to strike down primary legislation. The thrust of human rights legislation is that Parliament will not gainsay a decision by the courts. That means that there will be remedial orders, for which the Human Rights Act 1998 provides.

  157
  I am not clear about the purpose of the Committee. Will it act as a sift, after receiving a court decision, which contends that an Act of Parliament conflicts with human rights legislation? Will it act as the primary sifter and decide whether to table a remedial order, or will remedial orders be made in every case? In the case of the latter, the House will be obliged to roll over and amend primary legislation that we have passed by democratic vote in the Chamber, in accordance with our constituents' wishes.
  The Committee will not be entitled to consider individual cases; they will rightly be ruled out. However, I want to know the precise way in which the Committee will operate. I am always suspicious of a Committee that may be tempted to usurp the role of the House. It seems to me that it will be a major problem if the courts decide that an Act of Parliament—primary legislation—conflicts with human rights legislation. That issue should not be determined by a small caucus; it should be discussed on the Floor of the House from the outset.
  Mr. Tipping: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee will consider the matter, that its views will be sought and its points noted. The Government will not necessarily accept the Committee's views. Any legislation will be discussed on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Howarth: I would not have expected the Parliamentary Secretary to answer differently. Of course, any amendment to primary legislation must be done in the Chamber. However, what is the point of establishing the Committee if the issue has to return to the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Hayes: There appears to be confusion at the heart of the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary—with, I believe, complete integrity—suggests that sovereignty rests with the House. We are told that the Committee will not exist simply to support the lawyers' views. Yet we are also told that the Committee is vital; the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) claim that it is enormously important. However, if sovereignty rests ultimately with the House, which may well disagree with the Committee, why is the Committee so important?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I do not need to repeat it; it speaks for itself. What is the purpose of the Committee if the decisions will ultimately be made on the Floor of the House? That is the essential point that I wanted to make.
  I worry that we are being unduly influenced by human rights legislation. That is a grave matter, and we are in danger of having sold the pass. By setting up the Committee and advertising it to the rest of the world as an important Committee of the House, we invest unduly in the possibility of a challenge to Parliament's authority. We should not do that. We should not accept that a Committee of wonderful parliamentarians is to deal with a stream of hostile decisions from the Strand, telling us that our legislation is somehow incompatible with another view of human rights. Creating the Committee gives the impression that we are gearing up to receive such a stream of challenges.
  Mr. Grieve: Presumably, if the Committee were to report that it considered the situation to be out of control
  158
  and that judicial interference was getting far too great, my hon. Friend would think that it was fulfilling a proper function.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has touching faith in the way in which the Committee will operate. If it were to do that, obviously I would welcome it. However, that is not the way in which the tide is flowing.
  The quorum of the Committee is to be three. The Committee will have a dozen members and will deal with extremely important issues which are key to why we as parliamentarians are here. Both Front Benches agree that the Committee should be invested with a degree of authority about which some of us are not quite so certain. With the proposed quorum, the Government—with their overwhelming majority on the Committee—will have to put up only three members to make it work.
  Jean Corston: As I understand it—from seeing the membership from the Lords—the Committee will be split six-six.
  Mr. Howarth: I understand that there will be six peers and six Members of this House.
  Mr. Tyler: If the membership of the Committee is approved by the House later, there will be six Opposition members and six Government members; hence the significance of the casting vote of the Chair.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that clarification, but, with a quorum of three, three Government members would be able to force through a decision of the Committee.
  I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield says and I hope that he is right. However, I fear that the tide is flowing in a different direction from that which he and I would like.
  12.39 am
  Mr. John Redwood: I have been swayed by some of the arguments made so far, and I hope that the Minister will take the proposal back to redraft it so that it has more chance of working sensibly.
  We are invited to make a Standing Order to have a Select Committee consisting of six members from this House and six from another place. We have just heard about some of the impracticalities and difficulties that this produces.
  Would it not be better if there were seven members from this House—first, so that if they all turned up, this House could outnumber representatives from their lordships House, which would reflect the prime position of this House; and, secondly, to ensure that if the membership of the Committee were in disagreement, there would be a clear way of making a decision? If everyone turned up, there would be an odd number of people present, so there would be a chance of reaching a conclusion.
  The debate has revealed a huge gap in the drafting, in that, unlike some of the other measures coming before the House to set up similar Committees, the proposed Standing Order makes no express provision for a Chairman. There is certainly no express provision for a

  159
  Chairman's casting vote. The guess made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is both right and relevant to the provisions before us. It does indeed look as though the Government are minded to make sure that the Chairman is one of their own Members, who has recently stepped down from duties connected with the Front Bench—and to give that Chairman a casting vote. They could then control the Committee, should it become too independent-minded.
  It would be much fairer if that were made clear in the wording of the Standing Order. It should be properly drafted, so that if that were the Government's intention, and they had a majority for it—two very possible situations—it would be clear. There would then be no complexities to sort out in the Committee's early meetings if people did not like that implied script, which had not been clearly stated.
  My next worry about the drafting arises in paragraph (2)(a), which says that the Committee's remit is

  matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom.
  That invites comparison with the Tax Simplification Select Committee, to which the House has just agreed. That Committee will have seven members from the House of Commons, and the Minister who spoke for the Government in that debate told us that it involved very narrow technical work. In this debate, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office tells us that the work of the Human Rights Committee will be very wide and very important—yet it warrants one fewer member from the House of Commons than the Tax Simplification Committee. That is another argument in favour of reconsidering the numbers.
  Perhaps the Minister should also re-examine the drafting. It is so wide that, with the six-six split, the Committee could find it difficult to agree its work load, which might range more widely than the Government would like—and, indeed, more widely than might be appropriate for a Select Committee. It might start to examine issues that would be far better examined by the House as a whole on appropriate debating occasions.
  I wonder whether the Minister would like to narrow the remit to areas in which there is an actual or potential conflict between what this House wishes to do, and what judges in a faraway court think we ought to do. That is, I think, meant to be the nub of the proposal, but it is not reflected in the drafting of paragraph (2)(a).
  In contrast, I fear that the second part of paragraph (2)(a) may prove too narrow, because it expressly excludes consideration of individual cases. I understand why some draftsman or lawyer might have put that exclusion in—such people would not want a Select Committee of this House to get involved with the detail of the judicial process when an individual case was going through the courts. Obviously, that would not be appropriate, sensible, or even possible under our rules.
  However, the Committee, and the House as a whole, may well have to examine the consequences of test cases, other individual cases, or cases that have brought a generic point before the court, when they have come to a conclusion in the court. I wonder whether paragraph (2)(a) is so odd that while the first part of it is far too wide, so that the Committee will not be focused on what I think is the Government's intention, the exclusion in the second
  160
  part of it could get in the way of what the Government do want the Committee to do—to react to individual cases after they have been determined or decided, if it emerges that the Committee and the courts think that our law has, deliberately or inadvertently, been incompatible with the European convention on human rights as interpreted in the courts.
  Paragraph (2)(b) says that the Committee should consider
  proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998.
  I understand why that should be so, yet sub-paragraph (c) says that the Committee must also consider
  whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to
  draft remedial orders and remedial orders
  on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151.
  This is where we have seen potential problems about how much the Committee has the power and how much it should be a matter for the House as a whole. I am not sure whether the combined drafting of paragraphs (b) and (c) satisfies my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe that more of this should come back to the House as a whole. That is not necessarily clear or implied from the slightly loose drafting of paragraphs (a) and (b).
  The Committee is told that it shall report to the House

  (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

  (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved.

  That is more promising from the point of view of those of us who would like a guarantee about the supremacy of the House. I wonder how the Minister might distinguish that from the cases under paragraph (2), in which there seems some potential for disagreement. Perhaps he will clarify those issues, should he be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Paragraph (5) makes it clear that the Committee's quorum should be only three. We were very moved and pleased that the Paymaster General, talking about a similar proposal for tax simplification, graciously conceded or clarified that that Committee's quorum would be four. It seems a pity that the number required for this Committee's quorum is fewer when, as Ministers seem to have said from the Dispatch Box, it will be dealing with bigger and more important issues.
  Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can clarify the matter for the right hon. Gentleman. The quorum for the Committee will be three from each House, resulting in a quorum of six in total. That is normal practice.
  Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful to the Minister for that; it was not clear to me from the drafting. That explanation is now in Hansard, which is a great reassurance. We shall have a quorum of six for a Committee of 12, while the House as a whole—although not all of us—was satisfied with a quorum of four for a Committee of 13. There are some dissimilarities in treatment. At least this one is compatible with the Minister saying that this Committee will deal with weightier and more important matters. We are very

  161
  relieved to hear that, and I am sure that it will be an important consideration when we discuss who might be the right person, or group of Members, to sit on the Committee.
  The next matter that worries me in the drafting is in paragraph (7)(a). It has the conventional requirement that the Committee shall have the power
  (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
  I am very happy with those provisions; they are essential to the conduct of the Select Committee's work, as they are to many others. However, I was surprised to learn that the Committee can
  adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year.
  That might become an invitation to the Committee to ensure that it goes to such places four times a year and might be an inducement for Members to sit on the Committee. I am not sure whether the Committee's deliberations will require expensive travel outside the United Kingdom. I should have thought that it could do its work, as defined in the earlier paragraphs, by being present in or around this great building at Westminster and calling for persons, papers and records here. After all, these are matters related to the legislation of the United Kingdom; they will not be elucidated by taking a Cook's tour of various places around Europe, and I am not sure why we need that additional expense.
  This is another example of a Select Committee being introduced on fairly slender evidence of the need, to fit in, in a rather strange way, with our normal procedures, with no budget or statement from the Government about the cost. We were not told how much the tax simplification Joint Committee could spend on tax advice and special advisers. Here again, we are not told how much can be spent on travel.
  Paragraph (7)(b) shows that the Committee can
  appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
  I understand the need for that, but the Minister could have told us how much that might entail. How many advisers are we talking about? To which areas of specialism will the Committee need access, given that it has access to all the facilities of the House—including the Library? Furthermore, the Government are on tap for cross examination and the Committee can send for Ministers with their papers and records. One needs some control; as the Committee, sensibly, has wide-ranging powers to ask people to give their time and opinions free, do we really need as many specialist advisers as this open-ended measure could propose?
  Will the Minister reconsider the measure? Will he work again on the number of members, the provision of the chairmanship, the casting vote and the balance between procedures under paragraphs (2) and (3)? That will reassure those of us who want the House clearly to be sovereign. We feel that it will not be sovereign under the proposal, which is a way of accommodating the wishes of the court without us really being able to say that we disagree. Will the Minister look again at the gyrations around Europe and in Britain? The overall budget for specialist advisers should certainly be considered. The measure would then be in a better shape for us to vote on.
  12.51 am
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Early exchanges in the debate between the Minister and hon. Members raised a conundrum that we need to resolve. Except in one instance when the Committee makes general comments on the state of human rights, it will come into play only if an Act is found to be non-compliant by the courts. The Labour Government intend to introduce only Bills whose compliance with human rights legislation they have certified, so why do we need the Committee?
  There are two possible answers; they will naturally affect our judgment as to whether the resolution is correctly framed. The first is that the courts may find old legislation non-compliant. Even though the House and the country have been perfectly satisfied with it and do not feel that it infringes human rights in any way, some judge may decide that it is non-compliant.
  Secondly, the Government may misjudge whether their legislation is compliant. The reason for that is because the application of the human rights convention is essentially subjective. Human rights are what the relevant judges decide the convention means. That is a subjective judgment.

  There are no absolute and incontrovertible human rights. A balance must always be made between one right and another. We can say that there is a right to free speech, but that may conflict with a right to privacy; we have to achieve a balance between the two. In the past, we have recognised that that balancing process is, in essence, political; it has to take into account practical realities— the temper and mood of the country, past experience and so on. Hence the decision was taken by the people's parliamentary representatives in this place and not by the courts or by unelected people who could not be turfed out if they got the judgment wrong.
  There are no infallible rules by which a given convention—rather abstractly and vaguely phrased—can be applied in practice, so we are reliant on the subjective working of judges' minds. I shall return to that point in due course.
  Mr. Redwood: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but he should note that paragraph (2)(a) does not limit the Committee to discussing issues on which we may be deemed to be in disagreement with the convention. The proposal is so wide ranging. Does he not see that the Committee could also set out its own agenda, which might be different from that of the convention and of the Government? Would there not then be an even bigger muddle?
  Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend is correct. That was the exception to which I referred when I pointed out that the Committee would normally come into play only when there had been a finding of non-compliance. I shall not follow my right hon. Friend down the avenue of how the Committee might interpret the power that, for some reason, it will be given under this proposal.
  As I understand it, normally, in considering whether any Act of Parliament infringes human rights, judges will interpret the Act not as it has been written but as they think it ought to have been written to make it compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. If they

  163
  cannot torture the Act's wording into compliance with the convention or with what they think it means, they will rule that it is non-compliant.
  The Government will then draft an order to make that legislation compliant. The Committee will examine that order, and say whether it agrees with it or it should be amended. It will not be able to amend it; it will be able only to suggest amendments. The Government may then take those suggestions on board, or not, as the case may be. They will then put to the House their final draft of the order necessary to make the legislation compliant. The House will be able to reject or accept that order, but not to amend it.
  Mr. Hayes: My right hon. Friend seems to be saying that the Committee is either superfluous or highly intrusive. To paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), it is either too broad or too narrow. If so, and if the Committee is to be intrusive, surely it will be doing the bidding of the courts rather than the bidding of the House. That is certainly the implication of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is saying.
  Mr. Lilley: That may well be an implication of my remarks which my hon. Friend has drawn from them, but it was not the direction in which my argument was heading.
  My point is that the six Members of Parliament on the Committee will be the only Members of the House who will have any opportunity, and then only indirectly and with the Government's say-so, to amend the order that the Government put before them. The legislation allows the Government to amend primary legislation in response to a ruling from the courts by an order, and if I am correct— doubtless the Minister will intervene if I am not—the House will not have the chance to amend that change to our primary legislation. It is only as a half-hearted response to the fact that we are faced with a fait accompli—the courts driving the Government to introduce an order that is not amendable—that the Committee is being set up to provide the spurious pretence that amendment is possible.
  Mr. Hayes: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that his proposition and mine are not mutually exclusive. It may well be that the Committee will do the work of the House, in the sense that it replaces the House, but it is also doing the bidding of the courts. The worrying thing about the Committee is that if it is not superfluous, as we all hope it might be, it will be highly damaging.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Committee will almost be institutionally biased, if I may coin a phrase, in seeing its role as simply deciding whether the Government have correctly interpreted the will of the courts and succeeded in rendering legislation compliant, in the courts' view, with the human rights convention. There is no positive compulsion in the Committee's terms of reference, as laid down by the motion, but that is how things will work out in practice and it is the only way in which an all-party Committee could operate, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
  164
  We are faced with a situation in which the Government are pretending to provide the House with at least some means of influencing the orders that they will place before it, and that means that only the Committee, and the six members of it who are drawn from this House, will have any chance of influencing the detail of the order put before the House.
  That is monstrous in two respects. First, six Members are far too few. The Committee should really be of the whole House. If the motion is not passed tonight, we would have the chance to table amendments to that effect. Secondly, the Committee should have the power not just to suggest amendments to the Government, but to vote and insist on amendments to the Government's proposed Standing Order. I would like us to move in that direction.
  We all know that, in practice, once this House is faced with a finding by the courts of non-compliance in respect of a piece of legislation that it has passed, although notionally retaining sovereignty, as the Minister tried to convince us it would, it will not reject or repudiate the finding, say that it intends to allow the legislation to stand or alter it in ways that do not at least try to remove the courts' objections.
  The House will not do so because if it did it would be held up for vilification by the media as opposed to human rights. No one would ask to whose definition of human rights the House is opposed, or whether it has a different, possibly higher, better, freer view of human rights in such circumstances. It will be labelled by the courts as against human rights. So, de facto, sovereignty has been surrendered and rendered inoperable by the procedures of the underlying legislation. The motion does nothing to restore sovereignty to the House, as the Minister pretended. We should be very clear about that.
  Mr. Hayes: We have come to the nub of the issue. My right hon. Friend seems to be saying that the Committee is a palliative, a pretence. In practice, the Government and this House could in no way overrule the decision of the courts, for the reasons that he has given. We are setting up the Committee to make the matter look better, acceptable—to make hon. Members think that they have had some involvement, when in fact they have had almost none.
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, having been castrated, the House has been given the chance to pretend that it still has some role to play in the harem. It has not—at least not one that will be much fun. All this matters a lot because we are empowering courts to review and consider legislation and, effectively, to require the House to alter it if the courts think that it does not meet their beliefs of what human rights should be.
  I was much struck by the comments of Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty", in which he says that, normally, the legal profession is the most conservative of professions, which will try to interpret things in line with the status quo—except when it is driven by a new legal philosophy. Then, he says, lawyers become members of the most radical of professions, altering law in every jot and tittle to bring it into line with their new philosophy.
  Unfortunately, our legal profession is increasingly dominated by the philosophy of political correctness and of positive rights rather than the traditional view of procedural rights. So, we are likely to find ourselves with

  165
  a legal profession introducing increasing numbers of rulings to the effect that the laws passed by this House do not meet their idea of the law of the country. They will be proposing that there are legal rights to a job, for example. If measures under the Government's new deal do not automatically give people a job of the type to which the courts think that people have a right, the Government will be required to change that legislation.
  We could find all sorts of positive rights emerging, for example, in the sphere of employment employers might be deemed to have a duty to employ people—rather than simply not to discriminate against them—because they belong to some class that is under-represented among the firm's staff. Can we imagine the Committee amending an order that a Government—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion, which deals with the workings and the nature of the Committee itself.
  Mr. Lilley: Sensing that you were about to bring me back to that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had reached it just as you rose to your feet. The precise matter to which we must give attention is whether or not the Committee would behave in a way that would improve matters. In the powers and duties given to the Committee, I perceive no evidence that would convince me that the Committee would ever help us to stand up against a legal profession that is empowered by the Human Rights Act and motivated by political correctness to overhaul the law.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend has referred, rightly and with due deference, to the Hayekian view. As I am sure you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, Friedrich von Hayek was a great man. However, paragraph (2)(a) of the motion mentions consideration of
  matters relating to human rights
  on which there are, inevitably, many different views. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the view articulated in "A Nation or No Nation: Six Years in British Politics", published by Batsford, in which the Powellite view is ably expressed?
  Mr. Lilley: That was one of the formative texts in the development of my political thinking. It underlies many of my comments tonight and it is no coincidence that my hon. Friend is drawn to recall that seminal work. However, I would not elaborate further on that book by a great former Member of Parliament.
  I emphasise that, if we approve the motion, we shall be taking part in a triple pretence: that the House retains any operable sovereignty in such matters; that it will have any say in how the Government decide to comply with the courts; and that the Committee has any power to influence the way in which the Government operate. We should have no truck with pretence and play-acting. Either we radically alter the motion, or we reject it.
  1.8 am
  Mr. Tipping: I welcome the broad support given by the official Opposition and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and should like to make a couple of preliminary points. First, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably made the point that the
  166
  European convention on human rights has been in force for 50 years and British citizens have had recourse to it throughout that period. All hon. Members recognise that, in the past, legislation has had to be amended in the light of decisions by the European Court.
  Secondly, the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force. Parliament passed that Act. We had a long debate on it and one of the Government's commitments was to set up the Joint Committee. This evening, there has been a debate about how much the Committee will have to do. One issue is whether the Committee will be overworked, and I remind colleagues of the Scottish experience. The Scottish Parliament signed up to the Human Rights Act a year before us, and so far its experience suggests that the number of challenges has been fairly limited. However, I think that there will be challenges.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) correctly identified the fact that past legislation could be reviewed and, like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, acknowledged that, although a certificate of compatibility is given to Bills, the Government do not always get it right. I have no doubt that there will be challenges to future legislation. As I said, the Human Rights Act is now in force, and the debate will concern how many challenges are made. I remind the House again that British citizens already have access to the European convention on human rights, and have had it for 50 years.
  The House has not been asked to consider anything new, save the mechanism that it is being asked to agree on the Joint Committee. A couple of points are at issue. First, on the quorum, may I reinforce the point that I made in an intervention? The quorum is three Members from each House, making a total of six. There has been a good deal of debate about the chairmanship of the Committee. I say directly to the hon. Member for North Cornwall that I shall look to see what press releases there have been. To my knowledge, so far there have been none. I would be surprised if there had been any, but I will look carefully at the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Let me again reinforce the point that it will be a matter for the Committee to decide who will, or will not, be the Chairman. I must not disguise the fact that I know that Labour Members who will serve on the Committee have an idea who they will, or will not, nominate. However, at the end of the day, that will be a matter for the Committee.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister tell us why the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretary? Was there any kind of deal before that event took place? It looks as if there must have been.
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who was described in glowing terms by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, resigned as PPS to be a member of the Committee, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). That is an indication of the importance that they attach to the Committee.
  I reinforce the point that deciding the chairmanship will be a matter for the Committee. The hon. Member for North Cornwall argued that it was necessary to have a Chairman from the Opposition because of the casting vote. As I understand it—I am pretty confident about this

  167
  but I will check, write to the hon. Gentleman and put a copy in the Library—as this is a Joint Committee, there will be no casting vote: every Committee member has an equal vote. That is a long tradition of the House, and I would be surprised if I am wrong.
  The other debate in the Chamber tonight has been about whether the powers of the Committee are too wide. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) explored that point and felt that the powers of the Committee were far too wide. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was keen to suggest that the powers were too restrictive and that there was no need for the Committee at all. I have been rather shocked during our debate because, by tradition and in what they normally say, Opposition Members envisage greater parliamentary scrutiny. Here we are, introducing a proposal that provides parliamentary scrutiny: I support it, and I hope that the House will.
  Question put:—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 17 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  Human Rights
  1.15 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That Mr. Desmond Browne, Sir Patrick Cormack, Jean Corston, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
  I am delighted to move the motion and know from personal experience that the Labour Members who wish to serve on the Committee and are being nominated tonight are keen to be members and will act vigorously and diligently. On reading the list of names that the House is being asked to recommend, my impression was that all those Members would do a good job on behalf of the House.
  1.16 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: The really bad news about the names being proposed for membership of the Committee is that they seem preponderantly to be those of lawyers. That seems to confirm the view expressed earlier that this nonsense will be a lawyers' beanfeast, both outside the House and now, regrettably, inside. I suppose that we can be somewhat consoled by the fact that my very hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) will be on the Committee. I would have thought that he would make an excellent candidate for the chairmanship. Perhaps the Committee—in its alleged impartiality, and assuming that we believe a word of what the Minister told us about the matter not having been carved up already—will realise that my hon. Friend would make a most wonderful Chairman. It may want to consider that.
  Mr. John Bercow: Frankly, it is not good enough, even at this relatively late hour, for my right hon. Friend to make such an assertion without substantiation. I assume that he is making the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would make such a good Chairman because he is, almost beyond question, the greatest living parliamentarian
  Mr. Forth: That, of course, is a hotly contested title, as my hon. Friend knows.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the right hon. Gentleman also noticed that my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who represents all points north, is to be a member of the Committee? Should the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), in his usual modest way, not wish to take up that important appointment, another very respected parliamentarian might do so.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to deal with that point and shall do so now.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—or the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Island, as I like to call him—is indeed a senior and experienced Member of

  169
  the House. He was first elected in 1966, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire in 1970. Proposed for membership art two enormously experienced, very senior, very influential and extremely respected Members of the House. Although I suggested my hon. Friend first, I am sure that he, as well as we, would want to consider seriously the claim that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has put for his colleague, the right hon. Member for places in the far north.
  My only reservation is that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross obtained an LLB from Cambridge, which I regard as a distinct disadvantage. He then practised as a barrister, as did the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who graduated from Aberystwyth. I leave it to the House to judge whether that is an advantage, but he also, apparently, is a barrister. I am happy that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) is here. His presence indicates that at least those proposed for membership of the Human Rights Committee, unlike those proposed for membership of the Committee that we discussed earlier, show genuine interest and commitment. We should all be grateful for and appreciative of that.
  I am delighted to say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is almost certainly the most highly qualified proposed member of the Committee because he has an LLB from the university of Glasgow. I can think of no higher qualification than one from Glasgow, and he has practised as a solicitor.
  Mr. John Redwood: Like my right hon. Friend, I was encouraged by the presence in the Chamber of the Members who are seeking to sit on the Committee. However, is it not rather disturbing that they seem not to have speaking parts? They seem to have only a walk-on part in this Government-arranged drama. Would we not believe rather more if they told us of their views?
  Mr. Forth: That is a matter for them to decide. I am still suspicious about why they all suddenly mysteriously resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. That makes me wonder whether they will still effectively be members of the payroll and under some instruction from somewhere, but perhaps they will not.
  Having taken account of the plethora of legal talent, I come to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who either is or is not, or is allegedly, to be the Chairman of the Committee. If the records are correct, she has an LLB from the London school of economics.
  Mr. Bercow: When?
  Mr. Forth: I am now becoming really suspicious. It is one thing to come from Cambridge, Aberystwyth or Glasgow—
  Mr. Bercow: When?
  Mr. Forth: I will not discuss when. That would be ungallant. Some of us still cling to rather old ideas of gallantry.
  All these Members being lawyers, I am beginning to see why my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who speaks from the Opposition Front
  170
  Bench, is so enthusiastic about these matters. He is part of the mafia. In his readiness to endorse the motion, he was obviously rather keen on the idea that all the other legal eagles would get jobs on the Committee. It is beginning to look rather cosy. The Member I exempt from that is the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), to whom we must look for a lay view of the matters that are before us. He may be the only member of the Committee whom we can trust to give a properly balanced view of its work, instead of all the ghastly lawyers.
  I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North—
  Mr. Tyler: North Cornwall.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must tell me the difference some time.
  It is a matter of some importance whether the Government believe that the chairmanship of the Committee has been carved up in advance. It looks like that. There is circumstantial evidence, if I may use that rather legalistic term, that the hon. Member for Bristol, East has already been tapped on the shoulder by the Government and assured that the chairmanship is hers.
  The Minister has said that he will look into the matter and reveal all. He has said also that he will put things into the Library and—
  Mr. Tipping: I said that I thought no press release had been put out but that I would look, then write to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and put a copy in the House Library.
  Mr. Forth: That is a pretty weedy undertaking. I suspect that simply to look into whether there has been a press release is not what most Members want. We want an assurance, a guarantee or an undertaking that the Government have not said to the hon. Member for Bristol, East, "You will be the Chairman of the Committee as and when the House sets it up." Knowing the Minister as we do, he should be prepared to tell the House—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are discussing the members of the Committee, not who will be the Chair of it.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  One of the lacunae in the motion is that no mention is made of the chairmanship. It is somewhat doubtful whether the Committee will have a Chairman.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the motion dealing with the setting up of the Committee has already been dealt with. As I have said, we are now discussing the membership of the Committee.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he observed that although there is in the motion no reference to the chairmanship, there is such

  171
  a reference in the Lords motion? That might mean— perhaps the Minister will intervene to confirm—that the Chair must come from the Lords.
  Mr. Forth: That may be, but I am precluded from speculating further on the matter by the ruling from the Chair, which I will of course observe meticulously, as I hope I always do.
  We are left with the bare bones of what we know about the hon. Members being proposed for the Committee. It is for the House to decide. If we want the Committee to be packed with lawyers, that is one thing. If we expected a broader representation of the Members of the House, we will be disappointed. We have been told that the Committee will have a balance of Government and non-Government members, and for that small crumb I suppose we should be grateful.
  We will all be watching very carefully to see whether the House agrees to the establishment of the Committee. It is one of those absurd deferred votes, so we cannot know until Wednesday whether the Committee has been set up. I therefore conclude that we cannot logically agree to the motion tonight, as the House has not yet indicated whether it accepts the substantive motion to set up the Committee.
  I shall be guided by you on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should be surprised if you told the House that we could deal with the matter now, when we have not yet dealt with the substantive matter, as a result of the ludicrous and absurd deferred Division procedure, to which we are now—I hope only temporarily—subject.
  I need not express my view one way or the other on the matter at this stage, presumably. That will have to wait until Wednesday. I shall ponder the matter between now and Wednesday. I shall almost certainly vote against the substantive motion to set up the Committee, for reasons that my right hon. and hon. Friends explained. I shall want to think about the motion. I am rather grateful that I do not have to cast my vote tonight.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question is as on the Order Paper—
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm whether the matter can be put to the House at this stage, as we have not yet indicated whether the House agrees to the establishment of a Committee for which the motion proposes the members?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There is nothing in the order of the House on deferred Divisions to prevent the motion on human rights being debated in the House this evening. We have already begun the process of coming to a decision on the motion on Human Rights (Joint Committee). When the motion to nominate members to the Human Rights Committee was not moved in the House last week, the House had already decided not to consider the matter of setting up the Committee. That was therefore an entirely different situation.
  Mr. Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ruling that you have just given is self-explanatory, but it refers to debating the issue, not deciding it—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter is subject to a deferred Division, as has already been explained to the House.
  Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you are telling us that it is your view that there will be two deferred Division matters before the House on Wednesday, how will the House know whether it has approved the first one in a deferred Division, before they must decide how or whether to vote on the second one? Surely, as we aniticipated long ago, the House is being put in a ludicrous, unacceptable and unworkable position by the fact that there will be two interrelated deferred Divisions on the Order Paper. I do not see how that can make any sense at all.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for hon. Members at the time that they are exercising their vote. Right hon. and hon. Members who are dissatisfied with the operation of the order on deferred Divisions should make their views knows to the Modernisation Committee.
  Mr. Redwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it would be helpful to the House if it were decided that the deferred Division on the matter of substance should take place this Wednesday, and that the present motion should be reintroduced, if the Committee is to be set up. I do not see how we can vote on who should be on a Committee when it may not be set up. Can you please clarify that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already given a ruling on the matter. That is not for me to decide.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Government enjoyed an extremely narrow majority, a deferred vote on the Committee—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already explained that, if right hon. and hon. Members are dissatisfied with the operation of the order on deferred Divisions, they should make their views known to the Modernisation Committee.
  Question put:—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 17 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Motion made,
  That, following the Order [20th November], 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. Clelland.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April. 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Mine Shafts
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  1.31 am
  Mr. John Healey: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on the Coal Authority's records of former mine shafts. I want to draw the House's attention to the problems of a couple in my constituency, Michael and Pauline Ryan, and to press the general case for reform of the way in which the Coal Authority handles the situation when serious doubt is cast on the accuracy of the mining records that it maintains.
  Michael and Pauline Ryan bought their semi-detached house in Firth road in West Melton in 1980. That was the biggest investment of their lives, as it is for many couples. It cost them £11,000, and since then they have put a great deal of time and money into improving the house and its gardens. In February 1999, they sold the house and agreed the purchase of another, but 10 days before completion date the buyer pulled out. As Mr. Ryan said, the buyer pulled out
  leaving us puzzled and well out of pocket.
  The reason soon became clear. In the mining report supplied to the buyer's solicitor as part of the conveyancing process, the Coal Authority reported a disused mine shaft underneath the neighbour's adjoining property. The authority's report and its stance since have left Mr. and Mrs. Ryan almost £2,000 further out of pocket.
  It is no understatement to say that the Ryans were devastated; they did not know where to turn. They were told that the value of their property had been halved. In an area where housing is in plentiful supply and the housing market is slack, buyers are reluctant to run any risk on such a property and lenders are reluctant to offer mortgages if mine shafts may affect the stability of the house in question. When Mr. Ryan first contacted me last February, he told me:
  A property we have invested 20 years in now seems a liability rather than an asset, through no fault of our own.
  The problem arises because the reporting requirements changed between 1980, when the Ryans bought their house, and 1999 when they tried to sell it. Until 1989, it was left to solicitors to decide whether to make inquiries about former mine shafts and what to ask. British Coal's practice in reporting such information varied from area to area. That was why, in 1989, the Law Society introduced a standard form with a standard question about any shafts, adits or entries to coal mine workings in the vicinity of the property. However, interpretations of "in the vicinity" of the property still varied, so in 1991 the Law Society, with British Coal, amended the standard form to ask about any shafts within 20 m of the boundary of the property. Mr. Ryan said at the time:
  We now feel backed into a corner with our only course left a potentially very expensive civil lawsuit against the Coal Authority.
  Mr. and Mrs. Ryan had paid for legal opinions, but they had also gathered all the relevant maps and records that existed. It became clear to Mr. Ryan—indeed, it has become clear to me as I have studied the evidence over the last few months—that there are serious grounds for doubting the accuracy of the one record, an 1875 geological survey sheet showing a mine shaft under Mr. Ryan's neighbour's property.

  175
  In the 1800s, there was a mine nearby with two shafts, both capped and still visible; but they were between 80 and 100 m from Mr. Ryan's property. The pit was called the Cottage of Content, or the West Melton mine. It was, with its shafts, plotted correctly on the 1851 Ordnance Survey map; the shafts were plotted correctly on the 1892 Ordnance Survey map, and on those produced in 1903 and 1905. On all those maps, there was no sign or suggestion of any other shaft in the vicinity of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's house.
  The 1875 record appears to come from two field slips produced by A.H. Green in 1872, when he walked through the best part of south Yorkshire plotting geological features on top of existing Ordnance Survey maps. I have studied the two field slips produced from the area, one clearly prepared in the field and one a fair copy transposed subsequently. The transposition involves a variation in the site of the mine shaft, and there is a clear suggestion that it was incorrectly plotted. The fair copy found its way on to the 1875 British geological survey map, reproduced in 1931. That is the record cited by the Coal Authority in the 1999 mining report on Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's property.
  The clinching evidence for me is a mine abandonment plan, and the final closure of the Cottage of Content colliery in 1887. After 1870, all mines that were closed had to produce records of shafts and workings, which were then filed with what is now the Coal Authority. An inspector of mines signed off the abandonment plan for the Cottage of Content colliery on 1 November 1887. It shows two shafts in precisely the position indicated by the Ordnance Survey maps, and underground workings of the Melton field roughly on a north-south axis stretching away from where the third shaft is supposed to be—away from the Ryans' property.
  Despite that evidence, the Coal Authority's views remained fixed. In a letter sent to Mr. Ryan last February, N.G. Wilcoxson, operations manager of the Coal Authority, wrote:
  The fact of the matter is that The Authority holds records which clearly indicate a shaft in the position of
  Mr. Ryan's neighbour's property.
  As such we are duty bound to reveal this fact when requested to do so through the procedures of a Law Society coal mining search application.
  In the same letter, however, Mr. Wilcoxson concedes that
  the shaft position must be taken as approximate, but the information in our possession does not constitute conclusive proof that this shaft is the same
  as either of the other two shown on the Ordnance Survey maps,
  and therefore sufficient evidence does not exist to enable me to delete
  the shaft
  from our records.
  In conversations with the Coal Authority, Mr. Ryan was left in no doubt that even if further evidence was produced, there was no certainty that the Coal Authority would indeed remove the shaft from its mining reports.
  I have checked with mining engineers, including a large company that is contracted to the Coal Authority. Geophysical techniques can be used to verify the presence
  176
  or absence of former mine shafts. Drilling, radar-type techniques and microgravity surveys are among the commonplace techniques these days. The cost of such a report to Mr. Ryan would be £2,000 to £2,500, but the experience of companies that have carried out such surveys, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), who I know would have wished to be here tonight, has been that the Coal Authority will still maintain the shaft on the register, albeit perhaps with some qualification where it has not been found. That problem has been confirmed in my discussions with solicitors, mining advisers and academics as I have researched the problem.
  I have four criticisms of the Coal Authority. First, the onus is entirely on the individual to check the accuracy of the Coal Authority's records and reports, with all the time, effort and cost that that entails. Secondly, the Coal Authority appears to take no responsibility for the accuracy of the records that it holds. Thirdly, the Coal Authority has no procedure established for resolving a situation where there is serious dispute or doubt about the accuracy of its records. Finally, it gives no undertaking that if its records are wrong, they will be amended.
  Mr. Ryan's plight is not commonplace, but it is not a one-off. The South Yorkshire mining advisory service, which is an admirable body providing advice and expertise to local authorities in South Yorkshire, but not to individuals, maintains that the problem is becoming more common because solicitors are taking more trouble in the searches that they undertake as part of their conveyancing responsibilities.
  The Coal Authority does not keep statistics of cases where the accuracy of its maps or records is in dispute, but its latest annual report gives some indication. According to the 1999–2000 report, the authority supplied 370,000 mining reports to solicitors, local authorities and for internal use. Despite those 370,000 mining reports, there were only 1,815 inquiries about its mining records. Of those, 1,292 concerned abandonment plans, 189 geological issues and 99 were coal commission inquiries, leaving 235 in the "other" category. Mr. Ryan's case would have fallen under that category. In the past year, the Coal Authority could have dealt with a maximum of just over 200 cases of that type. Almost certainly, it will deal with many fewer than that.
  It is a problem that could occur for any family in any former mining area. Solving it would make small-scale demands of the Coal Authority, but it would make a huge impact on the lives, prospects and peace of mind of families hit by blight to their property.
  In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, there is good news to report. As a result of the interest and inquiries from the Minister's office in the run-up to the debate, the Coal Authority seems to have had another look at the evidence. I quote from a letter dated today to Mr. Ryan from the same N.G. Wilcoxson of the Coal Authority:
  On 10th January 2001 we received a faxed copy of a letter dated 9th January addressed to you from BGS—
  the British Geological Survey.
  This letter contained new information that was sufficient to enable us to delete
  the shaft
  from Coal Authority records.
  I can confirm that future coal mining reports prepared by the authority, for your property, would not disclose this shaft.

  177
  Although I am delighted for Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, I am disturbed that other people in coalfield areas may suffer the same plight. I ask the Minister to consider that, when there are good grounds for doubting the accuracy of the Coal Authority's records, the authority should be required to have in place a system of checking the accuracy of its own records and to amend them when they are wrong. There should also be a publicised verification procedure, so that individuals such as Mr. Ryan know what they have to produce for the Coal Authority to take their case seriously.
  I ask the Minister to consider two points other than the obvious justice of requiring a public body to accept, assess and act on well-founded evidence that it may be in error. First, one of the Coal Authority's duties specified in the Coal Industry Act 1994—which established it—and as the authority's current corporate plan states, is
  to maintain records and provide information.
  Although the authority generally performs that duty very efficiently—for example, 86 per cent. of last year's 370,000 mining reports were returned within two working days, and 96 per cent. were returned within five working days—it should have in place a system for dealing with the exceptions, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its records.
  Secondly, the matter is unfinished Government business. In July 1996, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry produced its Seventh Report, on former mine shafts, and its recommendation 4 stated:
  for mine shafts revealed on mining searches which are within influencing distance of existing buildings, the Coal Authority accept responsibility for seeking to determine their precise location in cases of doubt.
  In October 1996, the then Government produced their response to the report. They stated that they would consider recommendation 4
  in light of the outcome of the work of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Blight.
  However, four years later, in July 2000, when that esteemed group reported, it did not address the issue of mine shafts, but only addressed the specific issue that arises when large development sites require compulsory purchase of properties. The Minister may correct me, but I believe that, since July, no conclusion to the Government's consideration of the matter has been published.
  My call is not for an open season on the Coal Authority. As I said, generally the authority efficiently handles its responsibility for Britain's mining records. Neither do I suggest that the Coal Authority should have a duty to investigate unless a threshold of evidence suggests that there are grounds for serious doubt or dispute about the accuracy of its records. I also do not—as the previous Government disingenuously argued in their response to the Select Committee—propose that
  it would become standard practice for solicitors advising prospective purchasers at least to inquire whether the Coal Authority had established the precise location of any disused shafts.
  As that response went on to state:
  On that basis, the annual cost of precisely locating shafts alone could well build up to some millions of pounds and the eventual cost to many tens of millions of pounds.
  It is not a matter for legislation or for the Coal Authority's quinquennial review, but a proper point about current operational policy. If my right hon. Friend the
  178
  Minister can persuade the Coal Authority to accept such a responsibility, she will give hope and help to families such as the Ryans and reinforce the Coal Authority's role as the keeper of our nation's mining records.
  1.49 am
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on securing this debate and raising the issue in the House. I am well aware that he has pursued the matter with vigour, and is able today to celebrate considerable success in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. I am very pleased to hear about that success. One can only imagine the distress that the events caused Mr. and Mrs. Ryan.
  In general, such issues are not unfamiliar to the Government; hon. Members have raised them on several occasions. I am well aware of the difficulties and the effects of old coal workings on the value and saleability of property in some parts of the country. They can profoundly affect the plans of people who own nouses that are found to be near mine shafts.
  I am delighted for Mr. and Mrs. Ryan that some resolution has occurred; I hope that some important lessons have been learned. I shall ensure that the Coal Authority has an opportunity to read my hon. Friend's remarks with a view to taking his helpful suggestions into account. I stress that the authority is an independent statutory corporation, and I therefore have no statutory powers to intervene in its day-to-day operations. However, I know from my discussions with it that it is anxious to be as responsive as possible to the difficulties, and to improve administration as much as possible.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's difficulties were caused by an error in the supply of information to the authority by a third party. I undertake to write to the chairman of the Coal Authority to ask for his assurance that the recurrence of the sort of errors about which we have heard tonight will be limited. My hon. Friend acknowledges that the case is unusual; it is rarely possible to deal with matters in a way that is acceptable to all concerned. However, it is important to recognise that everything should be done to assess the accuracy of the information that the Coal Authority holds.
  A much broader, serious issue underlies the subject: the impact on property values when a mine shaft is recorded close by. That problem must be tackled. It tends to affect specific areas of the country, principally those where mining activity in the 19th century or earlier was followed by intensive urban development. However, it should be taken into account in general policy terms.
  Let us consider briefly the way in which the Coal Authority handles records, and its powers. It has a collection of approximately 100,000 plans of former coal mining workings. They record 150,000 mine shafts. When those workings date from the 18th or 19th centuries, their status—whether or how they have been treated since working ceased—is unknown, and even their precise location may be uncertain. The Coal Authority is under a statutory obligation to make available the content of the plans and to establish arrangements to allow access to the information that they contain. The authority is keen to add to its records to ensure that the database is as complete and as accurate as possible. Perhaps modern technology will allow the Coal Authority to add to its records.

  179
  The Coal Authority has established a sophisticated mining reports database, which I have seen. It produces almost 400,000 mining reports, to which my hon. Friend referred, primarily for use by solicitors. Those reports answer questions from the Law Society on the presence of former coal workings, including mine shafts. Across the country, an average of approximately 2 to 3 per cent. of the mining reports will reveal a mine shaft.
  As I said earlier, many mine shafts date from the 19th century. Until the middle of the 19th century, mine owners were not required to prepare plans of their mine workings. Those early plans were not prepared to any specified standard, and they have often proved unreliable. The Coal Authority exercises great care in transposing them to its database. However, it is only a custodian of old plans; rarely will there be personal knowledge or recollection that the recorded mines actually existed. Indeed, the authority pointed out that my constituency office was sited above a mine shaft. Not even the most elderly of my constituents—who have tremendous memories of these matters—could attest to a mineworking being so close to what is now a town centre. It is difficult to guarantee the accuracy of the information in the old mining plans, but every conceivable means must be sought to improve the accuracy. Many disputes arise for property owners because of accuracy. I thank my hon. Friend for some of his suggestions, which I will draw to the attention of the chairman of the Coal Authority. I will ensure that, in replying to me, the chairman replies also to my hon. Friend.

  One other statutory power that should be mentioned is the authority's power to repair any damage caused by subsidence from former coalworkings at no cost to the property owner or the insurer. This power does not extend beyond coalworkings and can be invoked only where there is evidence of physical damage. It does not allow the Coal Authority to provide any compensation for loss of value of property as a result of the presence of a mine
  180
  shaft. Nevertheless, this power gives a very strong remedy and should be given careful consideration by those involved with property affected by former coalworkings.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned the interest taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and some of the issues affecting her constituency. He will be aware that my Department has taken a consultancy contract with Heriot-Watt university to look at some of the issues surrounding property values and the workings of mine shafts. I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the conclusions of that work, but I hope to do so in the near future. It may be that some measures come out of that to help us to address some of the issues.
  I am anxious that these issues should be addressed by the Coal Authority as far as possible within its current legislative framework Some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made are common sense and I hope that that will be taken into account by the authority.
  There are complex issues here, and there are no easy solutions. A large number of players are involved, over many of whom the Government have little power. There is also an issue of perception; where a prospective purchaser hears of the presence of a mine shaft, it can cause difficulties with proceeding with a purchase. There is also the question of recording what has happened to a mine shaft—where that information is available—and whether it has been tilled in. With more modern mine shafts, that is a relatively easy matter to deal with. With the older mine shafts, it is much more complex.
  There is a need to look at the issues and I assure my hon. Friend that I will keep in mind his useful suggestions, which I will convey to the Coal Authority. I am determined that we keep in the forefront of our minds the interests of the people most affected by the situation; those whose homes become difficult to sell because of a mine shaft underneath or near to them. We will try to find solutions that are fair to them and to other home owners. My hon. Friend has given us some good suggestions tonight; I undertake to look at them in some detail.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are to commemorate the 50 anniversary of the accession and coronation of Her Majesty the Queen. [144839]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 23 November 2000,Official Report, columns 294–95W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what categories of submissions from civil servants are submitted to special advisers before being seen by Ministers; [143823]

  (2) what categories of submissions from civil servants to Ministers, other than those relating to (a) intelligence and (b) personnel matters, are not circulated to special advisers. [143822]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 January 2001]: Special Advisers have access to material produced by permanent civil servants in accordance with paragraph 14e of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers".

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what contact officials in his Office have had with the media concerning correspondence from the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey regarding a constituent. [144919]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to promote awareness of Holocaust Memorial Day. [145410]

  The Prime Minister
  A national ceremony will be held in London on the evening of Saturday 27 January and will be attended by a wide audience including survivors, senior public figures, community representatives and students. The event is being produced and televised live by the BBC guided by the Home Office-led Holocaust Memorial Day Steering Roup. The BBC has plans to publicise this event in the run up to the day.
  2W
  The Government's programme for promoting awareness of the Holocaust Memorial Day also includes:
  a Holocaust education resource pack for schools for use in the week leading up to the day. Around 30,000 packs have been issued;
  guidance to local authorities encouraging them to involve local communities and publicise their events and the day more generally;
  a dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk has been established by the Home Office and the Beth Shalom Memorial Centre which contains details and information about the day and local and national events.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the tapping of telephones of hon. Members. [144972]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 861W.

  COE/WEU
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the full composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Western European Union. [145830]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is as follows:

  Leader:
  The right hon. Terry Davis MP
  Full representatives

  David Atkinson MP

  Sir Sydney Chapman MP

  Tom Cox MP

  Lawrence Cunliffe MP

  Bill Etherington MP

  Paul Flynn MP

  Mrs. Maria Fyfe MP

  The Lord Kirkhill

  Kevin McNamara MP

  Jim Marshall MP

  Edward O'Hara MP

  The Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

  The Lord Russell-Johnston

  John D. Taylor MP

  John Townend MP

  John Wilkinson MP

  Jimmy Wray MP

  Substitute members

  Malcolm Bruce MP

  The Lord Clinton-Davis

  Ms Ann Cryer MP

  Mike Hancock CBE, MP

  Robert Jackson MP

  Ms Jenny Jones MP

  The Lord Judd

  The Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE

  3W

  Tony Lloyd MP

  The Lord Rotherwick

  Ms Christine McCafferty MP

  Alan Meale MP

  Gwynfor Prosser MP

  Sydney Rapson MP

  Ms Geraldine Smith MP

  Rudi Vis MP

  David Wilshire MP.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 14W, what action he will take in respect of the visits by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) to the constituency of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire without notifying the right hon. Member of their visit to his constituency. [144432]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The right hon. Member's question has been drawn to the attention of the Ministers concerned.

  Nice Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if (i) policy planning, (ii) strategic lift, (iii) peacekeeping and (iv) J2 matters are included in clause J exemptions from Reinforced Co-operation agreed at Nice. [144634]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article J of the Treaty of Nice provides that enhanced co-operation for matters falling within the Common Foreign and Security Policy shall be limited to the implementation of a joint action or a common position.

  Article J further provides that all questions with military or defence implications shall be excluded from the provisions for enhanced co-operation in common foreign and security policy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact on NATO of Reinforced Co-operation, Clause I(2), as agreed at Nice. [144637]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  Clause J of the draft Treaty of Nice makes it clear that the provisions of the draft Treaty on enhanced co-operation in the field of common foreign and security policy shall not apply to matters having military or defence implications. Article I(2) therefore does not apply to questions with military implications.

  Nice Presidency Conclusions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the letters from Nice of the (i) Spanish and (ii) Italian Prime Ministers on operational co-operation in controlling the EU external borders, referred to in Presidency conclusion section 49. [144582]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.
  4W
  The Prime Ministers of Italy and Spain wrote a joint letter to President Chirac, President-In-Office of the European Council, on 7 December 2000. A copy of the letter has been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister to which two documents section 50 of the Nice Presidency Conclusions refers. [144638]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The two documents referred to in paragraph 50 of the Nice Conclusions are:
  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: On a Community Immigration Policy. [COM (2000) 757], 22 November 2000.

  This document was deposited for Parliamentary scrutiny on 4 December 2000.
  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards a Common Asylum Procedure and a Uniform Status, valid throughout the Union, for Persons Granted Asylum. 13119/00 [COM (2000) 755], 27 November 2000.

  This document was deposited for Parliamentary scrutiny on 12 January 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his position on including a declaration on Sport in the Presidency Conclusions of Nice, indicating the Treaty base for such a declaration. [144642]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government welcomed the inclusion of a declaration on Sport in the Presidency Conclusions at Nice as it is right to join with other member states in acknowledging the special nature of sport in modern society. The declaration makes it clear that sport should retain its independence and that the organisation of support for sport is a matter for member states and governing bodies of sport.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what manner of directive is planned to promote gender equality in areas other than employment and professional life, as set out in Annex I, V(c) of the Nice Presidency Conclusions. [144640]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission has as yet given no indication of what it is considering proposing under this heading. As usual, Ministers in the Council will scrutinise the proposals carefully when they are made. Any directive under Article 13 requires the unanimity of member states.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the planned (i) budget and (ii) roles of the(a) European Monitoring Centre on Change, (b) European Institute for Gender Issues and (c) Gender Expert network, referred to in the Nice Presidency Conclusions. [144641]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission has not yet indicated what the suggested remit and budget will be for the European Monitoring Centre on Change, the European Institute for Gender Issues or the experts' network. When formal proposals are made, the Council of Ministers will scrutinise them carefully.
  5W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the increase of state aid permissible under the Nice Treaty. [144632]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Nice Treaty did not make any changes to the rules on state aid which increase permissible aid. The recent trend in state aid has been downwards.

  European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of the Nice Treaty on UK subjects committing perjury before the European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance. [144630]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Nice Treaty will have no effect on UK subjects committing perjury before the European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 263W, if she will make a statement on the result of the investigation into support for centres of social welfare in Kosovo. [144668]

  Clare Short
  We have received a preliminary report from the joint World bank and DFID team that is assisting UNMIK to prepare a social protection strategy for Kosovo. The team found that Centres for Social Welfare lack basic facilities, and has made preliminary proposals for reorganising their responsibilities and training their staff. The team will now begin a programme of work to follow up its preliminary observations. A DFID team will also visit Kosovo later this month and will discuss possible provision of training for staff of Centres for Social Welfare.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid given to St. Helena in each of the last six years for which figures are available. [144970]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure figures for UK development assistance to St. Helena over the last six financial year were:

  £ million

  Year

  Total DFID programme

  1994–95

  7,786

  1995–96

  8,695

  1996–97

  7,792

  1997–98

  8,386

  1998–99

  8,585

  1999–2000

  9,194

  South Africa
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the level of Government aid was for South Africa for each year between 1995 and 2000: and how much has been spent on projects for the modernisation of Government in South Africa. [145220]

  Clare Short
  In addition to contributions through multilateral agencies, DFID's direct expenditure in South Africa since 1995 has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  17,194,000

  1996–97

  18,955,000

  1997–98

  25,823,000

  1998–99

  29,131,000

  1999–2000

  29,602,000

  Most of this money has been spent on working with various parts of government in South Africa to improve service delivery. We currently have specific commitments totalling £13.5 million to support improved public administration in national, provincial and local government.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice in respect of the potential health hazards posed by depleted uranium dispersed in the environment from NATO shelling has been given to British aid workers deployed in Kosovo. [145290]

  Clare Short
  KFOR has provided the United Nations Mines Action and Co-ordination Centre (UNMACC) with an information pack about depleted uranium which UNMACC distributed to each mine clearance organisation.

  It has not been necessary to provide advice more widely to aid workers on this issue. The interim statement of the United Nations Environment Programme's survey of sites where depleted uranium was used in Kosovo states that they found slightly raised levels of radiation at eight sites. We are awaiting their final report. The Royal Society is also conducting a general review of depleted uranium. We shall review our practice on advice to aid workers in the light of both reports. Our present view is that mines and unexploded ordnance pose a greater risk to assistance workers and all personnel are given mines awareness training before deployment to Kosovo.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the landmine clearance programmes in which her Department is involved. [144902]

  Clare Short
  My Department is supporting the following landmine clearance programmes:Afghanistan—United Nations Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan
  Albania—Stockpile clearance and weapons collection (co-funded)
  Bosnia—International Trust Fund for Mine clearance—Kupres region
  Cambodia—Mine clearance through Cambodia Mine Action Centre, HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group

  7W
  Croatia—Mine clearance through United Nations Mine Action Service
  Georgia—Mine clearance in Abkhazia via HALO Trust
  Guinea Bissau—Mine clearance via United Nations Development Programme and HUMAID
  Jordan—Equipment for mine clearance in Jordan Valley—Jordan Government
  Iraq—Mine clearance in northern Iraq via Mines Advisory Group
  Laos—Unexploded ordnance clearance via Mines Advisory Group and United Nations Development Programme
  Mozambique—Mine clearance in Zambezia via HALO Trust
  Nicaragua—Mine clearance North Atlantic Autonomous Region via Organisation of American States
  Yugoslavia-FR—Mine clearance in Kosovo in support of United Nations Mine Action and Co-ordination Centre.

  The second progress report on all activities within my Department's Humanitarian Mine Action Programme was published in September 2000. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism Act 2000
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to lay before Parliament the draft code of practice and the sound and vision video recording code of practice under the Terrorism Act 2000. [145840]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft police code of practice, made under section 99 of the Terrorism Act, and a draft sound and vision video recording code of practice under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 8 to the Act.

  Pensioners
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will estimate the number of additional retirement pensioners in Northern Ireland who will become eligible to receive the Minimum Income Guarantee, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in consequence of the measures announced in 2000; [145119]

  (2) how many retirement pensioners in Northern Ireland are receiving (a) the Minimum Income Guarantee, (b) Housing Benefit and (c) Council Tax Benefit. [145118]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  TransTec Plc
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants were paid to TransTec plc and its subsidiaries between 1994 and 1998. [144822]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 January 2000, Official Report, columns 205–06W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the potential energy generation from(a) off-shore wind turbines, (b) land-based wind turbines, (c) wave power and (d) other renewable sources; what proportion of the United Kingdom's annual electricity consumption this represents; and if he will make a statement. [144671]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An assessment of the prospects for the different forms of renewable energy in the UK is contained in a report produced at time of the Government's consultation on renewable energy in March 1999: "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21 Century: Supporting Analysis". A copy is in the Library of the House. The report presents different possible scenarios for the future of renewable energy in the UK.

  Assessments are currently being carried out of potential renewable energy resources in each of the English regions, Scotland and Wales.

  The Renewables Obligation will provide a sound framework for the long-term development of renewable energy in the UK. The Government have proposed targets of obtaining 5 per cent. of UK electricity supplies from renewable sources by the end of 2003 and 10 per cent. by 2010, subject to the cost being acceptable to consumers. The Government do not propose, however, to prescribe targets for each different form of renewable energy, as the balance between the different forms of renewable energy is a matter best determined by the market.

  Newsagents
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that independent newsagents are not subject to unfair competition; and if he will make a statement. [145076]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, responsibility for investigating allegations of anticompetitive practices, abuse of monopoly position and restrictive trade practices lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Any evidence of abuse of anti-competitive behaviour should be passed to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Arms Sales
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the system of prior scrutiny of arms sales in the Swedish and US legislatures. [143746]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government considered the export control systems of a number of countries, as part of their review of the proposals in the 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls. Following the Quadripartite Committee's second report on "Strategic Export Controls: Further Report and Parliamentary Prior Scrutiny" (HC467), the Government considered the nature and scope of prior scrutiny of arms exports in Sweden arid the US. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain),
  9W
  informed my hon. Friend on 21 December 2000, Official Report, column 338W, the systems in those countries are very different from ours and in each case reflect their particular circumstances.

  Marine Laboratories
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of the Marine Laboratories, with particular reference to plans for merger at(a) Plymouth, (b) Liverpool and (c) Dunstaffnage. [144667]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Following the Natural Environment Research Council's (NERC) announcement on 29 June 2000 to disband the Centre for Coastal and Marine Science, the NERC Council agreed in November 2000 to provide continued funding for the work of each of the three marine laboratories for a further five years. Funding levels for the first two years have already been agreed; the Council's Science and Technology Board will consider funding levels for the remaining three years at its meeting in May 2001.

  The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory is scheduled to relocate to the University of Liverpool Campus in 2003. It will remain a NERC-owned and managed facility. Discussions with the Scottish Association for Marine Science over future management arrangements for the Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory are ongoing. The NERC Council will consider future management arrangements for the Plymouth Marine Laboratory at its meeting in March 2001.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the details of the business case for rural post offices. [144758]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The business case for rural post offices is an integral part of the Post Office network strategic plan. The plan, which was submitted to the Secretary of State "in strictest confidence" and is commercially sensitive, will not be published.

  British Energy/AES
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implications of the Competition Commission decision to overrule Ofgem's decision to impose market abuse licence conditions on British Energy and AES. [143900]

  Dr. Howells
  The references to the Competition Commission were made by the Director General of Electricity Supply (DGES). In the light of the Competition Commission's decision, Ofgem is considering other means of tackling market abuse.

  Produce Trade
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the draft Code of Practice covering the relationship between suppliers and producers in the produce trade. [144899]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I will do so once a draft Code of Practice is available.
  10W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has received from the Office of Fair Trading on how the process of consultation was determined in the course of preparing the Code of Practice covering the relationship between suppliers and producers in the produce trade. [144898]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I have not yet received advice from the Director General concerning the Code of Practice. I understand the Office of Fair Trading is still in discussions with the supermarkets concerned. I have said that representatives of suppliers will have an opportunity to comment on a draft of the Code. The Director General expects that to take place later this month, once the current round of discussions with the supermarkets is complete.

  Privatisations (Advertising)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent in total on advertising(a) electricity privatisation, (b) gas privatisation, (c) telecoms privatisation, (d) rail privatisation and (e) the minimum wage since its introduction. [144451]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The expenditure on advertising was:

  £ million1

  (a) Electricity2

  47.9

  (b) Gas

  21.4

  (c) Telecommunications3

  38.5

  (d) Railtrack

  5.1

  (e) National Minimum Wage

  8.0

  1 Excluding VAT

  2 Includes the electricity generating companies; regional electricity companies; Scottish and Northern Ireland generating companies; British Energy.

  3 Includes British Telecommunications (3 offers); Cable and Wireless.

  ECGD
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to publish minutes of meetings of the ECGD management board. [145320]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is not intended that the minutes of meetings of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's Management Board should be published. The minutes of meetings of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, whose role and membership were reformed as a result of the recent Review of ECGD's Mission and Status, will, however, be placed on ECGD's website.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what appointments have been made to the management board of the Export Credits Guarantee Department following the recommendation in the recent Mission and Status Review that outside directors should play a key role in overseeing ECGD's risk management systems; and if he will provide details of the appointment procedures followed, the salaries awarded and interests declared by the appointees. [145318]

  Mr. Caborn
  The process of identifying and selecting suitable outside directors for ECGD's Management Board is still under way and no appointments have yet been made.
  11W
  These appointments are outside the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. But the selection procedures being used take account of the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice and Guidance and will include the use of independent assessors.

  Trawlermen
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received under the compensation scheme for former distant water trawlermen; what the average time is from receipt of applications to payment; and how many payments have been issued so far. [145132]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department has so far received some 8,900 claims for payments under this scheme. The average time taken to make a payment from receipt of a claim is currently 59 days (8.4 weeks). As of 8 January 2001, 314 claims have been paid.

  Company Plans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress on the draft directive discussed at the December 2000 meeting of the European Employment and Social Affairs Council relating to information and consultation on company plans. [144955]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Employment and Social Policy Council met on 20 December and unanimously agreed the regulation and linked employee-involvement directive on the European Company Statute. The proposed directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community was not on the agenda.

  Coalmines (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims on behalf of coalminers suffering from respiratory diseases, which cover interim the entitlement to compensation arising from the High Court judgment of January 1998, have been settled in full for general and special damages. [144868]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: As at the end of December the Department had made full and final settlements on some 6,500 claims. In addition the Department has made a further 24,500 interim settlements. In total the Department has paid out over £104 million in compensation to former miners and their families with claims for respiratory diseases.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions during the past 12 months he has visited Corns steel works in Wales. [144873]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I visited the Llanwern plant on 8 October 1999 and keep in regular contact with the company and the trade unions representing the work force.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on other industrial sectors of the closure of Llanwern steel plant. [144881]
  12W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I am aware that Corus is considering further restructuring. Naturally we are assessing the consequences of a change to the structure of steel plants in Wales.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the National Assembly for Wales on the impact of the Government's industrial policy on the prospects of the steel industry in Wales. [144875]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I have had several discussions with my right hon. Friend for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), First Secretary for the National Assembly for Wales, in recent months on a range of issues concerning the steel industry in Wales. I continue to keep in close touch with him on this important issue.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the European Commission for special dispensations to help the survival of the UK steel industry. [144880]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: My Department is in touch with the European Commission about ways in which the steel industry can be assisted which meet the criteria of the Steel Aid Code of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the impact on the UK's balance of trade of the closure of Llanwern steel works. [144882]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: Corus figures for export are available only by product and not individual plant.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK steel industry's(a) imports and (b) exports were for the last year for which figures are available. [144883]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: Imports and exports for the tariff headings which most closely align with products of the steel industry during 1999, which is the last full year for which figures are available, were:

  Imports

  Exports

  1999

  6,915

  17,624

  1 Thousand tonnes

  Figures for the whole of 2000 are not yet available. Imports and exports of steel industry products in the first nine months of 2000, compared to the same period in 1999 were:

  Imports

  Exports

  20001

  5,567

  5,642

  19991

  4,953

  5,813

  1 To September

  2 Thousand tonnes

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  EU Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 20 and 21 December; and if he will make a statement. [144177]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, represented the United Kingdom at the Council.

  The Council unanimously adopted Conclusions welcoming the Commission's proposals for a new European Aviation Safety Agency. The Commission welcomed the progress made and hoped that a Common Position would be reached by June 2001.

  The Council took note of a progress report on a Commission proposal for transposing safety standards of the Joint Aviation Authorities into EC law. The Council also noted that a proposal for a directive creating generic training requirements for airline cabin crew was moving towards agreement.

  The Commission set out the main conclusions of the High Level Group set up following publication of the Commission Communication "The Creation of a Single European Sky," and chaired by the Commissioner. The conclusions focus on: creating an independent regulator; managing civil and military airspace in Europe collectively; promoting technical interoperability; and improving the training and recruitment of air traffic controllers. The Commission said it would present a Communication to the Stockholm European Council, and make legislative proposals soon after that. Member states all reacted positively. Most pointed to the need to fully involve central European countries in this work. Lord Macdonald stressed the need to separate the operation and regulation of air traffic management services.

  The Council discussed air passengers' rights. The Commission stressed the need for performance criteria for airlines. It hoped for new agreements with industry by the end of April. The Presidency noted that voluntary arrangements were preferable to legislation.

  The Commission gave a progress report on negotiations on air services agreements with the central and east European countries.

  The Presidency noted recent progress on the technical aspects of a Commission mandate for negotiating a Transatlantic Common Aviation Area with the US.

  The Commission presented its report on the definition phase of the Galileo satellite navigation project. During the debate, the UK joined other member states in recalling the Conclusions of the Cologne and Nice European Councils on the predominant role of private sector finance in the project. The Council did not reach agreement on how to proceed with the development and validation phase. The Commission will undertake further work on outstanding issues, and the project is likely to be discussed again by the Council in April.
  14W
  Proposals on maritime safety arising from the "Erika" disaster were further debated and common positions reached on two draft directives. The first of these enhances the supervision, and responsibilities and liabilities, of ship classification societies. The second improves the targeting and standards of port state control inspections, concentrating effort on those vessels which pose the greatest safety and/or pollution risks.

  The Commission gave a presentation on elements of the second package of post-"Erika" proposals: ship surveillance; increase in provision for oil pollution compensation payments; and a new European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). The UK underlined the need for the first two elements to be pursued internationally, in the context of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and supported the establishment of the EMSA, to the extent that it should provide for better quality technical support to the Commission.

  Council Conclusions were adopted reaffirming a maritime safety policy aimed at reducing the risk of accidents and the avoidance of loss of life and pollution of the marine environment. In particular the Conclusions undertook to continue negotiations with the IMO on acceleration of the introduction of double-hulled tankers, on the basis of an approach agreed by the Council in October, and, if an agreement on those terms is reached at the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee session in April 2001, to adopt a text bringing the IMO agreement immediately into Community law; emphasised the need for an adequate regime, global if possible, for compensation in the event of damage caused by oil pollution at sea; expressed the aim that Voyage Data Recorders (VDRs—"black boxes") should be compulsory within five years on all ships calling at EU ports, and that member states should continue their efforts in the IMO to secure an international agreement making mandatory the fitting of VDRs to all vessels.

  There was a debate on an amended proposal to harmonise employment standards between EU and third country crew members on intra-EU regular passenger ferry services. The UK, supported by other member states, emphasised the need to protect seafarers' employment conditions and maintain an appropriate maritime skills base.

  Political agreement was reached on a directive to improve the safety of bulk carriers, which is now subject to the scrutiny of the European Parliament.

  Agreement with the European Parliament having been reached on the package of measures for opening up international rail freight in the EU, the Council unanimously adopted the package.

  Political agreement was reached by qualified majority on a directive on working time in the road transport sector. Self-employed drivers will not be covered by the directive immediately, but their exclusion will be reviewed two years after transposition of the directive, with the aim of drawing up specific provisions. The UK is content with much of the agreed text, and was pleased to see revised definitions of working time and night work incorporated. However, as the final text did not include satisfactory provision on an individual opt-out, or a

  15W
  temporary derogation permitting a 65 hour maximum working week, the United Kingdom abstained from the Council's agreement.

  The Council agreed Conclusions on a proposal obliging international lorry drivers to carry an attestation showing that they were legally employed. The Conclusions stated that the draft regulation should apply only to third country drivers (subject to review), and that work should continue with a view to reaching agreement on the regulation at the Council in April.

  The Commission presented its proposals on weekend lorry bans, driver training, and the amendment to Regulation 3820/85 on drivers' hours.

  There was a debate on proposals on public service obligations in the field of passenger transport by road, rail and inland waterway, and on state aid granted for co-ordination of transport in those modes. The UK was among member states to speak in support of the proposals. The Presidency concluded that public services were of general interest and needed particular treatment to safeguard them, and that there was a general desire for progress.

  The Commission presented its Green Paper on security of energy supply.

  The Council adopted a directive continuing indefinitely the harmonised start and end dates for summertime in the EU (last Sunday of March and October respectively). There will be a review after five years.

  School Transport
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the safety of school buses and coaches used by school parties. [144463]

  Mr. Hill
  Over the last two years ministerial colleagues and I have responded to two Parliamentary Questions, three letters from Members' constituents and my officials have responded on behalf of Ministers to four letters direct from the general public on this subject.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many school coaches are(a) over 10 years old, (b) over 20 years old and (c) older than 20 years. [144457]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no dedicated vehicle classification of a school coach as it is unlikely that coach operators would use their vehicles solely for the purpose of carrying school children. It is thus currently impossible to know the ages of the vehicles that are used for carrying school children, although it is generally recognised that vehicles used for school and college contracts are normally from the older section of the public service vehicles—PSV—fleet.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many buses which have been subject to spot-checks have been found by the police to have defects in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the number which were school buses. [144487]

  Mr. Hill
  In addition to its routine roadside spot checks the Vehicle Inspectorate supports the police in nationwide checks. Of these, Operation Coachman, which has been running since 1997–98, involves specific targeted 16W
  roadside checks on the condition of public service vehicles (minibuses, coaches and buses) used on school and college services. The table shows the results of Operation Coachman checks in each of the last three years and routine PSV roadside spot checks in each of the last five years. Data on routine PSV roadside spot checks carried out by the Inspectorate are not broken down to identify school buses.

  Number of vehicles examined

  Prohibition rates (Percentage)

  Operation Coachman

  1999–2000

  2,523

  17.4

  1998–99

  2,171

  18.1

  1997–98

  2,254

  18.9

  PSV spot checks1

  1999–2000

  23,516

  13.4

  1998–99

  20,635

  13.6

  1997–98

  28,045

  12.7

  1996–97

  28,809

  14.4

  1995–96

  23,987

  15.0

  1 Figures include emission only spot checks and foreign vehicles

  A prohibition notice bans the use of a vehicle on a public road. There are two types of prohibition. An immediate prohibition is issued when defects are so serious that further driving of the vehicle would involve a risk of injury. A delayed prohibition is issued for less serious defects and can come into force at any time within 10 days of the inspection of the vehicle.

  The prohibition rate at targeted roadside checks (such as Operation Coachman) is not indicative of the condition of the PSV fleet as a whole. The Inspectorate targets vehicles which are most likely to have defects. The higher prohibition rate for Operation Coachman is due to the fact that vehicles used for school and college contracts are normally drawn from the older section of the PSV fleet.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of school buses have correctly-fitted seat belts. [144459]

  Mr. Hill
  Seat belts are required to be fitted on all school minibuses and coaches, but not on other types of bus. All new seat belt installations on buses, whether fitted on a voluntary or mandatory basis, must satisfy a Vehicle Inspectorate installation check. Subsequent to this initial check, seat belts and anchorages are inspected for condition as part of the normal annual test.

  Although figures for school buses are not recorded separately, Vehicle inspectorate figures for buses in general show that a total of 2.5 per cent. of public service vehicles (covering most large buses and coaches) and 6 per cent. of Class V vehicles (covering most minibuses) failed the annual test due to seat belt or anchorage defects.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the number of school buses that comply with Government safety standards. [144460]

  Mr. Hill
  All buses are required to be constructed and operated to meet specific legal requirements for safety. Compliance with these standards is checked through statutory annual testing and through in-service checks during the year.
  17W
  In addition to these checks the condition of buses used to carry school children receives extra attention through a special annual national enforcement campaign called Operation Coachman. This campaign shows that the incidence of defects in buses used to carry school children is approximately 17 per cent. of vehicles and is similar to the rate detected in other targeted enforcement exercises. The reason for this figure is due to the fact the Department's Agency the Vehicle Inspectorate target their attention to vehicles which are suspected of having defects during special enforcement exercises.

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is on the introduction of congestion charges in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [144904]

  Mr. Hill
  The Greater London Authority Act 1999 gives power to the Mayor and the boroughs to introduce road user charging schemes in Greater London. The Government believe that road user charging can be a useful part of a transport strategy in appropriate circumstances. It is for the Mayor, and the boroughs subject to the Mayor's consent, to judge whether schemes are justified in London.

  Shrimps (Ribble Estuary)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he has collated on the effect of commercial sand extraction on the decline of the shrimp harvest in the Ribble Estuary. [144944]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State has not collated any information on the effect of commercial sand extraction on the decline of the shrimp harvest in the Ribble Estuary. He is, however, aware that commercial sand extraction is taking place at Sefton Beach within the Ribble Estuary. He has been asked by the Local Minerals Planning Authority, Sefton Borough Council, to call in two planning applications for continued sand extraction in this location for, respectively, 10-year and 12-month periods. He is currently considering this request and will announce his decision shortly.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to re-examine local government boundary configurations in major conurbations outside London, before the introduction of elected mayors. [145302]

  Ms Armstrong
  There are no plans at present to examine the external boundaries of local authorities. As part of the programme of periodic electoral reviews, the Local Government Commission for England is examining the electoral arrangements, including ward boundaries, within all local authorities. Any changes in the electoral arrangements in Metropolitan authorities would be likely to be implemented in 2004.

  Railway Companies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which railway 18W
  companies have been penalised since 1 May 1997; how much they have been fined; when they were fined; and what the reason was for the penalty in each case. [145301]

  Mr. Hill
  Details of penalties levied upon train operating companies under the terms of their franchise agreements are contained in the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's publication "On Track" and in the Authority's Annual Report. Copies of both documents are in the Libraries of the House.

  Concorde
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from British Airways concerning the airworthiness of Concorde; and if he will make a statement. [145007]

  Mr. Mullin
  An Anglo-French Working Group of senior government officials and civil aviation authority representatives was established on 17 August to co-ordinate work and review progress on restoring the airworthiness of Concorde. The Working Group has met representatives from Concorde's manufacturers and operators, including British Airways, several times. Both carriers also have regular contact with their national aviation safety regulatory authorities.

  The Working Group met for the fourth time on 15 December 2000 during which it received the latest information from the technical accident investigators. At that meeting, British Airways confirmed its commitment to take the necessary steps that would enable Concorde's certificate of airworthiness to be restored as soon as possible. The next (fifth) meeting of the Working Group will take place in Paris on 9 February.

  Flixborough Disaster
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his letter of 14 December 2000 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make a statement on his meeting with Ralph King about the Flixborough disaster. [144669]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am due to meet Mr. King and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) on 29 January to discuss Mr. King's views about the causes of the Flixborough disaster.

  Soil Protection Strategy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce his Soil Protection Strategy. [144666]

  Mr. Meacher
  Next month.

  Highways (Ice)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take following the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Goodes v. East Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [145719]
  19W
  Mr. Hill
  The judgment was that there was no duty on local highway authorities under the Highways Act 1980 to remove ice from highways. Nevertheless, we expect authorities to continue to salt their roads in icy conditions in accordance with their Code of Good Practice on Highway Maintenance, which has been in place since 1989. All our soundings with local highway authorities have confirmed that it is their intention to maintain existing practices.

  We have instructed the Highways Agency to continue its usual practice of keeping motorways and trunk roads free of ice and snow.

  Road users should follow the advice in the Highway Code that they should drive extremely carefully when the roads are icy.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to allow public consultation before he announces new special areas of conservation; and if he will make a statement. [145449]

  Mr. Mullin
  Full public consultation and discussion with affected interests on all sites has been and continues to be an important principle for the Government. English Nature has, as part of the consultation process initiated in August 2000, given all landowners and occupiers, local authorities, statutory agencies and relevant bodies with interest in new special areas of conservation the opportunity to comment. At national level, my officials consulted national interest groups and representative bodies.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the guidelines by which he will decide on the location of new special areas of conservation. [145450]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Habitats Directive requires that member states nominate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) that are the best areas to represent the range and variety of the habitats and species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive. The criteria for the selection of Special Areas of Conservation are set out in Annexe III of the Habitats Directive.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites he is proposing for new special areas of conservation. [145451]

  Mr. Mullin
  Yes. The Government asked English Nature to consult on the following proposed new special areas of conservation (SACs) in England.

  Site name

  Administrative area

  Alde, Ore and Butley Estuaries

  Suffolk

  Arnecliff and Park Hole Woods

  North Yorkshire

  Ashdown Forest

  East Sussex

  Aston Rowant

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Baston Fen

  Lincolnshire

  Beast Cliff—Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay)

  North Yorkshire

  Bee's Nest and Green Clay Pits

  Derbyshire

  Blackstone Point

  Devon

  20W

  Site name

  Administrative area

  Bolton Fell and Walton Mosses

  Cumbria

  Bracket's Coppice

  Dorset

  Breney Common and Goss and Tregoss Moors

  Cornwall

  Brown Moss

  Shropshire

  Butser Hill

  Hampshire

  Calf Hill and Cragg Woods

  Lancashire

  Cannock Chase

  Staffordshire

  Cerne and Sydling Downs

  Dorset

  Cumbrian Marsh Fritillary Site

  Cumbria

  Dawlish Warren

  Devon

  Dew's Ponds

  Suffolk

  Dixton Wood

  Gloucestershire

  Duncton to Bignor Escarpment

  West Sussex

  Durham Coast

  Durham

  Emer Bog

  Hampshire

  Exmoor and Quantock Oak woods

  Devon

  Somerset

  Fens Pools

  Dudley

  Ford Moss

  Northumberland

  Hackpen Hill

  Oxfordshire

  Hartslock Wood

  Oxfordshire

  Hastings Cliffs to Pett Beach

  East Sussex

  Hatfield Moor

  Doncaster

  Helbeck and Swindale Woods

  Cumbria

  Hestercombe House

  Somerset

  Humber Estuary

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Lincolnshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  Rennet Valley Alderwoods

  West Berkshire

  Kirk Deighton

  North Yorkshire

  Little Wittenham

  Oxfordshire

  Lyppard Grange Ponds

  Worcestershire

  Manchester Mosses

  Warrington

  Wigan

  Mendip Limestone Grasslands

  North Somerset

  Somerset

  Mobberley and Oversley Ponds

  Cheshire

  Manchester

  Nene Washes

  Cambridgeshire

  City of Peterborough

  North Downs Woodlands

  Kent

  Medway

  North York Moors

  North Yorkshire

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Overstrand Cliffs

  Norfolk

  Ox Close

  North Yorkshire

  Paston Great Barn

  Norfolk

  Peter's Pit

  Kent

  Phoenix United Mine and Crow's Nest

  Cornwall

  Polruan to Polperro

  Cornwall

  Quants

  Somerset

  Richmond Park

  Richmond upon Thames

  River Axe

  Devon

  Dorset

  River Clun

  Herefordshire

  Shropshire

  River Derwent

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire

  York

  River Kent

  Cumbria

  River Lambourn

  West Berkshire

  River Mease

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  Staffordshire

  River Wensum

  Norfolk

  Rixton Clay Pits

  Warrington

  Rochdale Canal

  Rochdale

  Tameside

  Roman Wall Loughs

  Northumberland

  Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point

  Lincolnshire

  Shortheath Common

  Hampshire

  Skipwith Common

  North Yorkshire

  Solway Moss

  Cumbria

  21W

  Site name

  Administrative area

  South Pennine Moors

  Barnsley

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  Cheshire

  Derbyshire

  Kirklees

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  North Yorkshire

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Sheffield

  Staffordshire

  Tameside

  St. Austell Clay Pits

  Cornwall

  Stodmarsh

  Kent

  Strensall Common

  York

  Site name

  Administrative area

  Dee Estuary/Aber Afon Dyfrdwy

  Cheshire; Fflint/Flintshire; Wirral

  River Dee and Bala Lake/Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegid

  Cheshire; Ddinbych/ Denbighshire; Fflint/ Flintshire; Gwynedd; Shropshire; Wrecsam/ Wrexham

  River Tweed

  Northumberland; Scottish Borders

  Severn Estuary/Mör Hafren

  Bro Morgannwg/ Vale of Glamorgan; Caerdydd/ Cardiff; Casnewydd/ Newport; City of Bristol; Fynwy/ Monmouthshire; Gloucestershire; North Somerset; Somerset; South Gloucestershire

  Asylum Seeker Support
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions on 8 January between the Minister for Local government and the Association of London Government about asylum seeker support. [145335]

  Ms Armstrong
  I met the Association of London Government on 8 January to discuss their response to the proposed local government finance settlement for 2001–02, on which I announced my proposals to the House on 27 November. I shall take into account the points they made, together with those made by the Local Government Association, individual local authorities and others before putting the Government's final proposals before the House for approval. In the course of that meeting the ALG raised their concerns about the costs of housing homeless asylum seekers.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the estimated contribution of private and commercial vehicles to total UK carbon dioxide emissions for each of the past three years in(a) percentage terms and (b) by volume. [145433]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table shows, road transport carbon dioxide emissions for the last three years for which we have data, the period 1996 to 1998 inclusive, both in(a) percentage terms and (b) by volume in million tonnes of carbon (MtC).

  Year

  (a) Percentage

  (b) MtC

  1996

  20

  31.3

  1997

  21

  31.7

  1998

  21

  31.5

  22W

  Site name

  Administrative area

  Subberthwaite, Blawith and Torver Low Commons

  Cumbria

  Tweed Estuary

  Northumberland

  Tyne and Nent

  Cumbria

  Ullswater Oakwoods

  Cumbria

  West Dorset Alderwoods

  Dorset

  Wimbledon Common

  Merton Wandsworth

  Witherslack Mosses

  Cumbria

  Woolmer Forest

  Hampshire

  Yewbarrow Woods

  Cumbria

  A number of proposed new cross border SACs with Wales and Scotland are being considered. These are listed and are the subject of separate arrangements with the devolved administrations.

  Site Investigation (Acorn Ridge)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which the site investigation of the proposed Green Burial site at Acorn Ridge, Enborne carried out by West Berkshire District Council, meets the requirements of the Planning Inspection Decision Letter (25/8/98) (Ref. T/APP/WO340/A/98/ 293497/PS). [145224]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In granting planning permission, the Planning Inspector imposed a condition requiring a site investigation to be carried out by the developers and for the details to be submitted to, and approved by Newbury District Council before development could begin. It was entirely a matter for the Council to consider whether the submitted details were acceptable and the Secretary of State had no powers to intervene, or assess, the Council's decision.

  Motorway Services (Brockworth)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the application to build a motorway services area near Brockworth, Gloucestershire. [144917]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The initial application on this site is the subject of appeal against non-determination by Tewkesbury Borough Council and the date for the appeal to be heard by an Inspector has not been finalised; any statement made now may prejudice the outcome. More recently a revised application was submitted for a motorway service area and this is still being considered by the borough council.

  Rent Rebates
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the level of
  23W
  subsidy has been in percentage terms which is paid to local authorities towards the cost of rent rebates for each year since 1990–91. [145623]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Rent rebate subsidy as percentage of national total cost of rent rebates, England

  Percentage

  1990–91

  90

  1991–92

  86

  1992–93

  83

  1993–94

  80

  1994–95

  78

  1995–96

  75

  1996–97

  72

  1997–98

  69

  1998–99

  66

  1999–20001

  62

  2000–012

  60

  1 Provisional

  2 Estimated

  We have altered the way in which the housing revenue account subsidy system operates for 2001–02 by introducing the major repairs allowance. As a result we expect that the equivalent figure for 2001–02 will be over 80 per cent.

  Farm Plastic Waste
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a national waste collection scheme for farm plastic; and if he will make a statement. [145453]

  Mr. Mullin
  The issue of farm plastics has been raised most recently in the context of extending waste management controls to agricultural waste and is being considered currently.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Budgeted Running Costs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the budgeted running costs and staff numbers in 2000–01 broken down by Government Office region for(a) Sport England, (b) the Arts Council, (c) the British Tourist Authority, (d) the English Tourism Council and (e) English Heritage. [144279]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information for Sport England and English Heritage is in the table. Running costs include payroll, premises and administrative costs. The Arts Council, the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council do not have regional offices. The Arts Council and the English Tourism Council however, allocate block grants to Regional Tourist Boards and Regional Arts Boards respectively.

  Sport England

  English Heritage

  £

  Number of staff

  £

  Number of staff

  East of England

  637,000

  17

  2,446,325

  82

  East Midlands

  623,000

  17

  1,733,635

  56

  London

  612,000

  17

  5,328,961

  185

  24W

  Sport England

  English Heritage

  £

  Number of staff

  £

  Number of staff

  North East

  574,000

  16

  2,433,054

  87

  North West

  757,000

  19

  1,257,779

  38

  South East

  1,195,000

  32

  4,977,056

  193

  South West

  583,000

  17

  3,923,931

  144

  West Midlands

  678,000

  17

  1,922,649

  58

  Yorkshire

  689,000

  18

  2,385,831

  81

  Tourism (Expenditure)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the budgeted expenditure in 2000–01 broken down by Government Office region for(a) the British Tourist Authority, (b) the English Tourism Council and (c) English Heritage. [144277]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The British Tourist Authority deploys its budget in marketing Britain as a whole and no specific funds are allocated for each region. The information for the English Tourism Council and English Heritage is in the table. The English Tourism Council's expenditure is in the form of grants to the separate Regional Tourist Boards.

  £

  English Tourism Council

  English Heritage

  East of England

  476,879

  11,906,834

  East Midlands

  1—

  4,628,935

  London

  417,505

  9,675,566

  North East

  340,687

  4,769,174

  North West

  2729,413

  4,898,151

  South East

  331,517

  11,700,356

  Southern

  2426,079

  n/a

  South West

  407,758

  10,413,531

  West Midlands

  1—

  5,794,224

  Yorkshire

  367,100

  6,630,971

  Heart of England

  4502,939

  n/a

  1 See Heart of England

  2 This figure includes that of the Cumbria Tourist Board

  3 The Southern Tourist Beard covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (all within the South East Government Office Region); and East Dorset (within the South West Government Office Region)

  4 The Heart of England Tourist Board covers both the East and West Midlands Government Office Regions, as well as Gloucestershire (South West); Hertfordshire (East of England) and part of Oxfordshire (South East)

  Hospice Funding
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on Lottery funding for hospices. [144747]

  Kate Hoey
  In November 2000, the Department published a consultation paper which proposed a number of new initiatives to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund. Subject to responses to this consultation, we intend that £300 million will be made available to health initiatives, including money to provide palliative care for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illness. This will include additional funding for hospices caring for people suffering from a range of serious conditions.

  Seeing Salvation Exhibition
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to the directors of the National Gallery about its exhibition for the millennium, Seeing Salvation. [145223]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I visited the critically acclaimed Seeing Salvation exhibition. Since then, in discussions with the National Gallery, we have been pleased to acknowledge the exhibition's impressive quality and its success in attracting 350,000 visitors, many of whom were first time visitors to the gallery.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to amend the provisions of the National Lottery Act 1998 concerning the process of awarding the licence to operate the National Lottery; and if he will make a statement. [145171]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I welcome the fact that the National Lottery Commission has reached a decision on the award of the new Lottery licence. In the light of the experience of awarding the new licence, I intend to review the process to see if there is scope for improving the present system. Any such review will not be instituted until all the arrangements for the new licence are completed; as a result, the scope and nature of the review still have to be decided but I envisage that it will have an independent element, and changes to the legislation have not been ruled out.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish details of the bids to operate the National Lottery. [145561]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the National Lottery Commission.

  Regional Culture Consortiums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the achievements to date of each of the regional culture consortiums. [145527]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Regional Cultural Consortiums are independent advisory bodies providing a focus for each region's many and varied cultural and creative interests. They are currently developing cultural strategies to be published in the next few months. Each strategy will identify the priorities for that region's cultural development over the next few years and include an action plan for implementing them.

  All the Consortiums have published draft strategies or undertaken consultation on them. Some have also undertaken surveys of public attitudes to culture and audits of cultural provision in their region. In developing their strategies they are consulting a wide range of individuals and organisations, both in writing and in meetings and seminars. Most are also developing their own websites.

  The Consortiums are working closely with Regional Development Agencies to support their regional economic strategies and, in particular, to promote tourism and the
  26W
  creative industries. They are also working with other regional partners to ensure that the energy and enthusiasm of cultural and sporting interests make a significant contribution to economic development, regeneration and social inclusion in their region.

  Film Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Film Council regarding the publication of actuarial reports on the film franchises. [145138]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None. The consultants' reports—which are not, of course, actuarial—were undertaken on the basis that the information would be treated as commercial in confidence.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to appoint the Chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council. [145170]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We are currently considering candidates for the post of Chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Museum Trustees
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from trustees and directors of national museums regarding his proposals to alter the method of appointing trustees. [145169]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Last year I consulted the trustees and directors of national museums on a number of proposals to improve the process of public appointments to the museums and galleries sponsored by DCMS. These proposals were generally well received. Seven out of 10 who commented supported the proposal that those trustee appointments made currently by the Prime Minister should in future be made by the Secretary of State, as many are already. Seven out of eight supported proposals to allow numbers of trustees to be varied and upper and lower limits to numbers set out to allow more flexibility. Nine out of 14 who commented supported the proposal that Boards should have the freedom to appoint at least 25 per cent. of their trustees.

  I also consulted on the handling of Chairmen appointments. Five of these are already made by the Secretary of State and two by the Prime Minister. Despite this there was much opposition to the proposal that nine others should be appointed by the Prime Minister and this proposal was accordingly dropped. By contrast there was little opposition at that stage to the alternative proposal that there should be consultation with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister before Chairmen are elected, a process which in a number of cases happens informally already. However, there have also been subsequent representations on this point, and we are considering these carefully.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colombia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government are taking to ensure civil society groups are involved in discussions on the search for peace in Colombia. [144425]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK has played a leading role in encouraging the Colombian Government to ensure that NGOs and civil society groups are fully involved. NGO and civil society organisations made a valuable contribution to meetings in Costa Rica on 17 October and in Bogota on 24 October 2000. We will continue to encourage this dialogue.

  We have fully involved NGOs and civil society groups in our own consultations on Colombia. On 19 June 2000 we hosted an international meeting in London to help prepare the ground for a successful conference on Colombia in Madrid in July 2000. NGO representatives participated in both meetings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) and I also met a wide range of NGOs, church and trade union leaders during our visit to Colombia in September last year. We value all these contacts.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UN presence in Colombia. [144426]

  Mr. Battle
  We fully support the work of the various UN agencies in Colombia. The British Embassy in Bogota works very closely with the UN Human Rights office in Bogota and Embassy officials have visited UN field offices on both Putumayo and Uraba. The UK has been a major contributor to the UN Human Rights office's activities over recent years, most recently contributing £108,000 in March.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present legal position of Mrs. Titina Loizidou and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in the case of Loizidou against Turkey. [111410]

  Mr. Vaz
  Mrs. Loizidou awaits settlement of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in her case against Turkey in which she was awarded financial compensation for the loss of access to her property. The Government will continue to play their part in the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, which is responsible for supervising the implementation of judgments and for taking the necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with foreign ministers of European countries on Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [144409]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary and I have frequent discussions with our EU counterparts on Cyprus's and all the other EU candidates' membership applications. Our most recent substantive discussions were at the General Affairs Council meetings on 20 November and 28W
  4 December 2000. Cyprus has made considerable progress in its accession negotiations. We look forward to further progress under the Swedish Presidency which will take forward the recommendations made in the European Commission's Enlargement Strategy paper of November 2000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has recently had with the Turkish Government on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou against Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [144411]

  Mr. Hain
  Complementing the collective responsibility of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers to ensure that judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are implemented, the Government have taken regular opportunities in bilateral discussions to urge Turkey to comply with the judgment.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many chapters of the European Union's application for the membership of the Republic of Cyprus have been successfully negotiated; how many remain to be approved; and if he will make a statement. [144581]

  Mr. Vaz
  Cyprus has opened 29, and provisionally closed 17, of the 31 chapters of the EU's "acquis communautaire" (the body of EU legislation and practice). We expect significant further progress in the accession negotiations during the Swedish Presidency.

  Burma
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [144489]

  Mr. Battle
  The human rights situations in Burma is appalling. We take every opportunity to condemn the whole range of violations including forced labour, the persecution of the Karen and other ethnic minorities, forced relocation, torture, rape, arbitrary killings and denial of political rights which regularly take place and to call for urgent improvement. We maintain pressure on the Burmese authorities in a variety of ways, for example through supporting a tough EU Common Position; co-sponsoring United Nations resolutions; and supporting action in the International Labour Organisation.

  We do not intend to relax our international pressure for respect for democracy and human rights for the Burmese people until we see real progress.

  Sri Lanka
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sri Lankan Government following the massacre of 25 Tamil youths held in the Bindunuwena Rehabilitation Centre in Sri Lanka on 25 October 2000. [144752]

  Mr. Hain
  We were shocked to learn of the terrible massacre at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre. We have made clear our concerns to the Sri Lankan government and I raised the incident with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister when I visited Colombo in November. We are pleased that the government quickly undertook to
  29W
  conduct a full inquiry into the massacre. We have underlined the need for the inquiry to be independent, swift and transparent.

  It is essential that the perpetrators of this awful crime are swiftly brought to justice.

  Armenian Genocide
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the recognition of the Armenian genocide up to 1923; and if he will make a statement. [144863]

  Mr. Vaz
  The government of the day condemned the massacres; a view shared by this Government. Neither this Government nor previous British Governments have judged the evidence to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.

  International War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have appeared before the International War Crimes Tribunal; and how many have been(a) found guilty and (b) acquitted. [144903]

  Mr. Hain
  Thirty seven persons have appeared before the ICTY including those whose trials are on-going. In the trials concluded, 13 persons have been found guilty and two persons have been acquitted.

  Forty four persons have appeared before the ICTR, including those whose trials are on-going. In the trials concluded, eight persons have been found guilty. No persons have been acquitted.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects of a return to full civilian, democratic rule in Sierra Leone. [145309]

  Mr. Hain
  Sierra Leone returned to full civilian democratic rule in March 1996 when President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah was elected. But his Government have been prevented from governing the whole of the country because of the long running civil war. We are confident that if all the parties involved in the conflict abide by the Abuja ceasefire agreement signed in November 2000, the Sierra Leone Government will, with the continued help of the international community, continue to extend their authority throughout the country.

  Israel
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government on their treatment of Palestinian civilians. [145308]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly raise our concerns about human rights with the Israeli authorities and have done so on a number of occasions since 28 September. In addition there have been EU demarches to the Israeli Authorities, most recently about the serious humanitarian consequences of Israeli closures, which greatly restricts the movement of 30W
  people, goods and money, both between the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the outside world, and between towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip themselves.

  Sanctions (Iraq)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what strategic military value is given in the context of the sanctions regime applied against Iraq to the inclusion on the proscribed list of(a) dyes, (b) easels, (c) envelopes, (d) spectacles, (e) flower pots, (f) forks, (g) fountain pens, (h) girdles, (i) handkerchiefs, (j) glue and (k) hearing aides. [145319]

  Mr. Hain
  None of the items identified by my hon. Friend are on a list of items which cannot be supplied to Iraq.

  As my hon. Friend will be aware from the answer to a similar question tabled by him, 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 203W, United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) introduced "fast-track" procedures in key humanitarian and infrastructure sectors. More than $3 billion worth of humanitarian goods have already been fast-tracked to Iraq in this way. These goods, which include foodstuffs, medical, agricultural, educational, water and sanitation supplies and oil spare parts no longer require Sanctions Committee approval but only need to be notified to the UN Secretariat. Under Security Council resolution 1330 the lists of "fast-track" goods are being extended to include goods in the electricity and housing sectors.

  North Atlantic Council
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Council meeting which took place on 14 and 15 December. [143749]

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were discussed at the North Atlantic Council meeting which took place on 14 and 15 December. [143738]

  Mr. Vaz
  The North Atlantic Council meeting of Foreign Ministers on 14 and 15 December highlighted NATO's progress in key areas during 2000. Ministers focused especially on:the increasing stability of South Eastern Europe, with a particular welcome for the recent changes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;
  work under the Defence Capabilities Initiative towards more effective and interoperable NATO forces;
  NATO's collective determination to reinforce its European pillar and its commitment to a balanced and dynamic transatlantic partnership;
  European Defence, where NATO welcomed the outcome of the Nice European Council as the basis for permanent arrangements between the EU and NATO;
  NATO's commitment to remain open to new members;
  NATO's support for work to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

  A copy of the Final Communique setting out the conclusions of the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Panicos Tsiakourmas
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the detention of the Greek Cypriot Panicos Tsiakourmas on 12 December 2000 by Turkish forces; and what representations have been made to the Turkish authorities. [145608]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. Our High Commissioner has made strong representations to Mr. Denktash about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas' arrest. We have also raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. I met Mrs. Tsiakourmas and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 9 January. We will continue to raise the issue until it is resolved satisfactorily.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to secure the immediate release of Mr. Tsiakourmas, a Greek Cypriot national by the Turkish Cypriot authorities; and if he will make a statement. [145084]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. Our High Commissioner has made strong representations to Mr. Denktash about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas' arrest. We have also raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. As my hon. Friend knows, we met Mrs. Tsiakourmas on 9 January. We will continue to raise the issue until it is resolved satisfactorily.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations are being made to the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities regarding the medical condition of Mr. Tsiakourmas; what treatment has been provided to ensure his health does not deteriorate; and if he will make a statement. [145082]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our High Commissioner in Nicosia is keeping in close contact with the UN and the Tsiakourmas family concerning Mr. Tsiakourmas' health and welfare. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing Mrs. Tsiakourmas to see me. According to information given to us by the UN, a doctor specialising in diabetes cases saw and treated Mr. Tsiakourmas as required on 8 January. Our High Commissioner has urged the Turkish Cypriot authorities to allow Mr. Tsiakourmas regular access, through the UN, to a doctor specialising in diabetes cases. The UK Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. We will continue to make strong protests to the Turkish Cypriots and raise our concerns with the Turkish authorities, until the case is satisfactorily resolved.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations have taken place into the events surrounding the abduction of Mr. Tsiakourmas; what facts have been established in relation to the charges under which he is being detained; and if he will make a statement. [145083]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. The Sovereign Base Areas Administration is continuing to 32W
  conduct an investigation, but the evidence so far available raises serious questions about the circumstances in which Mr. Tsiakourmas' vehicle was abandoned in the Eastern Sovereign Base Area and the basis of his arrest. Our High Commissioner has therefore made strong representations to Mr. Denktash and we have raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. We will continue to press this case until it is resolved satisfactorily.

  Churches (Wenzhou)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Chinese ministers regarding the destruction of churches in Wenzhou in China; and if he will make a statement. [145268]

  Mr. Battle
  We are concerned at the disturbing reports of the destruction of non-official Catholic and Protestant churches, and Buddhist and Taoist temples in Wenzhou, China, in late 2000. Such activities run contrary to the provisions of religious freedoms contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which China signed in October 1998.

  We regularly press the Chinese authorities to respect these provisions and to permit free religious worship outside the parameters of the official churches in China—we did so at the latest session of the human rights dialogue in October. We have raised specific concerns about the destruction of churches and temples in Wenzhou. We will address again the whole issue of freedom of religious belief most strongly during the next round of the high level UK/China human rights dialogue in Beijing between 12–14 February.

  Burkina Faso
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the President of Burkina Faso about the recent UN report concerning his country and breaches of UN arms and diamonds bans on anti-Government forces in Angola and Sierra Leone. [145262]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK Government have not yet made any representations to the President of Burkina Faso following the recent reports by the UN Sierra Leone Expert Panel on violations of the UN arms embargo and the link between arms and the trade in Sierra Leone diamonds, and by the UN Angola Monitoring Mechanism on violations of UN sanctions against UNITA.

  The Sierra Leone report's findings and recommendations will be discussed in detail at an Open Debate of the UN Security Council later this month. Members of the Council will then consider appropriate follow-up action. The UN Angola Sanctions Committee will also discuss the Monitoring Mechanism's report this month.

  We have previously raised our concerns with the Burkinabe authorities concerning allegations that arms have been shipped from Burkina Faso in breach of UN sanctions and I have publicly criticised its Government about this.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the extension by the President of Sudan of the state of emergency by another year. [145264]

  Mr. Hain
  We took careful note of statements by Sudanese officials when the state of emergency was imposed in December 1999 to the effect that it was not intended to affect individual liberties, but was necessary to allow Government business to proceed in the absence of a National Assembly. A new National Assembly was elected in December and will shortly hold its opening session. We look to the Government of Sudan, in line with their earlier statements, to lift the state of emergency as soon as possible thereafter.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the return of Ethiopian Oromo refugees from Sudan. [145364]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, over 13,000 Ethiopian refugees in Sudan have volunteered for repatriation. More than 4,000 of these were expected to arrive in Ethiopia in early January.

  Gambia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the recent United Nations report concerning the role of Gambia in trafficking in conflict diamonds. [145263]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK Government take very seriously the findings of the UN Sierra Leone Expert Panel in its hard-hitting report on violations of the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone and the link between the arms trade and the diamonds trade. The Panel's findings on the transit of Sierra Leone diamonds through Gambia are worrying.

  We look forward to the first substantive discussion of the report and its recommendations during an Open Debate of the UN Security Council to be held later this month. We will be calling therefore Gambia to take active steps to dispel international concern regarding its role in the international diamond trade.

  Chin People
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the arrest of several hundred Chin people from Burma who are seeking asylum in the Mizoram state of north east India. [145363]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of reports of the arrest of a number of Chin people in Mizoram last year. Officials in our High Commission in New Delhi raised this with the Indian Ministry for External Affairs. Officials have also discussed this with the Indian National Human Rights Commission. We are not aware of further arrests.

  Arms Trafficking
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives NATO is assessing to combat the spread and illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons in the Euro-Atlantic area. [144423]

  Mr. Hain
  Since 1999, the Ad Hoc Working Group of NATO's Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) has focused on the problem of small arms proliferation. Until early summer 2000, this was chaired by the UK. Under its auspices, several countries have held seminars and workshops on issues such as stockpile management and security, weapons destruction and border controls. These have usefully contributed to the international debate on the issue. Bulgaria, Macedonia and Switzerland have announced plans to hold follow-up seminars in 2001.

  Although no partner country has yet made a formal request for assistance on small arms under NATO's Partnership for Peace Work Programme, there were expressions of interest at an EAPC seminar on export controls held at the end of November 2000. Such assistance could include expert visits and training in issues such as border controls and end-use certification. It could also be used to work with partner countries on developing best practice in stockpile management and weapons destruction.

  In considering its future work programme, the EAPC Ad Hoc Working Group on Small Arms is preparing a food-for-thought paper on priorities for action. This follows the adoption in November of the OSCE Document on Small Arms. My right hon. Friend spoke last year about the need for the EAPC to sustain its momentum on small arms in the context of strengthening security co-operation through the EAPC. This will be important in the run-up to the July 2001 UN Conference on Small Arms.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 4 December 2000, regarding a constituent. [145600]

  Mr. Vaz
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter of 4 December on 11 December, but unfortunately due to an administrative error it was not dispatched. A reply has now been sent and it left my office on 12 January 2001.

  Family Visit Appeal Applications
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the charges for family visit appeal applications have been calculated. [144681]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The original fees for family visit visa appeals were based on an estimate of the full cost to the Immigration Appellate Authorities of handling these appeals. However, the fees have since been reviewed. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 11 January 2001, Official Report, column 609W.

DEFENCE

  Prisoners of War (Compensation)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Royal British Legion on compensation payable to Gurkha former prisoners of war under the Japanese; and if he will make a statement. [143723]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has had no discussions with the Royal British Legion concerning former Gurkha prisoners of war in relation to the ex gratia payment for the British groups who were held captive by the Japanese during the Second World War. In general, former members of the old Indian Army, including those who served in its Gurkha regiments, are not eligible for the ex gratia scheme.

  Prior to 1947 there were no Gurkha regiments in the British Army. The old Indian Army, to which the Gurkhas who served during the Second World War belonged, was separate and responsibility for it passed to the new Governments of India and Pakistan when these countries became independent. The United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan each reached its own agreement with Japan in respect of matters arising from the Second World War.

  Submarine Rescue
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures he has in place to ensure that submariners can be rescued from a submarine in deep water. [143727]

  Mr. Spellar
  Every rescue attempt from a submarine has to be evaluated to determine the optimum solution taking into consideration speed/time and distance. The aim is to ensure that rescue assets are on the scene as quickly as possible. The UK rescue system is based on the manned submersible LR5 which has the capability to operate to depths of up to 400 metres.

  Our submarines are also provided with alternative escape systems that are effective to a depth of 180 metres.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his letter, ref. D/US of S/LM 4333/00/M of 5 December, what advice he has received from the Medical Research Centre concerning an independent epidemiological study for Porton Down volunteers. [143729]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have received confirmation from the Medical Research Council that they are looking at the feasibility of carrying out an independent epidemiological study of Porton Down Volunteers. My officials plan to meet the Medical Research Council to discuss the matter in detail later this month or early next. Further discussions with Porton Down and an assessment of the source material in the surviving records is likely to follow.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits to each of the armed services, for the last year for which figures are available, had 36W
  previously been a member of the Army, air or sea cadets; and what percentage of recruits to each of the services this represented. [143730]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information available for financial year 1999–2000, indicates that:820 (18 per cent.) of the total intake of Naval Service ratings and other ranks had previously been members of the Cadet Forces,
  2,023 (13 per cent.) of the total intake of Army other ranks had been members of the Army Cadet Force or Combined Cadet Force,
  715 (17 per cent.) of the total RAF intake had been members of the Air Training Corps or Combined Cadet Force (RAF Section).

  Arms Dealing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of(a) his Department and (b) defence attachés in private company arms trading deals abroad. [143731]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's support to defence contractors selling overseas is provided in furtherance of the Government's policy of support for defence exports set out in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's statement on 28 July 1997.

  Many personnel in the Ministry of Defence, including defence attachés, have a role in promoting the sale of legitimate UK defence equipment overseas in accordance with this policy.

  NATO (British Forces)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces in NATO. [143733]

  Mr. Hoon
  Britain's armed forces play a leading role in NATO, contributing to the full range of Alliance roles and tasks. In particular, the UK is the framework nation for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, the ARRC, one of the great successes of the Alliance's post-Cold War adaptation.

  Armed Forces (Education)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on developments in education and training for the armed forces. [143734]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 12.

  Altcar Training Camp
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the Army and reserve forces training camp at Altcar, Hightown, Merseyside. [143735]

  Mr. Spellar
  Altcar Training Camp at Hightown, Merseyside is used extensively by regular forces, reserves and cadets from all three services. It is also used by members of civilian rifle clubs and the police. We have no plans to alter our use of Altcar.

  RAF Procurement
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143737]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), on 15 January 2001,Official Report, columns 5–6.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what planning capability the EU Rapid Reaction Force will have. [143739]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing EU Rapid Reaction Force. The EU has a small military staff which will support its ability to take decisions with military implications.

  The terms of reference of the EU Military Staff make quite clear that it is not responsible for operational planning. The Nice documents also make clear that NATO will carry out operational planning for EU-led operations that have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities. Operational planning for other operations may be carried out in existing European national and multinational headquarters, such as our own Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ).

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received on the proposed European Rapid Reaction Force; and if he will make a statement. [143743]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. To date the Ministry of Defence has received approximately 180 letters from members of the public relating to European defence.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has held with his US counterpart on national missile defence. [143740]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 2.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the US Defence Secretary to discuss missile defence. [143728]

  Mr. Hoon
  I plan to meet the new US Defense Secretary as soon as possible after the appointment is confirmed, and to discuss a range of issues including missile defence.

  Future of NATO
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the incoming United States Administration on the future role of NATO. [143741]
  38W
  Mr. Hoon
  I plan to meet the new US Defense Secretary as soon as possible after the appointment is confirmed, and to discuss a range of issues including NATO.

  New Zealand Defence Minister
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on contacts made over the past 12 months with his New Zealand counterpart. [143742]

  Dr. Moonie
  There has been no direct contact between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his New Zealand counterpart over the past 12 months. However, I had the pleasure of meeting Mark Burton, the Defence Minister, at a meeting of Five Power Defence Arrangements Defence Ministers in Malaysia and Singapore last July. Our defence relations with New Zealand remain very good, and are based on strong and traditional links between the armed forces of our two countries.

  Chatham Dockyard Workers
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in compensating former Chatham dockyard workers who have suffered radiation exposure. [143744]

  Dr. Moonie
  Records show that as at 1 January 2001, 39 claims for compensation from former Chatham Dockyard workers had been submitted to the British Nuclear Fuels Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases, of which the Ministry of Defence is a member. Thirty were ruled ineligible because radiation dose levels were too small, seven are presently under consideration and two have been found to meet the Scheme's criteria and be eligible for compensation. The level of compensation is being assessed and following completion of this exercise offers of settlement will be made.

  A separate claim, in respect of a former worker at Chatham Dockyard, is currently being pursued as a common law case and is due to come to trial at the High Court on 12 March 2001.

  European Defence
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about European defence. [143745]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my hon Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 8.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent progress towards the headline goal on European defence. [143747]

  Mr. Hoon
  EU Heads of State and Governments met at the Nice summit in December. This represented another important milestone in the development of new European Security and Defence arrangements. Member states reaffirmed their commitment to improve military
  39W
  capability, including by remedying shortfalls in key enabling capabilities (e.g. lift) and in the characteristics of the armed forces (e.g. availability).

  It also looked forward to the establishment of permanent political/military structures that will allow the political control and strategic direction of crisis management operations; and to a close relationship with NATO on the basis of co-operation, consultation and transparency.

  The Nice summit additionally set out details for involvement of non-EU Allies and other accession partners in European defence arrangements.

  The NATO North Atlantic Council (Foreign Ministers) on 14–15 December 2000 welcomed the Nice Proposals on European defence. It reaffirmed determination to reinforce NATO's European Pillar, and to share the goals endorsed by EU member states at Nice.

  Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government on the future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. [143748]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is not a signatory of the ABM Treaty. We recognise that the Treaty was signed in different times, but appreciate the support it has provided for strategic stability.

  The Treaty has been amended in the past. Further amendments would of course be a matter for the US and Russia.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further action he is taking to improve Defence Medical Services. [143750]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) we provided additional funds to address manpower and equipment shortfalls in the Defence Medical Services (DMS). We are continuing to implement these measures and the overall new strategy for the DMS as announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord Robertson the then Secretary of State for Defence on 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 328–29W. Together these encompass a wide range of initiatives including, for example, the new Centre for Defence Medicine which is to open in Birmingham in April. Further measures to improve recruitment and retention of DMS personnel are being developed, and additional proposals may, of course, emerge from the quinquennial review of the Defence medical agencies that I announced on 15 December 2000, Official Report, columns 276–77W.

  NATO Procurement
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of defence procurement co-operation within NATO. [143722]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK is currently involved in over 50 equipment programmes in co-operation with our NATO allies. We recognise the importance of co-operation, and are engaged in a number of initiatives 40W
  aimed at improving the management of such programmes, as well as identifying further opportunities to co-operate where it makes military and economic sense to do so.

  Civilian Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of civilian staff his Department and its agencies employ at locations in the north-east of England. [143736]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 October 2000 the Ministry of Defence had 0.5 per cent. of its civilian and agency employees at locations in the north-east of England.

  US Defense Secretary
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed Britain's military relationship with the United States with his American counterpart. [143724]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last spoke to Secretary of Defense Cohen at the NATO Defence Ministerial meetings on 6 December 2000. We discussed various issues, notably European defence.

  RAF Museum Hendon
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of the RAF Museum Hendon. [143732]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF Museum Trustees have substantial development plans for the Hendon site. These include the provision of extensive additional accommodation to house their growing collection of aircraft and further improvements to the Museum's educational facilities. These plans recently received generous support from the Heritage Lottery Fund and continue to have the full backing of the Ministry of Defence.

  In addition, the MOD has now been able to provide funds to allow free admission for children and pensioners and a reduced entry fee for adults from later in the year.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the private security industry is used to guard MOD installations; and if he will make a statement. [144857]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 328–29W. Private security companies are used on certain unarmed guarding tasks by the Ministry of Defence. A number of locations where they are employed are sites controlled by Defence Estates and awaiting disposal; at these sites the role of commercial guards is to prevent vandalism and to control access on health and safety grounds. Where private security companies are employed at occupied sites they form part of an integrated guard force appropriate to the establishment concerned. Their employment is governed by guidance to ensure that their performance meets the Department's security standards, and in accordance with

  41W
  an undertaking given by Ministers to the HCDC in 1995 that 75 per cent. of the Department's unarmed civilian guarding would be regained by the MOD Guard Service.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate a programme of mass screening for traces of depleted uranium poisoning for all UK soldiers who served in the Gulf War and who served or are serving in Bosnia and Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [144722]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 9 January 2001, Official Report, columns 877–79.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical evidence he has received on the effects on the human body of radiation from non-soluble ceramic, alpha-emitting, depleted uranium lodged in the lungs. [144738]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on 12 December 2000, Official Report, column 70W, and to the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 9 January 2001, Official Report, columns 877–79.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts about the health effects of depleted uranium on military personnel and civilians during the wars in the Balkans. [144737]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: None. However, the Ministry of Defence is aware of concerns among NATO countries in Europe of the potential health effects of depleted uranium on military personnel who served in the Balkans. Our response to these concerns was set out in the Minister for the Armed Forces' statement to the House on 9 January 2001, Official Report, columns 877–79.

  The North Atlantic Council met on 10 January to consider the possible environmental health risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans. After that meeting, the Secretary General affirmed that NATO allies are committed to ensuring the health and safety of their Service personnel and to avoiding any ill-effects for the civil population and personnel of non-governmental organisations as a result of NATO military operations. Allies agreed that NATO should continue to cooperate fully with investigations by nations or multinational organisations on the possible effects of exposure; to produce information on the use of depleted uranium munitions during Operations Deny Flight and Deliberate Force in 1994 and 1995; to consult fully with all present and past NATO SFOR and KFOR contributing countries, with a first briefing to be given at a regular meeting of troop contributors on 12 January; to make available to each other, and more widely, information on any health risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions; and to establish a working
  42W
  group, which will include participation by non-NATO contributors to KFOR and SFOR, to act as a clearing house for the exchange of information.

  The Ministry of Defence welcomes the NATO measures outlined above.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium rounds have been fired(a) by the Navy on operational sea training from their Phalanx and Goalkeeper weapons systems and (b) by the Army at Lulworth and Bovington. [145225]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy has fired 270 rounds of DU ammunition on operational sea training so far this year. Historic information on DU ammunition firings is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In the Royal Navy only the Phalanx gun system has a DU ammunition variant and no DU ammunition is held for Goalkeeper.

  DU ammunition is not fired by the Army on the ranges at Lulworth and Bovington.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which of his Department's test locations in the United Kingdom the firing of depleted uranium projectiles has taken place; how many test firings have been made at each location; what arrangements are in place for the protection and monitoring of people and the environment; and if he will make a statement. [144771]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The majority of test firing of depleted uranium (DU) projectiles has been undertaken at two locations in the UK. These are at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range, Eskmeals and the Army's Kirkcudbright training range. My answer to the previous question in respect of Eskmeals refers. Operations at Kirkcudbright, which commenced in 1981, are currently undertaken by staff from DERA Eskmeals. The current programme is expected to be completed by the end of this year. In addition, some experimental firing of depleted uranium ammunition took place between 1988 and 1990 at the, now, DERA range at West Freugh. Ammunition from Phalanx was fired into Luce Bay to examine ricochet effects. Indoor firing also took place between 1982 and 1983 at the former Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) site at Foulness, which since 1999 has been part of the DERA Shoeburyness site. The building in which the firing took place was designed to prevent any escape of particulate DU into the atmosphere. It is no longer in use and was decontaminated in 1997.

  The number of test firings that has taken place is as follows:

  Rounds

  Eskmeals

  3,246

  Kirkcudbright

  16,907

  West Freugh

  315

  Foulness

  2200

  1 To date

  2 Approximately

  Statutory regulations govern the use of DU on ranges in the UK. These are the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste discharges to the environment and the Ionising Radiations Regulation

  43W
  (IRR) 1999, which are part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The work undertaken by DERA fully meets the provisions of this legislation.

  All staff involved in the depleted uranium firing programme were (and are) fully briefed on the safety aspects of working with DU before commencing work with this material. Although there is no legal requirement to do so, DERA local policy dictates that all staff working with DU are designated Classified Workers under both the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 and preceding legislation. As such, staff are subject to a 'pre-employment' medical examination and are kept under surveillance by a medical practitioner appointed by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Exposure of individuals to ionising radiation is monitored by the use of thermoluminescent dosemeters supplied by DERA Radiation Protection Services (DRPS). Exposure to aerosol DU oxides is monitored by the use of personal air samplers. In addition, all members of staff working with depleted uranium in any calendar month are required to provide a sample of urine for uranium analysis at an independent laboratory. This is augmented by the use of the whole body monitoring facilities.

  Extensive environmental monitoring of the Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright sites has been carried out and annual reports produced since the start of the firing programme, originally by the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston. In 1993 WS Atkins Limited were commissioned to produce an independent Environmental Impact Assessment for both sites. This report concluded that activities at both locations produced a negligible impact on the local environment. It also made certain recommendations which were subsequently adopted for the ongoing environmental monitoring programme, now overseen by the DERA Radiation Protection Service (DRPS). The monitoring programme includes a strict, long-term environmental sampling routine in which checks are performed on many indicators such as grasses, streams, shellfish etc. None of the samples has ever indicated any concentration above the background level except for contamination in soil around firing and target sites.

  Copies of the annual reports are in the Members' Library at the House of Commons and are circulated to local Councils, MPs, and Environmental Protection Agencies.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the firing of depleted uranium projectiles first took place at Eskmeals; whether such tests have been discontinued; what independent environmental monitoring takes place at this site; if the results are published; and if he will make a statement. [144772]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: Depleted uranium projectiles were fired into a semi-enclosed Butt at VJ Battery on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range, Eskmeals (formerly part of the MOD's Directorate of Proof and Experimental Establishments) during the period between March 1981 and September 1995 when firing ceased.

  Extensive environmental monitoring has been carried out and annual reports produced since the start of the firing programme, originally by the Atomic Weapons
  44W
  Establishment Aldermaston. In 1993 WS Atkins Ltd. were commissioned to produce an independent Environmental Impact Assessment for DERA Eskmeals. The report of the assessment concluded that activities at the site produced a negligible impact on the local environment. It also made certain recommendations which were subsequently adopted for the ongoing environmental monitoring programme, now overseen by the DERA Radiation Protection Services. Copies of the annual reports of this monitoring programme are placed in the Members' Library at the House of Commons and are circulated to local councils, MPs, and Environmental Protection Agencies.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the health and safety procedures for those operatives who are dealing with spent depleted uranium shells and munitions boxes that have came into contact with depleted uranium(a) in theatres of action and (b) in domestic ordnance facilities. [145134]

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

  Thermobaric Weapons
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research into thermobaric weapons is being carried out by the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency at Fort Halstead. [145526]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are conducting research into new types of explosives. It would be irresponsible not to keep developments in this field under review, not least to develop protective measures for our own personnel.

  As to the location and precise nature of that research, I am withholding information under Exemption 1 of Code of Practice on access to Government information.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department first considered investigating whether to add thermobaric weapons to the British inventory. [145528]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are constantly conducting research into new types of explosives and have done so for many years. It would be irresponsible not to keep developments in this field under review, not least to develop protective measures for our own personnel.

  On 23 August 2000, we issued a contracts bulletin asking industry to consider how best to provide an anti-structure weapon for the infantry in the urban environment. We acknowledged that this may involve using blast rather than fragmentation, but we have no specified how this capability is to be achieved.

  DERA (Pollution)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who will take responsibility for pollution at DERA sites following DERA's privatisation; [144983]

  (2) who will take responsibility for marine pollution caused by DERA activities following the privatisation of DERA. [144990]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence, with advice from specialist external consultants, is addressing the issues of liability and future responsibility in relation to
  45W
  all aspects of pollution. This work is on schedule to ensure that decisions are made on all pollution issues before the new company is vested.

  The final decisions on the allocation of liabilities for any existing contamination will take into account the need to ensure that the arrangements will meet all relevant legislative requirements, as well as provide value for money to the taxpayer. Those elements of DERA which move into the private sector will be subject to the same legal obligations as any other private sector company.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the presence, and length of stay, of British troops in Sierra Leone. [145269]

  Mr. Hoon
  British troops are in Sierra Leone to assist the democratically elected Government to establish effective and accountable armed forces. Our intention is to achieve this through a three-year programme by the UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT). This remains our ultimate aim, but the IMATT's work assumes a stable and permissive environment. Following the rebel attacks on UN peacekeepers in May 2000, this clearly was not the case. We have therefore deployed a series of Short Term Training Teams to supplement the IMATT. The future requirement for training, and the way ahead for the IMATT is kept under review.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the security situation in Sierra Leone. [144947]

  Mr. Spellar
  We welcome the ceasefire signed between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front, under the auspices of ECOWAS in Abuja on 10 November and welcome the subsequent decision by ECOWAS to deploy troops in the Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone border region. However, we are disappointed that the RUF have still not fulfilled the terms of the ceasefire agreement, in particular with regard to the return of UN equipment and freedom of movement throughout the country, and we look for evidence that they will do so. In the meantime, our training of the Sierra Leone army continues, and we remain committed to supporting the Government and people of Sierra Leone. We continue to support UNAMSIL and in particular its efforts to ensure the implementation of the ceasefire.

  Location

  Primary service

  Stock numbers

  Occupancy

  Disposal notes

  Edinburgh

  Army

  765

  597

  92 in disposal

  Leuchars

  RAF

  706

  499

  51 for demolition. Awaiting increased requirement

  Perth

  Army

  16

  14

  Steady state

  Arbroath/Dundee

  RM/Army

  168

  94

  50 in disposal

  Rosyth

  Navy

  160

  84

  92 in disposal

  Helensburgh

  Navy

  811

  353

  229 for disposal. 28 held for Short Term Families Accommodation Centre. Up to 150 unmodernised properties may be demolished

  Glasgow

  Army

  247

  186

  52 quarters in disposal

  Military Attachés
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the breakdown of military attachés' time shown by the survey of attaché output undertaken by his Department for the financial year 1999–2000. [144901]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 429W and on 29 November 2000, Official Report, column 642W. The survey of attaché output in 1999–2000 showed that the average percentage of an attachés' time devoted to promoting Defence Policy and related activities was 20 per cent., to furthering Bilateral Relations and the support of Wider British Interests was 36 per cent., and Defence Advice and Support to Other Government Departments/International Organisations/ Non Government Departments 33 per cent. The remaining 11 per cent. was, on average, devoted to supporting DESO.

  Civilian Staff (Scotland)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marine, (c) Army, (d) RAF and (e) civilian personnel of his Department there are in Scotland. [145125]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest data available are as follows:As of 1 July 1999, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines employed 5,086 personnel in Scotland. This represented 11.7 per cent. of all Naval and Marine personnel.
  As of 1 July 1999, the Army employed 3,825 personnel in Scotland. This represented 3.4 per cent. of all Army personnel.
  As of 1 July 1999, the RAF employed 6,037 personnel in Scotland. This represented 11.0 per cent. of all RAF personnel.
  As of 1 November 2000, the MOD employed 9,458 personnel in Scotland. This represented 9.5 per cent. of all civilian personnel.
  Figures available for Civilian personnel employment levels are more recent than those for their Service counterparts. The Defence Analytical Services Agency is currently finalising figures for Service personnel for the year 2000. These will be available shortly and will be sent to you as soon as they are available.

  Service Quarters (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters are available to each service of the armed forces in Scotland, broken down by location; and how many are occupied by families. [145120]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) allocates Service Families Accommodation (SFA) on entitlement on a Tri-Service basis. The following table shows the numbers of quarters in Scotland by location and occupancy. Smaller locations are included with the nearest major base. Details of the disposal programme are also noted.
  47W

  Location

  Primary service

  Stock numbers

  Occupancy

  Disposal notes

  Prestwick

  Navy/RAF

  117

  89

  32 quarters to be reappropriated during 2001–02

  Benbecula

  Army

  113

  15

  89 in disposal with Defence Estates

  Saxa Vord

  RAF

  86

  39

  Disposal linked to Station drawdown

  Kinloss

  RAF

  920

  713

  206 considered for disposal

  Lossiemouth

  RAF

  881

  672

  Awaiting increased requirement

  Buchan

  RAF/Army

  197

  148

  Disposals linked to Station drawdown

  Inverness

  Army

  280

  208

  61 for disposal

  Thurso

  Navy

  8

  5

  Steady State

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many single accommodation places exist for each of the services in Scotland for(a) officers and (b) other ranks, broken down by location; and how many are occupied. [145121]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances were given by the United States Government to Her Majesty's Government between 1980 and 1985 concerning plans to integrate the Strategic Defence Initiative of the United States with Fylingdales; and if he will make a statement. [145360]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are aware of no such plans or assurances.

  Macrahanish Airport
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what single bed accommodation there is at Macrahanish Airport; and how many married quarters there are. [145124]

  Dr. Moonie
  The former RAF Machrihanish has been passed to Defence Estates, which has responsibility for disposal of MOD surplus property. There are 172 single bedrooms within purpose built modern buildings and a further 121 spaces in older accommodation. In parallel with disposal action, MOD is currently considering whether there is any alternative military use for which the site might be suitable.

  The former Married Quarters estate was sold in September 2000 and therefore no Service Families Accommodation remains in MOD hands.

  RAF Innsworth
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with the Gloucestershire constabulary before deciding to reduce the number of his Department's police at RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [145167]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officers of the Ministry of Defence police discussed the policing arrangements at RAF Innsworth with officers from Gloucestershire constabulary in September 1998 and October 1999. We now anticipate basing an Area Policing Team (comprising eight officers) at RAF Innsworth from 1 April 2001 as well as the two Unit Beat Officers already envisaged.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the practicability of transporting HMS Tireless from Gibraltar to a British dockyard for repair on board a heavy equipment transporter ship. [144031]

  Mr. Spellar
  The safest and most practicable solution is to continue with the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar. We have looked at the possibility of returning the submarine to the UK in a heavy transporter ship, but this would represent a major challenge. No UK nuclear submarine has ever been transported in this way before and to do so would require both considerable preparatory work on the submarine and extensive modification to the transporter ship. This work would likely take much longer than the repair programme that is currently in hand.

HEALTH

  GPs (Retirement)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general medical practitioners practising in England retired due to ill health in each of the last five years for which figures are available, before the age of(a) 60 years and (b) 65 years. [142882]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The figures in the table show the number of doctors working in general practitioner practices who have received a pensions award for retirement due to ill health in each of the years 1994 to 1999 under the age of 60 and 65 years in England and Wales.

  NHS pension scheme: medical practitioners retiring on the grounds of ill-health England and Wales

  Year ended 31 March

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Male

  100

  111

  97

  99

  85

  Female

  20

  22

  27

  22

  23

  Total

  120

  133

  124

  121

  108

  Summary by age

  Male

  Age 60 and under

  96

  107

  96

  85

  81

  Age 65 and under

  100

  111

  97

  99

  85

  Female

  Age 60 and under

  20

  21

  27

  22

  22

  Age 65 and under

  20

  22

  27

  22

  23

  Total

  Age 60 and under

  116

  128

  123

  107

  103

  Age 65 and under

  120

  133

  124

  121

  108

  Source:

  NHS Pension Scheme valuation data for 1995–99 (Table 1E)

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 (i) the total amount to be spent by his Department on coronary heart disease and (ii) the funds from which that money has been allocated. [143567]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: The great majority of spending on services for coronary heart disease is contained within health authority unified allocations. It is for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups and trusts, National Health Service trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  We have made the improvement of coronary heart disease services one of our main priorities. The NHS Plan set out our commitment to provide significant additional resources, so that by 2003–04 we will be investing an extra £230 million a year in heart disease services. This will be backed up by £120 million from the Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund over two years. Specific sums have been allocated to support implementation of the National Standards Framework for CHD, totalling £130.5 million in 2000–01 and £230 million in 2001–02. In 2001–02, there will also be a further allocation of £94 million, to be distributed between CHD and cancer services.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many flights including helicopter flights were taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits in each year since 1995; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143862]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Diabetes (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been diagnosed as diabetic in the area covered by the Easington Primary Care Group in the age groups(a) 10 to 19 years, (b) 20 to 29 years, (c) 30 to 39 years, (d) 40 to 49 years, (e) 50 to 59 years, (f) 60 to 69 years and (g) 70 to 79 years. [144293]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows a count of finished consultant episodes by 10-year age groups where the main diagnosis was diabetes mellitus, for patients resident in the Easington local authority area, treated in NHS hospitals in England in 1998–99.
  50W

  Finished consultant episodes (FCSEs) where the main diagnosis was diabetes mellitus by age, for patients resident in the Easington local authority area—NHS hospitals England 1998–99

  Age

  FCEs

  10 to 19

  17

  20 to 29

  14

  30 to 39

  11

  40 to 49

  8

  50 to 59

  18

  60 to 69

  38

  70 to 79

  21

  Total

  127

  Notes:

  1. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Figures in the table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Patients Advocacy Liaison Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the Patients Advocacy Liaison Service will be(a) accessible to the least mobile older people and (b) independent of the NHS. [144190]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Patients Advocacy Liaison Service will act as a welcoming point for patients and carers and will also be a clearly identifiable information point in every National Health Service trust and primary care trust. It will be reasonably accessible to all patients, including the least mobile. PALS will be integral to the NHS and will have independence to fulfil its responsibilities. The role of the Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service will be to resolve the concerns of patients and their families quickly and where possible informally. Where patients do not feel their problems are being resolved satisfactorily, they may wish to progress the matter formally and potentially seek additional support from a local advocacy service that will be available to them from outside the trust. The detail of these arrangements will be discussed during Committee Stage of the Health and Social Care Bill.

  Drop-in Centres
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has received on the operation of the new drop-in centres; and if he will make a statement. [144493]

  Mr. Denham
  Response to the opening and first few months' operation of the centres has generally been positive. Feedback from the centres suggests that patients particularly appreciate the extended opening hours and need for no appointment.

  The Department has commissioned a full evaluation of National Health Service walk-in centres. Its results will help inform the development of future centres. The final report is due in December 2001.

  Meningitis Vaccine
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse reactions to the meningitis vaccine were reported, broken down by degree of severity, in each of the last five years. [144510]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 1 November 1999 a national immunisation campaign started, which aimed to vaccinate all children under the age of 18 years with the new Meningococcal C conjugate vaccine by the end of 2000. Approximately 18 million doses of Meningococcal C vaccine have been distributed to date. This should be taken into account when considering the numbers of reports and reactions.

  The numbers of reports and numbers of suspected reactions following the Meningococcal C vaccines reported to the Medicines Control Agency through the yellow card scheme in 1999 and 2000 are in the table.

  1999

  2000

  Total number of reports

  2,099

  9,264

  Total number of suspected reactions

  4,592

  19,177

  Number of serious reports

  485

  2,326

  Number of serious suspected reactions

  574

  2,676

  The number of suspected reactions is greater than the number of reports because many reports list more than one reaction, e.g. nausea and headache. A reaction is classified by the MCA as serious if it is a disease, disorder, symptom or sign which is generally recognised as serious clinically or if it could be indicative of a serious disorder. The interpretation of this definition is deliberately broad; reactions such as fainting and swollen gland are classified as serious.

  Evaluation of safety data from spontaneous suspected adverse reaction reports in the context of reduction of morbidity and mortality from meningitis C, indicates that the overall risk-benefit balance of this new vaccine is overwhelmingly favourable.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for each health authority the percentage take up by individuals of the meningitis C immunisation programme broken down between(a) children under 12 months, (b) 15 to 17-year-olds and (c) other at risk groups. [144870]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on percentage 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.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's decision on Beta Interferon has been delayed; and on what date NICE will announce its decision. [145204]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has extended the timescale of its appraisal of Beta Interferon and the drug glatiramer acetate to develop further economic modelling on these drugs.
  52W
  We expect NICE to consult on draft guidance during the summer, on completion of its work on the economic modelling.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NICE to make its recommendations on the efficacy of(a) Beta Interferon and (b) Copaxone; and if he will ask NICE to consider the merits of the two drugs separately. [144859]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to consult on draft guidance later this year, following the development of further economic modelling on Beta Interferon and glatiramer acetate (Copaxone). Further details can be found on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk. NICE is giving individual consideration to Beta Interferon and glatiramer acetate.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to modify his Department's 1995 advice on drug therapies for MS to include Copaxone; and if he will make a statement. [144858]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no plans to modify Executive Letter 95(97) issued by the Department in 1995 to include glatiramer acetate (Copaxone).

  The Department issued Health Service Circular 1999/176 in August 1999. This asks National Health Service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  We expect NICE to produce authoritative guidance on both Beta Interferon and glatiramer acetate later this year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of health authority compliance with current guidance in respect of disease modifying therapies for MS. [144773]

  Mr. Denham
  Current guidance issued in 1995 recommends that health authorities should have in place arrangements for hospital specialists to initiate treatment in light of the available evidence and local priorities.

  Health authorities and clinicians have made different judgments because there is no authoritative guidance. We expect the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce such guidance later this year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if existing NHS guidance in respect of disease modifying therapies for MS will apply to(a) Copaxone and (b) other drugs licensed by the MCA. [144774]

  Mr. Denham
  No. Executive Letter 95(97) issued by the Department in 1995 does not apply to glatiramer acetate (Copaxone).

  The Department did however issue Health Service Circular 1999/176 in August 1999 which asked National Health Service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from the National Institute for Clinical

  53W
  Excellence is not available at the time the technology first becomes available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  We expect NICE to produce authoritative guidance on both Beta Interferon and glatiramer acetate later this year.

  Continuing Care
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to monitor, the number of beds available in the private sector for continuing care; if health authorities publish lists of the number of such beds available; and how many of such beds there were at the beginning and end of the latest 12-month period for which figures are available. [144821]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on continuing care beds is not held centrally.

  The Department collects information annually on independent private and voluntary sector nursing care homes registered under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Details are collected from the health authorities on the number of general nursing homes, mental nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics and the registered beds within these homes.

  National statistics on the number of registered beds in independent sector nursing homes as at 31 March 2000 were published in the Statistical Bulletin "Community Care Statistics 2000: Residential Personal Social Services for adults, England" in November 2000. National statistics relating to 31 March 1999 were published in the Statistical Bulletin "Community Care Statistics 1999: Private Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Clinics". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what categories of submissions from civil servants to Ministers, other than those relating to(a) intelligence and (b) personnel matters, are not circulated to Special Advisers; [143806]

  (2) what categories of submissions from civil servants are submitted to Special Advisers before being seen by Ministers. [143807]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 10 January 2001]: Special Advisers in this Department have access to material produced by permanent civil servants in accordance with paragraph 14e of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers".

  Dr. Saher Sadek
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold an inquiry into the suspension, disciplining and dismissal of Dr. Saher Sadek, a constituent. [144900]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that the trust is progressing this matter in line with their own employment procedures. It would therefore be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on, or initiate an inquiry into an issue which may become the subject of a legal process.

  Medicine Licensing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to increase patients' access to information about the licensing of new medicines. [144583]

  Ms Stuart
  A great deal of information is already publicly available about the licensing of new medicines, including the publication of minutes of the meetings of Medicines Act advisory bodies, Patient Information Leaflets and a Summary of Product Characteristics for every licensed product. The Medicines Control Agency continues to promote greater access to information while protecting legitimate confidential interests.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the Government's review of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. [144584]

  Ms Stuart
  We expect the review of section 118 to have been completed, and a final decision made, by early 2002.

  Nursing Home Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) stoma care, (b) ulcer/pressure sore dressing, (c) peg feeding and (d) changing catheters for residents in nursing homes will be paid for under his proposals if they are delegated and supervised by a registered nurse. [144920]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are not developing a task-based approach to the care provided by a registered nurse, but one centred on the needs of the person and input which needs the skills of a registered nurse. The nurse responsible for the individual's care will assess whether any aspect of the care can be safely delegated. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the National Health Service will pay for the input from the registered nurse.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents currently in nursing homes will be affected by his proposals for the NHS to pay for nursing care in nursing homes from October 2001; and if he will publish estimates of those likely to be affected in future years. [144921]

  Mr. Hutton
  Approximately 35,000 residents of nursing homes will benefit from our proposals for the National Health Service to pay for care from registered nurses in nursing homes. Other changes we are making to the funding of long-term care mean that numbers will be broadly similar for the next three years.

  NICE Appraisal Committee
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the minutes of the NICE Appraisal Committee meeting held on 13 December 2000. [144775]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that the minutes will be published on the Institute's website when they have been approved by the Appraisal Committee at its next meeting.

  Nursing Home Standard
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the tool to be used across the
  55W
  country for assessing for nursing care, referred to in paragraph 219 of the Explanatory Notes on the Health and Social Care Bill. [144923]

  Mr. Hutton
  We intend to publish guidance and the tool for a consistent approach to determining the registered nurse input to care in a nursing home in April 2001.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been issued by his Department concerning the issuing and use of digital hearing instruments; and how many such instruments have been issued to date at first wave sites; [144730]

  (2) how many NHS trust audiology services are involved in trials of digital hearing instruments; where they are located; and how many patients have benefited from the new technology in each NHS trust area; [144731]

  (3) which organisations have been consulted during the formulation of his proposals for modernisation for NHS hearing aid services. [144732]

  Mr. Hutton
  The project to modernise National Health Service hearing aid services was announced on 18 January 2000 following consultation with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. The Royal Institute for Deaf People project team is working with the 20 participating NHS Trusts to implement the project. The National Health Service trusts involved in the project are:

  Start year

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  2000–01

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear

  2000–01

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Leeds Teaching NHS Trust

  2000–01

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  2000–01

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust (children)

  2001–02

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  2001–02

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Queens Medical Centre University NHS Trust Nottingham

  2000–01

  The Kings Mill Centre for Healthcare Services NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust (children)

  2000–01

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  2000–01

  The following table shows the numbers of patients and digital hearing aids that have been supplied in the first phase of the project.

  Patients

  Total digital aids

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  152

  192

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  153

  176

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  90

  90

  University Hospital Birmingham

  14

  14

  Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  10

  10

  Note

  As at Tuesday 1 January 2001

  Medical Records
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to allow NHS Direct workers to have access to individual medical records; [144958]

  (2) under what circumstances nurses working for NHS Direct have access to individual medical records; and if he will make a statement. [144959]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct nurses have access to a patient's previous NHS Direct consultations at that site. They do not have access to medical records held by other health service providers.

  By the end of 2001–02, all NHS Direct sites will write NHS Direct patient records to one central database, ensuring that wherever a patient called NHS Direct from, the information given in previous calls can be used to help assess the immediate issue.

  The strategic information objectives for the whole National Health Service were given in the "Information for Health Strategy", which stated that:
  patients can be confident that the NHS professionals caring for them have reliable and rapid access, 24 hours a day, to the relevant personal information necessary to support their care.

  The target for implementing this is March 2005.

  A copy of the "Information for Health Strategy" is available in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 18 October 2000, 16 November 2000, 13 December 2000 and 9 January on behalf of her constituent, Mrs. Rita Oliver. [145097]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent 11 January.

  Intermediate Care Services
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received intermediate care services in 1999–2000; how his Department will ensure that the NHS and local councils are able to achieve the target set in the NHS Plan Implementation Programme for the number of people who will receive intermediate care beds in 2001–02; and how this target will be broken down regionally. [145348]

  Mr. Hutton
  Complete and reliable data on the number of people receiving intermediate care services in 1999–2000 are not currently available. Guidance on intermediate care, to be issued shortly, will clarify the definition and data for 1999–2000 will be collected to establish a baseline for monitoring progress towards the targets in the NHS Plan Implementation Programme.

  Further clarification and guidance will be available in the forthcoming intermediate care guidance, planning guidance following the national beds inquiry and the National Service Framework for Older People.

  The Department is currently developing regional targets for intermediate care. Progress towards meeting the targets will be monitored through the regional performance management process.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the national minimum standards for homes for older people. [145105]

  Mr. Hutton
  We plan to publish the finalised national minimum standards for care homes for older people, shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what BSE testing he proposes to undertake in the United Kingdom during 2001. [145831]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Following the reports of an increase in the number of cases of BSE in some other European countries, the European Union has asked member states to carry out a survey for the disease. Starting on 15 January, the brains of at least 6,500 cattle over 30 months old which die on farm or in transit, or which are killed on farm but are not eligible for the over-thirty-months scheme, which will be tested for BSE during 2001 in Great Britain.

  This is in addition to the testing carried out when clinical symptoms indicate the disease may be present in specific animals.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions apply to the publication of official scientific advice on BSE risks. [144392]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: No restrictions apply.

  Hydrolysis
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the United States Department of Agriculture and with the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs about the alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature technology for the disposal of infected cattle carcases; and what conclusions he has drawn about its use in England. [143318]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: No Minister has had any such discussions. However, officials are discussing, with the company which produces it, the possibility of permitting the use of this technology in England.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what scientific reasons regulations governing animal waste by-products do not include the hydrolosis process as an approved method. [143319]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The EC Animal Waste Directive, 90/667/EEC, which is implemented in Great Britain by the Animal By-Products Order 1999, sets out the permitted disposal routes for animal by-products. When the Directive was adopted in 1990, the hydrolysis process had not been developed as a disposal route for animal by-products and therefore could not be included. The Directive is under review and the
  58W
  European Commission is seeking the advice of the EU Scientific Steering committee on whether hydrolysis should be a permitted disposal route in future.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to use the members' letterboard for urgent communications with hon. Members only, and to send all routine correspondence by Royal Mail. [144448]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Officials in my Department are currently reviewing arrangements for the delivery of correspondence to hon. Members and have discussed this issue recently with colleagues at the Palace of Westminster.

  Badgers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect badgers in areas where tuberculosis is increasing(a) in the West Country and (b) nationally. [143951]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Badgers are a protected species under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Government have a strategy in place to tackle bovine tuberculosis which includes the regular testing of cattle herds and extensive research (including the Krebs' trial) into the disease both in cattle and in wildlife, including badgers, as well as the development of TB vaccines. The Government's objective is to identify a sustainable policy to control bovine tuberculosis, based on sound science, which will allow healthy cattle and wildlife to co-exist successfully in the future.

  Beef (Fraud)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to his counterparts in EU member states on the prevention of fraud in relation to the import of over-30-month beef into the UK. [144325]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: This is a matter for the Foods Standards Agency.

  South Africa (Foot and Mouth Disease)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions the Government have taken in respect of meat and livestock products imported from South Africa following the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease there. [144261]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Following notification from the European Commission of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in South Africa, the Government have acted to prohibit the importation of fresh meat from South Africa. All UK Border Inspection Posts, where imports of animal products from third countries must be checked before entering the UK, have been alerted. The European Commission have also informed us that South Africa has put in place a prohibition on exports of fresh meat to the EU.

  Meat products and other products of animal origin derived from fresh meat of South African origin are also prohibited as Community import rules require the meat to come from countries or regions free of foot and mouth

  59W
  disease for a period of 12 months. There are currently no South African establishments approved to export dairy products into the UK. Any FMD susceptible products of animal origin which fall outside of the scope of European legislation would have to comply with UK national requirements which include safeguards against the introduction of FMD.

  Commission Decision 2000/623/EC prohibits the import of livestock from South Africa with the exception of horses.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on shellfish fisheries in the United Kingdom. [144260]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced on 10 January an industry-wide consultation on a licensing scheme to control shellfish activity. The proposal was developed within the UK Fisheries Conservation Group comprising members of the fishing industry, scientists and representatives of Fisheries Departments. I hope the wider industry will support this initiative so that appropriate controls can be introduced as soon as possible to conserve crab, lobster and crawfish throughout the UK.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what commitment he gave to visit personally a pig farm placed under swine fever restrictions before the end of the summer recess. [144376]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I visited a pig farm affected by classical swine fever restrictions on 15 November 2000.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to make emergency loans available to pig farmers affected by swine fever restrictions. [144391]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: None.

  Hydro-power Schemes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the advice his Department has issued on how the introduction of hydropower schemes can assist flood prevention. [144867]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: No such advice has been issued by the Government. Relevant extracts from the Environment Agency's internal guidance in their Development Control Manual are as follows:

  6.3.13—Hydropower
  In support of the Government's policy to enhance the use of renewable energy sources the Agency aims to co-operate with developers over the use of weirs for electricity generation.
  The construction, operation or alteration of impoundments should not however be permitted to adversely affect upstream or downstream water levels. Nor should there be impediment to field
  60W
  drainage, and channel velocities should not be permitted to adversely affect channel stability. In many cases these concerns can be overcome by appropriate design.
  Some hydropower proposals utilise existing "mill type" buildings to house generating and switching equipment and may not therefore create new problems. However, sites requiring new buildings and structures in the floodplain are more difficult to accommodate. The Agency must be satisfied that the scale and location of such buildings and structures create no overall detriment, and that appropriate compensatory works are incorporated into the design.
  19.2.5
  Increasingly, existing weirs are being considered for the possible generation of hydropower. In support of the Government's policy to enhance the use of renewable energy sources the Environment Agency encourages the use of hydropower and aims to co-operate with developers in accordance with its duties, powers and available resources. Nevertheless, the Agency must be satisfied that the design of hydropower schemes will not create or exacerbate land drainage or flood defence problems before granting Land Drainage Consent.
  While there is a policy of generally supporting such schemes, there is a need to ensure that they are compatible with other interests, including environmental considerations and the risks associated with development in the flood plain. Environmental issues are likely to weigh particularly heavily in any proposed large-scale impoundment for hydro-electric generation. There are unlikely to be many circumstances in which such schemes could be managed to provide genuine flood defence benefits and be economically viable. However, novel approaches to flood risk management including this can be considered in the whole river catchment assessment studies that will be conducted using part of the £51 million additional funding recently secured for flood defence.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 521W, on early retirements, how many (a) male and (b) female officials have accepted the offers of early retirement, and at what grade in each case. [145272]

  Ms Quin
  Seven(a) four male and (b) three female, all at Senior Civil Service level.

  Sea Wall, Pagham
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what English Nature's policy is regarding the criteria for use of the pumps positioned at the sea wall at Pagham. [144969]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that English Nature have agreed to the Environment Agency's emergency plans for pumping at Pagham, provided that pumping takes place only when flow diversion is operating around Chichester.

  Flooding, Tewkesbury
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he plans to give to areas which suffered from the recent flooding, with particular reference to the Tewkesbury area; and if he will make a statement. [144918]
  61W
  Mr. Morley
  On 4 November, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced improvements to the Bellwin scheme, including an increase in the rate of payment for eligible expenditure from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. and a promise to settle all claims within 15 days. The revisions will help local authorities to deal with the immediate requirements. No claim has yet been received from Tewkesbury borough council.

  My right hon. Friend also announced that the Government were making a further £51 million available over the next three years to accelerate river flood defence schemes and allow whole catchment assessment studies to be carried out. This additional funding is on top of the increases in funding for flood and coastal defence announced in 2000 Spending Review. Total expenditure on flood and coastal defence now approached £400 million a year.

  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to pay compensation to householders or businesses for any losses suffered as a result of flooding as this is an insurable risk. I have joined with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in maintaining close contact with the insurance industry and have urged insurers to give priority to claims arising from the floods. In cases of genuine hardship, help may be available from the social fund. Assistance may also be available from local disaster funds where these have been established.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Modernisation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consolidate the Vote Bundle and parts 1 and 2 of the Order Book into one gathered document bundle. [145622]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no immediate plans to make such proposals. I am advised that the current arrangements are generally thought to work well and allow for economies in the House's printing costs. Nonetheless, should my hon. Friend have any particular concerns, he may like to contact the Deliverer of the Vote, who is always prepared to deal sympathetically with individual right hon. and hon. Members about the delivery of papers in the form that best suits them.

SCOTLAND

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's spending on official publications was for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; and what the planned expenditure is for 2001–02. [141446]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Spending on official publications by The Scottish Office between 1996 and 30 June 1999 was as follows:
  62W

  £

  1996–97

  1733,804

  1997–98

  1,390,895

  1998–99

  1,523,012

  19992

  206,182

  1 Excludes Historic Scotland: details not available

  2 30 June 1999

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Expenditure on official publications during 1999–2000 was £1,145; expenditure in 2000–01 to date is £4.480; and expenditure in 2001–02 is expected to be £6,000.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost was to the Department of each publication. [141470]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: A copy of the list of new publications issued by The Scottish Office between 1997 and 30 June 1999 has been placed in the Library.

  High Court of Justiciary
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in relation to the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal. [142391]

  Dr. Reid
  I have no responsibilities in relation to the High Court of Justiciary. The operation of this Court is devolved. However, under the Scotland Act 1998 the continued existence of the High Court as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal is a reserved matter. That Act also provides that the Lord President of the Court of Session—who is also Lord Justice General of the High Court of Justiciary—and the Lord Justice Clerk are to be appointed by The Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) her Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142714]

  Dr. Reid
  Details of advertising campaigns produced by the Scottish Office in the period 1996–30 June 1999 are as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  Pre-School Vouchers

  751,195

  Right to Buy

  227,645

  Severe Weather

  101,718

  Children's Panels

  113,282

  Crime Prevention

  475,793

  Electoral Registration

  63,268

  Fire Prevention

  329,181

  63W

  £

  Food Safety

  629,968

  Organ Donors

  42,677

  Road Safety

  310,090

  3,044,817

  1997–98

  Bogus Callers

  37,000

  Childrens Hearings

  176,250

  Continence Campaign

  2,900

  Daily Record Health Supplements (NHS Green Paper)

  79,700

  Electoral Registration

  70,000

  Fire Prevention

  323,800

  Food Safety

  21,100

  Historic Scotland

  352,000

  Organ Donors

  41,300

  Referendum Reminder

  420,000

  Road Safety

  383,300

  Severe Weather

  46,000

  1,953,350

  1998–99

  Children's Panels

  112,300

  Daily Record Health Supplement (NHS White Paper)

  77,000

  Democratising Scotland

  248,500

  Domestic Violence

  630,700

  Electoral Registration

  41,000

  Fire Prevention

  225,000

  Food Safety

  21,150

  Fostering

  97,400

  Further Education

  70,000

  Historic Scotland

  410,000

  Local Government Commission

  78,000

  Nursing Recruitment

  258,300

  Pharmacy Point of Dispensing

  53,200

  Police Graduate Recruitment

  9,500

  Scottish Parliament Campaign

  1,785,000

  Teacher Recruitment

  4,200

  4,121,250

  1999–2000 (30 June)

  Census Rehearsal

  9,993

  Scotland's Parliament

  548,305

  European Elections

  32,028

  Road Safety (June) Foolspeed

  81,822

  672,148

  Pre and post quantitative and qualitative research were undertaken regularly on campaigns to measure their effectiveness. This demonstrated that most campaigns measured exceeded the targets set. Lessons learned from such research were noted for subsequent campaign planning.

  No advertising campaigns have been produced by the Scotland Office since it was established on 1 July 1999.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the National Farmers Union of Scotland about agrimonetary compensation. [145088]

  Dr. Reid
  None.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has made to Her Majesty's Treasury to ensure that agrimonetary compensation is paid automatically each year. [145089]
  64W
  Dr. Reid
  None. Representations on this matter would be for the agricultural departments.

WALES

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142721]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department runs no publicity campaigns and hence has spent nothing on advertising since its creation in July 1999. Its predecessor Department—the Welsh Office—spent £1,795,000 in 1996–97, £2,661,000 in 1997–98, and £2,685,000 in 1998–99. All the individual campaigns are evaluated separately taking into account effectiveness and value for money. Details could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Losses (Manufacturing)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly concerning job losses in the manufacturing industry in Wales. [144061]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the First Secretary, including manufacturing industry in Wales.

  Job losses are always unwelcome. However, the Government continue to work closely with the National Assembly to secure the future of manufacturing industry in Wales. The success of the Government's policies aimed at achieving sustained growth, sound public finances and stable inflation have provided the business sector with a sound platform from which to invest in the long-term future of Wales.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made under the New Deal policy in the Greater London area. [143532]

  Ms Jowell
  Across the Greater London area, 32,338 young people have found work helped by the New Deal to date. Additionally, over 10,000 people have found work in London through the New Deal 25 plus programme and other New Deal programmes are assisting additional groups such as older workers, disabled people and lone parents.

  In Tooting, there have been 1,016 starts on New Deal 18–24 since the beginning of New Deal to October 2000. 409 young people have found employment helped by New Deal and 254 have gained valuable work experience and

  65W
  training via the Full Time Education and Training option (169), Voluntary Sector option (45) and Environmental Task Force option (40).

  Employment Policies
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to help unemployed people over the age of 25 to find employment. [143610]

  Ms Jowell
  Tackling unemployment among the 25 plus age group is a key priority for this Government, and we are already making significant inroads: two year plus unemployment among those aged 25 and over is down over 60 per cent. since May 1997.

  From April 2001 we are putting in place an even more intensive range of support for adult unemployed people, which will begin on the first day of registered unemployment and increase in intensity in proportion to the individual's labour market disadvantage. This help includes supported jobsearch, training for people with serious basic skills needs and those lacking soft skills, occupational work based training and work trials with employers. An enhanced New Deal 25 plus will provide high quality intensive help for people unemployed for 18 months or more. In addition, other New Deal programmes continue to address the employment needs of other groups, including lone parents, disabled people, partners of unemployed people and people aged 50 and over.

  ONE
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the ONE pilot initiatives. [143640]

  Ms Jowell
  ONE is a radical new programme helping people of working age achieve their potential and independence. There is an ongoing evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the ONE service pilots against their set objectives. The evaluation comprises quantitative and qualitative research, operational research, a database and cost-benefit analysis. The effectiveness of the pilots will be evaluated primarily by comparing results for participants in the pilot areas with those for similar people in comparable areas.

  The first results from the ONE evaluation were published on 30 November in three reports: "Why Not ONE?", "First Effects of ONE" and "ONE Basic Model Pilot and Control Areas, Analyses from the ONE Evaluation Database Voluntary Phase". All three reports provided findings from the ONE evaluation for the period when the pilots were voluntary. The broad findings from this research indicate support for the ONE service and a positive experience of claiming by those who chose to participate. There is also evidence that early intervention is changing attitudes, and providing help to also look for work as either a short or longer-term option. The reports are available at www.dss.gov.uk/asd/asd5/ (for the first two) and www.dss.gov.uk/asd/online.html for the third. They are also available in the House of Commons Library.

  Further results will be published throughout the evaluation, with the next findings on the medium term labour market effects (nine months after joining ONE) due in autumn 2001. Quantitative information on the
  66W
  immediate labour market effects of the compulsory phase should also be available in autumn 2001, and for medium term effects from winter 2002. Information from the qualitative research for both pilots should be available earlier.

  Sustainability Funding
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out(a) the number and value of bids which he received from the most recent round of sustainability funding for pre-schools, and the number and value of successful bids and (b) the criteria by which successful bids were chosen. [143775]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: The sustainability scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in May, made available £250,000 for projects that would support voluntary pre-schools and playgroups, which are developing new approaches which enhance their longer-term sustainability. This scheme is in addition to the current scheme of small grants to pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties, for which a further £500,000 has been made available this year.

  Proposals for project funding were invited from Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, working with local pre-schools and playgroups. Results were announced on 12 December.

  A total of 109 proposals were received, from 83 Partnership areas, to the value of £1,730,751. Seventeen proposals were successful, to a value of £250,218.

  We assessed all proposals carefully, taking into account a range of factors, including the number of pre-schools or playgroups likely to benefit from the scheme, involvement and commitment of other partners, exit strategies, and replicability. We also sought the views of representatives of the playgroup organisations.

  Over the last three years we have made available a total of £1.75 million for grants to voluntary pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties, to give them breathing space to consider their longer-term plans as funding benefits work through to individual groups. In the first two years of the scheme, grants were made to 1,500 pre-schools and playgroups.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the Sure Start programme in Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement. [144009]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our investment in Sure Start is set to more than double. By 2003–04, there will be 500 local Sure Start programmes, which will reach one third of all children aged under four living in poverty. The main criteria used in selecting districts for Sure Start are levels of disadvantage and poverty, though we also ensure a mix of rural, urban, semi-urban and coastal areas and a good spread across the country. As the programme develops, we shall examine ways in which Sure Start can reach disadvantaged young children living in small pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent areas, and in rural areas. The areas invited to develop programmes will be announced in due course.

  Vocational Courses
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to encourage stronger links between schools and further education colleges in order to widen opportunities for 14 to 16-year-olds to take up vocational courses; and if he will make a statement. [144039]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The Government are committed to creating high-quality vocational opportunities for all 14 to 16-year-olds who would benefit. Vocational qualifications including the Part One GNVQ can be taken alongside the National Curriculum at Key Stage 4, and where a pupil would benefit from extended work-related learning, disapplication from some subjects of the National Curriculum is available. The Government strongly support partnerships between schools and local further education colleges as these links can offer an efficient and effective means of providing these learning opportunities. We are supporting these measures through the Standards Fund and through direct funding of local projects. In addition, the launch of the vocational GCSEs in September 2002 will boost links, as many colleges will be in a good position to offer the new qualifications to pupils in schools.

  Education Funding Councils
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the budgeted running costs and staff numbers are for 2000–01 for the regional offices of(a) the Further Education Funding Council and (b) the Higher Education Funding Council. [144152]

  Mr. Wicks
  The table shows the FEFC's allocation of running costs for the financial year 2000–01 to its regional offices. The table also includes full-time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers.

  Region

  FEFC (£)

  Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers for 2000–01

  East Midlands

  427,901

  19.0

  Eastern

  514,326

  17.5

  Greater London

  966,151

  24.5

  North East

  394,360

  18.0

  North West

  615,786

  24.0

  South East

  672,416

  21.0

  South West

  709,070

  21.5

  West Midlands

  449,904

  18.0

  Yorkshire and Humber

  627,228

  19.1

  Total

  5,377,142

  183

  The total running costs for the FEFC in 2000–01, including the figures in the table, are £26,673,000, for 511 FTE staff numbers.

  For HEFCE the total running cost budget for 2000–01 is £12,385,115.

  Staff numbers for 2000–01 are 205 FTEs. There are no regional offices.
  68W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the budgeted expenditure is for 2000–01 by region of the(a) Further Education Funding Council and (b) Higher Education Funding Council. [144156]

  Mr. Wicks
  For the financial year 2000–01, the regional breakdown of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) allocation decision is shown in the table.

  £

  Region

  FEFC

  East Midlands

  262,453,914

  Eastern

  286,105,195

  Greater London

  573,839,388

  North East

  193,300,316

  North West

  509,688,872

  South East

  476,172,155

  South West

  313,760,583

  West Midlands

  423,451,149

  Yorkshire and Humber

  337,925,586

  Total

  3,376,697,158

  The HEFCE regional breakdown is shown in the table.

  £

  Region

  HEFCE

  East Midlands

  295,143,442

  Eastern

  295,626,898

  Greater London

  945,187,696

  North East

  214,462,773

  North West

  492,719,454

  South East

  524,828,267

  South West

  287,675,205

  West Midlands

  338,886,133

  Yorkshire and Humber

  435,385,450

  Open University

  126,684,372

  Total

  3,957,599,960

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of funding for the Higher Education Funding Council allocations to each university were in respect of research support in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) estimated for 2001–02; and what such allocations were expressed as a sum per student. [145253]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information on research funding and student numbers by institution is published by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) in their Annual reports. The reports for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, which show student numbers during these years and funding allocations for the following academic year, can be obtained from the Library.

  Information for 2001–02 is not yet available. Provisional information about funding allocations at national level is expected to be published by HEFCE in March.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has had with interested parties about the implications of the new
  69W
  Workstep programme for the economic viability and maintenance of employment in sheltered employment factories. [144265]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The design of the Workstep programme involved extensive consultation with a full range of interested parties. This included gathering the views of disabled people themselves through a public consultation exercise and also meetings with Supported Employment providers, Trade Unions and other interested parties.

  Supported factories and businesses have and will continue to play an important role, both in supporting disabled people to progress into mainstream work and in providing longer-term support for people who face the greatest barriers to working.

  New Deal for Young People (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people aged 18 to 24 in Wansbeck have found employment as a result of the New Deal programme. [144288]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures show that to the end of October 2000, at least 644 young people in the Wansbeck constituency have found employment helped by the New Deal programme. There may be other young people in the area who left the programme for employment without telling the Employment Service. These are not included in the figure.

  New Deal for 50-plus (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Wansbeck have benefited from the introduction of the New Deal for 50 plus. [144290]

  Ms Jowell
  Since the introduction of New Deal 50 plus in April 2000, to the end of November 2000, 108 people have entered work with the help of New Deal 50 plus in the Northumberland district, which includes Wansbeck. It is not possible at this stage to provide figures at constituency level.

  Basic Skills Policy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination of Basic Skills Policy has met to date; and if he will make a statement. [144719]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The Ministerial Group on Adult Basic Skills first met in November 2000. It is due to meet again at the end of this month. This group has a key role in addressing adult basic skills across Government and ensures a co-ordinated approach in helping adults with weak literacy and numeracy to improve their skills. My right hon. Friend issued a statement on the Government's basic skills proposals on 5 December.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage the adoption of performance-related pay in higher education institutions. [144720]
  70W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The Secretary of State has announced an additional £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 million in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04, to help higher education institutions recruit and retain the staff they need to improve further the quality of teaching, learning and research. In return, the Secretary of State will be looking for evidence of improvements in human resource development and staff management. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is consulting on the human resource strategies which will underpin the allocation of funds, including how institutions will review the performance of staff and reward it appropriately.

  NTOtele.com
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's consultation into the responsibilities undertaken by NTOtele.com before going into receivership. [144864]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: NTOtele.com has been operating in Administration since 3 November 2000. The purpose of the consultation exercise is to seek the views of the industry on the future arrangements for National Training Organisation (NTO) coverage in the sector.

  The consultation was launched on 5 January 2001 with a closing date of 30 March 2001. The exercise is being conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when he plans to name the national training organisations that have received NTO re-recognition; [144865]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress made in the re-recognition of national training organisations. [144866]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: On 17 October, I announced plans for consultation on ways of creating a smaller and stronger NTO network. In the light of the consultation exercise that will run from 15 January to 12 April 2001, it is no longer appropriate to continue with the planned re-recognition of NTOs against the original criteria.

  Those NTOs who have prepared re-recognition applications have been offered the opportunity to present their evidence to the independent NTO Advisory Group and receive an informal feedback on areas for development.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the response to the Holocaust Memorial Day education resource pack has been; if every school has received a pack; what his assessment is of how successful the pack has been in promoting activities on Holocaust Memorial Day for schools; and if he will make a statement. [144895]
  71W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) Education Pack was launched on 9 November as part of the build up to the Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January. The pack has been produced by an education working group of experts from non-government organisations, including the Holocaust Educational Trust who, on behalf of the working group, are making the pack available to all schools. So far, almost 30,000 copies have been distributed to schools, community groups, local authorities and others.

  The education working group will be carrying out an evaluation of the pack in the spring and will use the results to inform the development of resources to support the ongoing commemoration of HMD.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those learning and skills councils which have members drawn from the ethnic minority communities. [145005]

  Mr. Wicks
  Ethnic minority communities are well represented in the initial appointments to the local Learning and Skills Councils. Of the 47 local Councils, 26 have members drawn from ethnic minority communities and in total there are 45 ethnic minority members of local Councils. This is about 7 per cent. of the total number of Council members and is broadly in line with the proportion of people from ethnic minorities in the national working population. The 26 areas where such members have already been appointed are:

  Tyne and Wear

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  South Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire

  Humberside

  Birmingham and Solihull

  The Black Country

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Staffordshire

  Lancashire

  Greater Manchester

  Greater Merseyside

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  The West of England

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Hertfordshire

  Suffolk

  Berkshire

  Sussex

  London Central

  London North

  London West

  London South

  London East.

  The Learning and Skills Council will actively seek to appoint further members from an ethnic minority background to the local Councils that do not currently have such members, where those Councils serve areas
  72W
  with a significant ethnic minority population. In a number of areas, vacancies have been left to enable early targeted recruitment of people from ethnic minority communities.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) under what circumstances someone claiming Jobseeker's Allowance can sign on by post; [145127]

  (2) what measures are in place to assist those living in rural areas with essential travel costs on public transport; what plans he has further to assist those living in rural areas with travel costs incurred by travelling to local jobcentres to apply for benefits; and if he will make a statement. [145137]

  Ms Jowell
  People claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) make written declarations each fortnight in support of their claim. The majority attend the Jobcentre to do so, but some jobseekers can send their declarations by post instead. This applies if their door-to-door travelling time to the Jobcentre by local bus would be more than an hour in either direction, or if the bus service would cause them to be away from home for more than four hours in total, or if they have a disability which impairs their mobility. They therefore do not incur travel costs in claiming JSA.

  Jobseekers who are required to make their declarations at the Jobcentre may incur some travel costs whether or not they live in a rural area. These costs are not refunded, and there are no plans to change this.

  London Borough of Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding he has given to the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years. [145157]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I sent him on 18 December 2000.

  Standards Fund (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in Newcastle upon Tyne that will receive extra resources because they are below the target of 25 per cent. A to C grade GCSEs; how much each will receive; and where in the ranking of the eligible schools each eligible school in Newcastle appears [145249]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All secondary schools in Newcastle benefit from additional targeted funding through the Excellence in Cities initiative. The four with 25 per cent. or fewer pupils gaining with five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C in summer 2000 will receive further support. West Denton High will receive £70,000 in 2001–02 from the new element of the School Improvement Grant targeted on low attaining schools, the rate for such schools in special measures. Walker Technology College and West Gate Community College will each receive £20,000, the standard rate for schools in Excellence in Cities areas. Firfield benefits from a separate Fresh Start grant, of £250,000 in 2000–01, and will receive notification by March of further grant in 2001–02. We have not produced a ranking of eligible schools.
  73W
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was available to the City of Newcastle upon Tyne under the Standards Fund for each year of the Fund; how much was spent; and what was the total amount available under the Fund for 2001–02. [145250]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows how much supported expenditure was available to Newcastle upon Tyne for each year from 1997–98 and how much was spent up to 1999–2000. Figures on expenditure for 2000–01 are not yet available. Final allocations for 2001–02 have not yet been made. The figures include all grants paid through the Standards Fund payment system, excluding New Deal for Schools capital, which is not part of the Standards Fund programme. All figures include both Government and local authority contributions.

  Standards fund allocations and expenditure for Newcastle upon Tyne

  £

  Allocations

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  2,594,095

  2,464,546

  1998–99

  5,148,626

  5,025,456

  1999–2000

  6,585,062

  16,527,165

  2000–01

  13,492,656

  Not available

  1 Subject to final audit

  Children and Young People's Unit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the staff complement is of the Children and Young People's Unit located in his Department; from which Government Departments and in what numbers his staff has been drawn; what is the(a) total estimated annual cost to each Department and(b) overall estimated annual cost of the unit; and what arrangements are in place to secure co-ordination with the work of Departments with responsibilities for the unit. [145397]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Children and Young People's Unit has a total of 26 staff at present. Twelve are from the Department for Education and Employment; four from the Department of Health; two from the Home Office; two from the Employment Service; one from the Treasury; and one from the Department of Social Security. A further four members of staff are new to the civil service, and include two from the voluntary sector. Althea Efunshile, currently the Executive Director for Education and Culture with the London borough of Lewisham, will take up post as Head of Unit later this month. Funding for the Unit is drawn from the £450 million allocation for the Children's Fund and not from individual Departments. The Unit is still at an early stage of its development and it is not yet possible to confirm its annual costs.

  The Unit has an inter-departmental steering group which helps ensure effective co-ordination between officials. As my answers to the other questions the hon. Member poses make clear, the new Ministerial Committee on Children and Young People's Services is the guarantor of co-ordination across Government.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the time 74W
  of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is devoted to the work of the Children and Young People's Unit within his Department; and on whose departmental vote the support costs are carried. [145398]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to quantify the proportion of time that I devote to my role as Minister for Young People. However, the remit given to me by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is one of my key priorities.

  The Children and Young People's Unit has its own Request for Resources within the Department for Education and Employment's Estimate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment's answer on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 369W, sets out in some detail the accounting arrangements.

  Youth Policies
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on co-ordination of the activities of the Connexions Unit, the Children and Young People's Unit and the Youth Service Unit. [145399]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government recognise that it is vital to ensure their policies affecting children and young people are co-ordinated and coherent. The Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Children and Young People's Services co-ordinates work across Government on services for children and young people aged 0–19. This work includes that of the Children and Young People's Unit and of the Connexions Service National Unit, which now embraces the Youth Service Unit.

  The Children and Young People's Unit supports the Cabinet Committee in its co-ordination role and also manages the Children's Fund, which will help to improve services for vulnerable young people. As Minister of State for Young People, I have day-to-day responsibility for the Children and Young People's Unit and its activities. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for Lifelong Learning is the Minister responsible for the Connexions Service, a universal service for all 13 to 19-year-olds, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment chairs an Inter-departmental Connexions Ministerial Group.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the work of inter-ministerial and Cabinet Committees in co-ordinating youth policies. [145400]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Children and Young People's Services is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment as its vice-chair. Its remit to co-ordinate policies to prevent poverty and under-achievement among children and young people, co-ordinate and monitor the effectiveness of delivery and work with the voluntary sector to build a new alliance for children. I chair an inter-departmental ministerial sub-committee which supports the Cabinet Committee.

CABINET OFFICE

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how the work of the Social Exclusion Unit is incorporated into her initiatives on drug abuse. [145191]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government's anti-drugs strategy fully acknowledges the close link between problems associated with drug abuse and other social problems, and the work of the SEU helps to inform the ways in which the various strands of the drugs' strategy are delivered on the ground. Drug misuse is one of a combination of linked problems that can lead to social exclusion. It has been a recurrent theme in reports produced so far by the Social Exclusion Unit, in particular the reports on rough sleepers, poor neighbourhoods and opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training.

  As examples of joined up government in action, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit is working closely with the Rough Sleepers Unit to tackle the multiple problems facing the homeless. A study of young homeless people will shortly be commissioned under the Government's drugs research programme focusing on vulnerable groups.

  Also, the Department for Education and Employment is implementing the action plan set out in the Unit's "Bridging the Gap" report. All young people between the ages of 13 to 19 will have access to a Connexions Personal Adviser to provide advice, guidance and support to help them overcome barriers to effective participation in learning and society more generally. Personal Advisers will be trained in recognising the symptoms of drug misuse, making referrals and brokering access to appropriate drugs projects and agencies.

  Buying Agency/Civil Estate
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has for(a) the Buying Agency and (b) property advisers to the Civil Estate. [145190]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Presili Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 19 December 2000, Official Report, columns 162–63W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of the publication by the Legal Services Commission of a document listing lawyers in the Welsh language; and for what reason it was circulated to every hon. Member. [144845]

  Mr. Lock
  The cost of the translation, print and distribution of approximately 2,100 copies of the Welsh version of the Community Legal Service Directory was £33,700.
  76W
  This document was circulated to organisations including advice agencies, solicitors, libraries, courts, hon. Members and other information points to ensure that Welsh speakers accessing service have the opportunity of obtaining information in Welsh.

  This document was only circulated to hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies but a keyboard error resulted in the hon. Member for Gosport receiving a Welsh directory instead of one for the Southern region. The Legal Services Commission has assured me that this error will not occur again.

  Cross-sectoral Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the local, sub-regional and regional partnerships, boards of zones and other cross-sectoral bodies supported by his Department; how many of each there are; and with which funding streams they are associated. [144438]

  Mr. Lock
  This information is not held centrally. In delivering its objectives, the Lord Chancellor's Department works in partnership with a range of organisations both formally and informally. For example, there are 153 Community Legal Service Partnerships (CLSPs) in England and Wales. The Legal Services Commission is a key member on each of the CLSPs and it takes account of the CLSP strategic plan when determining its local expenditure from the CLS Fund. The CLSPs provide the forum for the LSC to co-ordinate its local expenditure with other funders of local legal services, such as local authorities, the National Lottery Charities Board, and charitable trusts. There are also 12 Regional Legal Service Committees (RLSC). The RLSCs are responsible for advising the LSC on its expenditure from the CLS Fund.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department also contributes to the secretariat support for a number of other committees in the criminal justice system, both at a national and local level. Some examples include the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, the Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committees and national Trials Issues Group which comprise senior representatives of the various criminal justice agencies and services.

  There is a network of Family Court Business Committees and Family Court Fora across the country which monitor the operation of the Children Act. There is one Family Court Business Committee for each care centre in the country (48). The same arrangements apply for Fora but these have been merged with Family Court Business Committees in some areas. These are not funded centrally but the Court Service pays for the administration.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144081]

  Mr. Lock
  Total expenditure on projects by consultants for the Lord Chancellor's Department from May 1997 to March 2000 was £2,444,651. The total costs incurred on
  77W
  projects carried out by independent academic researchers from May 1997 to December 2000 was £126,595 and by university departments was £3,560,683. These projects are listed below.

  Projects where external consultants contracted—1 April 1997 to 31 March 2000

  Benchmark costs for civil cases

  Community Legal Service website supply/operation

  Conduct disability access audits and produce a template

  Co-ordination of Computerisation in the Criminal Justice System

  Cost and Performance in the Trial Process

  Court Service Compliance

  Design job holder and manager training—new appraisal system

  Design of leadership development programme

  Develop a business case for JUROR project

  Developing Resource Accounting and Budgeting

  Developing systems for MIDAS/Magistrates Courts Grant Spreadsheet

  Development of a website for Magistrates Court Service Inspectorate

  Development of a corporate approach—Magistrates Courts Committees

  Devise a system to streamline Magistrates Courts Grants payments

  Draft framework for Implementation of EDM/ER

  Feasibility study on CASEMAN extension

  Function point analysis for Information Services Division

  GAP analysis

  Human Rights Act Implementation in Magistrates Courts

  Immigration Appellate Authority—expansion project

  Implementation of the Court Service Change Programme

  Information Technology strategy for the civil justice system

  Investigation into re-housing the Public Trust Office

  IT projects on transforming the Crown Court Initiative

  IT Security for the LIBRA project

  Literature review on the economics of marriage UK/USA

  OASIS—Purchase and implementation of network

  Output based specification for the provision of a Management Information Service

  Personnel Officer function review

  Pilot of 360 degree feedback appraisal system

  Plea and Directions Hearings Evaluation

  Refurbishment of Millbank Tower for LCD use

  Research to assess profitability of Conditional Fee Arrangements

  Research for ACLEC for Immigration Asylum systems in other jurisdictions

  Research for ACLEC on Conditional Fees

  Research on Ancillary Relief Pilot Project

  Research on County court inquiries

  Research on Cross-jurisdictional issues in case management

  Research: comparison of Bar income with other publicly funded professionals

  Review of 1st year SLA operating effectives

  Review of Personnel Operations

  Review on efficiency of court amalgamation

  Staff Opinion Survey

  Statute Law Database investigations

  Study of services to Litigants in Person at Citizens Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice

  Use of non legally qualified claims assessors and employment advisers

  Western Circuit Audit

  78W

  Year 2000 data change—review of business impact

  Year 2000 database compliance/upgrades

  Year 2000 programme review

  Projects where independent academics contracted—1 May 1997 to 31 December 2000

  Community Legal Service: Developing joined-up solutions

  Contracting for civil litigation: modelling volumes, access and regional distributions for certified non-matrimonial civil legal aid

  IT Strategy for the Civil Justice System

  Review of the Law Relating to Profits from Crime

  Review Papers on Marriage—causes, and ways of preventing marital breakdown

  The Division of Marital Assets Following Divorce With Particular Reference to Pensions

  Projects where Universities contracted—1 May 1997 to 31 December 2000

  A Training Needs Analysis for all those Sitting on Tribunals

  ADR in the Court of Appeal

  Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Cases

  Ancillary Relief Pilot Study

  Applicability to other tribunals and court jurisdictions of principals/practice in the London Parking Appeals Service

  Case Management and Listing Research

  Civil Justice Audit

  Civil legal aid for children

  Community Legal Service: Pioneer Community Legal Service Partnerships

  Contracting For Legal Services With Different Cost Rules

  Costing Fast Track Procedures Through Hypothetical Case Studies

  County court baseline data

  Criminal Justice Reform and the Organisation of Criminal Defence Services

  Economic Impact of Law on Ancillary Relief

  Economic Impact of the Quality of Legal Machinery

  Empirical Analysis of Standard Fees in Magistrates Courts

  Enforcement Review

  Factors affecting the decision to apply for Silk/Judicial Office

  Fast Track Simulation Pilot

  Government Policies and Lawyers' Roles

  Identifying Thresholds—Arrangements for contact in domestic violence and child welfare concerns

  Impact of Conditional Fees on Personal Injury Cases

  Impact of legal aid on litigants behaviour: an empirical analysis

  Impact on Courts and the Administration of Justice of the Human Rights Act 1998

  Information Meetings and associated Provisions with the Family Law Act 1996

  Judicial Appointments in Continental Europe

  Monitoring the Rise in the Small Claims Limit—2000

  New public management and the administration of justice in the magistrates court

  Professionalising Lay Justice: Effective Clerking in Family Proceedings

  Race and the Courts—Ethnic Awareness in Public Family Law Cases

  Race and the Courts—Perceptions of Unfairness and Lack of Trust

  Race and the Courts—Possession Cases

  Regional study of local authority and court processes in homelessness cases

  Regulating Legal Services

  Research for Legal Services Consultative Panel

  79W

  Review of Bailiff Law

  Use of Judicial Appointments Commissions: A Review of the US and Canadian Models.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British citizens who have retired and taken up residence overseas are in receipt of pensions which are(a) frozen and (b) uprated annually. [145179]

  Mr. Rooker
  State Retirement Pensions are paid to those who have satisfied the contribution conditions, not just UK nationals. There are 460,100 pensioners living abroad in receipt of a UK State Retirement Pension at a frozen rate and 378,900 who receive a State Retirement Pension which is uprated annually.

  Note:

  The figures quoted are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his estimate is of the cost of abolishing the regulations governing the freezing of state pensions for British citizens who have retired and taken up residence overseas. [145178]

  Mr. Rooker
  The estimated cost is £300 million per annum.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to advertise the winter fuel payments for men aged 60 to 64 years from 1997 to 2000 which are unclaimed. [145123]

  Mr. Rooker
  An information campaign has been running since last April. It included national and regional press advertisements, a telephone helpline, leaflets, posters and the internet. Information has been made widely available, including in doctor's surgeries, citizens advice bureaux, post offices and local Social Security offices. It aims to ensure existing and potential customers are aware of the changes and what action, if any, is required of them.

  In May last year we also wrote to around 1.2 million people identified by the Department as being newly eligible for the payments, inviting them to claim.

  It is up to the individual to choose whether to claim, however, there is no time limit for claiming Winter Fuel Payments for past winters, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, and we are still receiving and processing claims.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total of the unclaimed winter fuel allowance; and how many men aged between 60 and 64 years have not claimed the allowance in Scotland. [145122]

  Mr. Rooker
  In Scotland, around 50,000 men aged 60–64 have made a claim for this winter.
  80W
  The information campaign, which has been running since April, has aimed to ensure that existing and potential customers know about the changes to the scheme and what to do to get a payment, however it is up to the individual to choose whether to make a claim.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Winter Fuel Payments have been sent to people who are ineligible for the benefit in each year since 1997; and what action has been taken to re-claim these incorrect payments. [142407]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the first winter the scheme was in operation, when Winter Fuel Payments were benefit related (1997–98), under 1 per cent. (9,357) of the total number entitled were issued with a payment when they were not eligible.

  The merits of whether or not to pursue payment recovery were considered and decided on a case-by-case basis. No further information is available.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) single pensioners, (b) pensioner couples and (c) all pensioner households were dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income in the latest year for which figures are available. [145115]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of pensioners dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income, 1998–99

  Percentage

  Single pensioners

  60

  Pensioner couples

  35

  All pensioners

  50

  Notes:

  1.Income is defined as gross (pre-tax) income.

  2.Pensioners are defined as single people over State Pension age and couples (married or co-habiting) where the man is over State Pension age.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1998–99

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) mean and (b) median income of (i) single men aged 65 to 74 years, (ii) single men aged 75 years and over, (iii) single women aged 65 to 74 years, (iv) single women aged 75 years and over, (v) pensioner couples aged 65 to 74 years and (vi) pensioner couples aged 75 years and over, for the latest year for which figures are available. [145117]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Average net income of pensioners, 1998–99

  £

  Mean

  Median

  Single men

  Aged 65 to 74 years

  167

  130

  Aged 75 years and over

  145

  120

  Single women

  Aged 65 to 74 years

  144

  116

  Aged 75 years and over

  129

  115

  81W

  Average net income of pensioners, 1998–99

  £

  Mean

  Median

  Pensioner couples

  Aged 65 to 74 years

  288

  227

  Aged 75 years and over

  238

  188

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined as net income before housing costs.

  2. The amounts of income are in £s per week at July 1998 prices and are rounded to the nearest £1.

  3. Pensioner couples are defined as married or co-habiting couples.

  4. Pensioner couples are allocated to age categories based on the age of the man.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1998–99.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the value was of the basic state pension for(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples, for each year between November 1979 and April 2001; and what it would have been had it been uprated each year in line with the higher of average earnings or prices. [145116]

  Mr. Rooker
  The figures are in the tables.

  Our priorities are first, to improve the incomes of the poorest pensioners and second to help those with modest pensions or savings.

  As a result of our measures, this year around 2 million of the poorest pensioner households will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms and pensioner households will on average be £580 a year (£11 a week) better off. This year we will be spending £4.5 billion extra in real terms on alleviating pensioner poverty rising to over £5 billion a year from 2002–03— £3 billion more a year than if basic state pension had been linked to earnings since April 1998. This means that 49 out of every 50 pensioner households will experience more improvement as a result of our measures since 1998 than with an earnings-linked basic pension.

  Single pensioners

  Uprating date

  Basic state pension

  Amount if up-rated by higher of RPI/earnings

  November 1979

  23.30

  23.30

  November 1980

  27.15

  27.60

  November 1981

  29.60

  30.90

  November 1982

  32.85

  33.50

  November 1983

  34.05

  36.40

  November 1984

  35.80

  38.25

  November 1985

  38.30

  41.60

  July 1986

  38.70

  43.45

  April 1987

  39.50

  45.90

  April 1988

  41.15

  49.50

  April 1989

  43.60

  53.85

  April 1990

  46.90

  59.05

  April 1991

  52.00

  65.50

  April 1992

  54.15

  70.50

  April 1993

  56.10

  73.90

  April 1994

  57.60

  76.25

  April 1995

  58.85

  78.85

  April 1996

  61.15

  81.95

  April 1997

  62.45

  85.40

  April 1998

  64.70

  88.90

  April 1999

  66.75

  93.25

  April 2000

  67.50

  97.45

  April 2001

  72.50

  101.15

  82W

  Pensioner couples

  Uprating date

  Basic state pension

  Amount if up-rated by higher of RPI/earnings

  November 1979

  37.30

  37.30

  November 1980

  43.45

  44.20

  November 1981

  47.35

  49.50

  November 1982

  52.55

  53.65

  November 1983

  54.50

  58.30

  November 1984

  57.30

  61.25

  November 1985

  61.30

  66.60

  July 1986

  61.95

  69.60

  April 1987

  63.25

  73.50

  April 1988

  65.90

  79.25

  April 1989

  69.80

  86.20

  April 1990

  75.10

  94.55

  April 1991

  83.25

  104.85

  April 1992

  86.70

  112.85

  April 1993

  89.80

  118.30

  April 1994

  92.10

  121.95

  April 1995

  94.10

  126.10

  April 1996

  97.75

  131.05

  April 1997

  99.80

  136.55

  April 1998

  103.40

  142.15

  April 1999

  106.70

  149.10

  April 2000

  107.90

  155.80

  April 2001

  115.90

  161.70

  Notes:

  1. Rates are taken from November 1979 as the earnings link was ended in November 1980.

  2. The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3. Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  4. From April 1994 the basic rate of retirement pension has been increased by 50p on a single person and an additional 20p on a pensioner couple to reflect VAT on fuel.

  5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners in Great Britain are receiving(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit. [145111]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of retirement pensioners in Great Britain who are in receipt of Housing Benefit is 1,527,000. The number of retirement pensioners in Great Britain who are in receipt of Council Tax Benefit is 2,210,000.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

  Notes:

  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Retirement Pensioners are defined as a benefit unit where either the claimant and/or the partner are in receipt of the State Retirement Pension.

  4. There will be an overlap between Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a large percentage of Housing Benefit recipients also receive Council Tax Benefit.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to simplify the information required for pensioners to support claims for the minimum income guarantee. [145107]
  83W
  Mr. Rooker
  We are looking at ways of making the minimum income guarantee claim form more customer friendly and in the process reducing its length.

  As part of our modernisation program we are investing money in reforms that will ensure that pensioners can access the benefit system in ways that suit them including the telephone or the internet. As a first step we have introduced a new Tele-claim service that allows pensioners to obtain claim forms and receive assistance in completing the necessary paperwork without having to leave home. These developments will reduce the complexity of the current system and will encourage pensioners to claim their correct benefit entitlement. We want to make the system simpler, easier to understand and less trouble for pensioners.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he plans to encourage the take-up of the minimum income guarantee by retirement pensioners; and what proposals he has for publicising the changes to be introduced in April. [145106]

  Mr. Rooker
  The take-up campaign is ongoing and there are many more claims in the pipeline. An update on the success of the take up campaign to the end of January should be available by mid-February. In addition, we are undertaking a further mailshot in March aimed at those pensioners who were previously unsuccessful because of income or capital and will ensure that all relevant literature reflects the changes to be introduced in April. We are determined to ensure pensioners receive their entitlements and we are discussing the scope for further take-up initiatives with the Local Government Association and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives there are for Benefits Agency staff to improve the take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [145108]

  Mr. Rooker
  The performance measures for staff in the Benefits Agency reflect our aims of providing work for those who can and security for those who cannot work. Taking action to encourage eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee is an integral part of the work undertaken by Benefits Agency staff.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the level of the Christmas bonus for pensioners will be revised; and if he will make a statement. [145406]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have no plans to revise the level of the Christmas bonus.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss improvements to the Service; and if he will make a statement. [144887]
  84W
  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets with the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency at regular intervals, usually monthly and the last meeting took place on 11 December 2000. These meetings cover the progress towards the implementation of the Reforms as well as current performance and improvements being made to it.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2000,Official Report, column 467W, on housing benefit fraud, if he will estimate (a) the average payment made to local authorities benefiting from the weekly benefit saving scheme, (b) the average penalty payment made by local authorities under that scheme and (c) the number of local authorities (i) receiving subsidies, (ii) paying penalties and (iii) neither subsidised nor penalised. [145523]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Details of the Weekly Benefit Savings Scheme (WBS) for 1999–2000

  Number of local authorities

  Average payment/penalty for the year 1999/2000 (£)

  Receiving WBS subsidy

  304

  54,652

  Paying penalty

  42

  66,088

  Neither subsidised nor penalised

  63

  —

  Notes:

  1. Four local authorities who have been neither subsidised nor penalised still have claims outstanding.

  2. The figures in this answer relate to the latest information available and so do not correspond to the table placed in the Library in answer to my Written Answer on 8 January 2001, Official Report, column 467W. An updated table has been placed in the Library.

  3. These figures are still subject to final audit.

  Benefit Payment Card Project
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the benefit payment card project. [144837]

  Mr. Rooker
  The benefit payment card project, introduced in October 1996, was cancelled in May 1999. Up to the date of cancellation the Department's expenditure on technology to support the benefit payment card totals approximately £127 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Asylum Support Service
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of applicants entering the National Asylum Seekers Support Scheme have requested voucher-only support in each month since April. [141643]

  Mrs. Roche
  Of those applicants assessed each month by the National Asylum Support Service the number and proportion for voucher-only support are shown in the table.
  85W

  Month

  Number of voucher only applications1

  Proportion of total NASS applications(Percentage)

  April

  220

  24

  May

  590

  33

  June

  1,000

  42

  July

  570

  28

  August

  860

  28

  September

  790

  25

  October

  1,440

  32

  November

  1,210

  25

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest ten

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how the National Asylum Support Service ensures that other agencies who provide accommodation under the dispersal scheme have suitable expertise to obtain suitable accommodation for disabled asylum seekers; [144420]

  (2) what training has been given to workers at the National Asylum Support Service in order to help them deal with disability and accommodation issues; [144419]

  (3) what expertise in disability issues the National Asylum Support Service has to enable it to assess and provide for the housing needs of asylum seekers. [144417]

  Mrs. Roche
  Staff within the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) have not received formal training in disability issues. They rely on social services departments who have the relevant expertise in this area to provide an assessment of any special needs. Where such needs are identified caseworkers within the NASS will work with the accommodation provided to ensure that they are met.

  Name of establishment

  Location

  Type

  Secure Places Male

  Secure Places Female

  Total Secure Places

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith, London

  Mixed

  16

  10

  26

  Orchard Lodge

  Anerley, London

  Male only

  24

  0

  24

  Leverton

  Brentwood, Essex

  Mixed

  12

  4

  16

  Total

  52

  14

  66

  In addition, the Medway Secure Training Centre provides 44 beds for juveniles serving Detention and Training Orders in the Greater London area (33 male and 11 female places). Increasing places in the London area is a priority for the Youth Justice Board.

  Prison Staff
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison governors were(a) relieved of their duties and (b) demoted in each year since 1995; and what proportion of governors this represented. [144651]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are 124 governing governors in publicly run prisons. Information is only available for the last two years. In the year 1999 two governing governors were moved from post at short notice (1.6 per cent). In 2000, 11 governors were moved from post at short notice (8.8 per cent). Governors are moved for a variety of reasons. These include poor health, early retirement, career moves and poorly performing establishments. On occasions, more than one factor leads to a move. No governing governor was demoted in either year.
  86W
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the National Asylum Support Service intends to monitor the needs of disabled asylum seekers. [144421]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has established a Performance Monitoring Section, which has responsibility for ensuring that the support provided to asylum seekers, including disabled asylum seekers, is satisfactory. If the NASS becomes aware that any aspect of support is not being provided this will be addressed.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the National Asylum Support Service will produce an annual report. [144418]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is one of the Directorates within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). In common with other parts of the IND the activities of the NASS will be covered in the IND Annual Report.

  Juvenile Secure Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many secure unit places there are for juvenile(a) boys and (b) girls in the Greater London area. [144579]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 April 2000, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales have taken over the commissioning and purchasing of secure places for juveniles. They have provided the following information. There are currently three Local Authority Secure Units in the Greater London area as detailed in the table.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers, other than those in senior and principal grade, left through(a) resignations and (b) transfer from each of the London prisons and Feltham YOI in proportion to total officer numbers in each year for each establishment since 1995. [144652]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is provided in the tables. Due to a change in computer system during 1995–96, the information requested is not available before April 1997. The figures given in the tables represent the number of basic grade officers who have resigned or who have transferred from each of the London prisons as a proportion of staff in post.

  Resignations as percentage of staff in post

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Brixton

  1.0

  0.8

  2.2

  1.5

  Feltham

  2.6

  1.1

  4.6

  1.7

  Latchmere House

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Pentonville

  1.6

  1.8

  2.0

  3.2

  Wandsworth

  1.5

  2.3

  1.4

  0.8

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0.8

  1.8

  2.0

  2.7

  Holloway

  4.2

  4.6

  4.2

  6.6

  Belmarsh

  0.7

  1.8

  2.4

  5.2

  87W

  Transfers as percentage of staff in post

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Brixton

  8.6

  5.0

  5.5

  4.1

  Feltham

  7.2

  9.9

  18.8

  7.8

  Latchmere House

  10.3

  6.7

  3.2

  0.0

  Pentonville

  7.2

  11.1

  6.5

  2.7

  Wandsworth

  13.9

  5.5

  3.7

  4.9

  Wormwood Scrubs

  10.8

  7.2

  9.5

  5.9

  Holloway

  19.0

  5.9

  5.1

  11.6

  Belmarsh

  12.8

  7.8

  5.9

  3.7

  1 Annualised percentage using data from April 2000 to December 2000.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average level of staff sickness was in each Prison Service establishment in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) the period since 1 April 2000. [144950]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is given in the table and provides the average number of working days lost per member of staff for the periods shown.

  Establishment

  Average level of staff sickness 1999–2000

  Average level of staff sickness April-November 2000

  Acklington

  13.4

  6.4

  Albany

  10.6

  6.7

  Ashwell

  12.4

  6.0

  Askham Grange

  13.7

  6.9

  Aylesbury

  22.5

  14.6

  Bedford

  10.2

  10.1

  Belmarsh

  16.5

  14.1

  Birmingham

  19.2

  16.7

  Blantyre House

  8.2

  6.6

  Blundeston

  15.8

  7.1

  Brinsford

  14.3

  10.1

  Bristol

  15.9

  11.4

  Brixton

  17.8

  17.6

  Brockhill

  11.3

  10.5

  Buckley Hall

  —

  4.1

  Bullingdon

  16.9

  11.2

  Bullwood Hall

  19.5

  13.2

  Camp Hill

  15.2

  7.5

  Canterbury

  10.7

  11.2

  Cardiff

  13.1

  9.3

  Castington1

  23.4

  16.6

  Channings Wood

  9.3

  6.3

  Chelmsford

  14.0

  10.0

  Coldingley

  9.9

  8.1

  Cookham Wood

  13.8

  7.3

  Dartmoor

  12.6

  8.7

  Deerbolt

  12.8

  8.2

  Dorchester

  15.8

  7.7

  Dover

  12.7

  11.3

  Downview

  12.7

  9.4

  Drake Hall

  11.8

  7.0

  Durham

  12.0

  7.7

  East Sutton Park

  10.1

  7.3

  Eastwood Park

  15.7

  8.3

  Elmley

  18.3

  9.8

  Erlestoke

  13.1

  7.9

  Everthorpe

  6.4

  8.1

  Exeter

  17.6

  9.1

  Featherstone

  12.7

  12.3

  Feltham

  16.4

  11.0

  Ford

  11.8

  7.3

  Foston Hall

  15.0

  5.9

  Frankland

  9.7

  7.7

  Full Sutton

  12.0

  8.3

  Garth

  15.5

  11.4

  88W

  Establishment

  Average level of staff sickness 1999–2000

  Average level of staff sickness April-November 2000

  Gartree

  13.5

  6.6

  Glen Parva

  10.7

  6.7

  Gloucester

  15.4

  8.2

  Grendon

  13.7

  7.1

  Guys Marsh

  11.9

  9.0

  Haslar

  13.4

  8.6

  Hatfield

  8.4

  6.2

  Haverigg

  10.4

  6.0

  Hewell Grange

  7.9

  2.6

  Highdown

  12.6

  8.2

  Highpoint

  8.2

  6.2

  Hindley

  11.9

  9.0

  Hollesley Bay

  12.6

  6.7

  Holloway

  27.6

  20.5

  Holme House

  12.8

  9.6

  HQ

  5.7

  4.0

  Hull

  11.2

  7.4

  Huntercombe

  9.7

  11.5

  Kingston

  8.7

  5.2

  Kirkham

  10.7

  10.4

  Kirklevington

  13.4

  3.2

  Lancaster

  11.9

  9.5

  Lancaster Farms

  14.3

  9.7

  Latchmere House

  5.3

  7.8

  Leeds

  12.3

  9.0

  Leicester

  15.4

  12.4

  Lewes

  11.0

  8.2

  Leyhill

  14.1

  7.1

  Lincoln

  10.6

  5.7

  Lindholme

  11.9

  6.2

  Littlehey

  15.0

  13.2

  Liverpool

  13.9

  11.0

  Long Lartin

  11.1

  6.3

  Low Newton

  9.8

  9.7

  Maidstone

  11.2

  9.8

  Manchester

  15.9

  9.1

  Moorland

  9.8

  6.1

  Morton Hall

  15.0

  9.7

  New Hall

  13.5

  10.0

  North Sea Camp

  9.1

  6.5

  Northallerton

  14.2

  9.3

  Norwich

  14.9

  8.9

  Nottingham

  9.1

  6.1

  Onley

  14.8

  10.5

  Parkhurst

  12.1

  7.7

  Pentonville

  18.1

  11.0

  Portland

  10.1

  11.2

  Preston

  13.2

  10.2

  Ranby

  13.2

  8.2

  Reading

  13.7

  12.8

  Risley

  22.8

  11.2

  Rochester

  13.5

  5.2

  Send

  9.8

  4.3

  Shepton Mallet

  8.2

  7.2

  Shrewsbury

  11.4

  8.0

  Stafford

  15.7

  9.6

  Standford Hill

  19.8

  10.4

  Stocken

  9.9

  6.0

  Stoke Heath

  13.8

  10.4

  Styal

  17.8

  11.3

  Sudbury

  6.9

  5.0

  Swaleside

  12.4

  8.1

  Swansea

  19.5

  8.9

  Swinfen Hall

  9.1

  6.4

  The Mount

  11.1

  7.2

  The Verne

  13.4

  7.2

  Thorn Cross

  11.2

  6.5

  Usk/Prescoed

  6.2

  3.4

  Wakefield

  10.2

  8.3

  89W

  Establishment

  Average level of staff sickness 1999–2000

  Average level of staff sickness April-November 2000

  Wandsworth

  18.6

  12.2

  Wayland

  11.6

  7.6

  Wealstun

  11.7

  6.3

  Weare

  14.7

  8.8

  Wellingborough

  14.0

  8.6

  Werrington

  13.4

  10.5

  Wetherby

  10.2

  6.5

  Whatton

  6.2

  9.2

  Whitemoor

  16.7

  11.8

  Winchester

  19.4

  10.7

  Woodhill

  17.0

  10.1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  21.9

  13.0

  Wymott

  12.9

  10.1

  Grand Total

  13.5

  9.1

  1 Castington's sickness is over stated due to technical difficulties, potentially up to four days

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the time spent by prison staff in each Prison Service establishment on training was in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) the period since 1 April 2000. [144949]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average number of days spent by prison staff in each Prison Service establishment on training in 1999–2000 and from April to November 2000 is listed in the table. Private prisons are not required to submit training data. Data from April to November 2000 are annualised and provisional.

  Prison

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Acklington

  7.4

  4.4

  Albany

  8.5

  3.1

  Ashwell

  6.5

  5.5

  Askham Grange

  4.8

  4.6

  Aylesbury

  7.5

  7.2

  Bedford

  6.4

  5.1

  Belmarsh

  7.4

  8.1

  Birminigham

  7.9

  3.3

  Blantyre House

  6.8

  4.5

  Blundeston

  4.8

  5.4

  Brinsford

  10.7

  6.8

  Bristol

  8.1

  4.0

  Brixton

  4.2

  3.8

  Brockhill

  7.8

  5.7

  Bullingdon

  8.4

  14.1

  Bullwood Hall

  8.0

  5.9

  Camp Hill

  5.2

  3.2

  Canterbury

  6.8

  5.9

  Cardiff

  7.9

  6.2

  Castington

  11.9

  13.5

  Channings Wood

  7.9

  7.4

  Chelmsford

  6.9

  5.7

  Coldingly

  7.5

  4.1

  Cookham Wood

  9.1

  7.2

  Dartmoor

  7.6

  6.4

  Deerbolt

  6.2

  6.5

  Dorchester

  9.0

  3.5

  Dover

  7.2

  5.0

  Downview

  14.3

  5.0

  Drake Hall

  7.6

  3.4

  Durham

  9.4

  5.7

  East Sutton Park

  8.9

  8.1

  Eastwood Park

  11.8

  4.1

  Elmley

  5.1

  10.7

  Erlestoke

  10.8

  4.6

  Everthorpe

  6.5

  6.7

  Exeter

  7.1

  7.2

  Featherstone

  4.8

  3.2

  90W

  Prison

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Feltham

  11.9

  3.8

  Ford

  8.0

  5.3

  Foston Hall

  6.6

  13.8

  Frankland

  10.4

  5.9

  Full Sutton

  6.3

  4.6

  Garth

  6.5

  4.5

  Gartree

  11.2

  5.2

  Glen Parva

  6.0

  4.2

  Gloucester

  6.4

  6.3

  Grendon

  7.0

  6.2

  Guys Marsh

  7.4

  5.8

  Haslar

  7.8

  6.7

  Hatfield

  7.2

  6.2

  Haverigg

  6.0

  8.5

  Hewell Grange

  6.8

  4.8

  Highdown

  8.6

  10.5

  Highpoint

  7.2

  5.8

  Hindley

  6.8

  7.6

  Hollesley Bay

  6.0

  2.0

  Holloway

  6.5

  8.5

  Holme House

  5.5

  5.2

  Hull

  6.1

  4.7

  Huntercombe

  14.9

  13.0

  Kingston

  60.3

  5.2

  Kirkham

  6.4

  11.3

  Kirklevington

  6.4

  5.6

  Lancaster

  9.2

  7.7

  Lancaster Farms

  8.1

  6.2

  Latchmere House

  6.2

  5.9

  Leeds

  4.8

  3.0

  Leicester

  6.1

  10.6

  Lewes

  6.6

  3.9

  Leyhill

  9.9

  5.2

  Lincoln

  6.6

  4.0

  Lindholme

  6.7

  5.7

  Littlehey

  8.3

  4.1

  Liverpool

  5.4

  4.0

  Long Lartin

  9.2

  8.1

  Low Newton

  8.6

  7.1

  Maidstone

  7.3

  8.3

  Manchester

  4.5

  4.1

  Moorland

  5.9

  3.0

  Morton Hall

  6.2

  20.6

  Mount

  9.9

  4.2

  New Hall

  4.5

  2.5

  North Sea Camp

  2.4

  4.9

  Northallerton

  8.7

  6.3

  Norwich

  6.2

  5.7

  Nottingham

  6.9

  4.5

  Onley

  12.5

  8.2

  Parkhurst

  8.0

  6.4

  Pentonville

  6.2

  8.2

  Portland

  7.1

  6.7

  Preston

  7.0

  6.0

  Ranby

  6.6

  8.3

  Reading

  8.0

  4.5

  Risley

  5.0

  5.8

  Rochester

  6.3

  5.9

  Send

  10.6

  5.7

  Shepton Mallet

  8.0

  6.6

  Shrewsbury

  8.1

  1.0

  Stafford

  5.8

  3.3

  Standford Hill

  7.5

  6.4

  Stocken

  6.4

  4.1

  Stoke Heath

  11.1

  6.4

  Styal

  3.4

  4.1

  Sudbury

  6.6

  5.4

  Swaleside

  7.4

  6.1

  Swansea

  6.7

  6.9

  Swinfen Hall

  6.9

  5.8

  Thorn Cross

  6.5

  9.2

  Usk

  8.5

  7.6

  Verne

  7.2

  6.7

  Wakefield

  7.7

  7.6

  91W

  Prison

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Wandsworth

  8.6

  6.8

  Wayland

  7.0

  6.4

  Wealstun

  8.5

  7.6

  Weare

  8.2

  8.2

  Wellingborough

  6.7

  6.6

  Werrington

  8.9

  7.7

  Wetherby

  8.1

  6.5

  Whatton

  6.8

  6.7

  Whitemoor

  7.9

  8.7

  Winchester

  6.8

  6.6

  Woodhill

  8.1

  2.2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  4.9

  4.3

  Wymott

  7.5

  5.7

  Inter-war Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reviewing the inter-war records relating to individuals held by the Security Service; and what is the time scale for the completion of the review. [144893]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 751W.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide a new centre for visitors to Chelmsford Prison; and if he will make a statement. [144852]

  Mr. Boateng
  The visitors' centre at Chelmsford prison, as at many other establishments, is run by volunteers and funded by donations from local charitable organisations. The Governor and Area Manager responsible for Chelmsford prison are in discussion with various groups about its future development and operation. Communication links between the centre and the prison have been improved and a visitors' garden has been created funded by donations. However, there are no plans to provide a new centre.

  Education expenditure in London prisons 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–93

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Belmarsh

  358,845

  348,315

  416,002

  440,854

  684,469

  Brixton

  397,147

  375,279

  439,283

  312,580

  502,152

  Feltham

  366,453

  398,786

  467,272

  592,115

  634,931

  Holloway

  335,041

  359,907

  378,720

  433,770

  620,408

  Latchmere House

  44,912

  19,332

  19,200

  18,524

  16,168

  Pentonville

  293,064

  236,496

  264,547

  318,295

  467,904

  Wandsworth

  419,132

  234,221

  224,312

  226,969

  331,514

  Wormwood Scrubs

  276,294

  275,121

  289,530

  280,952

  379,575

  Note:

  1999–2000 and 1995–96 spend includes any VAT charged, but not VAT refunds. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 figures are net of VAT.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates in England and Wales took education courses in each of the last three years. [145161]
  92W
  The Governor plans to create a separate visitors' entrance to the prison incorporating a refurbished waiting room with toilets and baby changing facilities.

  In the visits area itself, new brighter furniture has been provided in a less formal arrangement, and a crèche is now provided in visits as well as in the visitors' centre.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what weekly financial allowances will be given to people held in prisons in England and Wales as a result of immigration irregularities. [145162]

  Mr. Boateng
  All those held in prison including immigration detainees receive money for participating in the regime of the prison. The scales of payment are a matter for each individual prison, subject to rules and a national minimum of £2.50 a week set by the Prison Service, which can be enhanced by participation in work, education or training.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been held in prison for immigration irregularities in prisons in England and Wales since 1 January. [145166]

  Mr. Boateng
  The requested information is not yet available. The most recent figures have therefore been provided. Provisional figures for 30 November 2000 show that there were 677 men and 22 women in prisons in England and Wales for immigration irregularities at that time. "Immigration Irregularities" have been taken to mean persons with an effective offence of assisting an illegal immigrant or being a deportee/detainee.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total prison education budget for(a) England and Wales and (b) each London prison was in each of the last five years. [145175]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 429W. Information on education expenditure in each London prison in each of the last five years is set out in the table. The expenditure comprises payments to education contractors, expenditure on libraries and expenditure on education materials.

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available. Data are collected only on the number of student hours and the number of teaching hours delivered.

  Foreign Language Leaflets (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for the provision of foreign language leaflets in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will list the languages in which such leaflets are provided. [145160]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service Race Relations policy highlights the importance of prisons being aware of the needs of non-English speaking prisoners. To assist in meeting those needs, all prisons have copies of the Prisoner Information Books which provide information on all aspects of prison life for males, females and life sentenced prisoners. The books have been produced in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust and are available in 21 languages: Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu, Vietnamese and Welsh.

  Prisoner Information Books are generally made available during the induction process and copies are held by all prison libraries. Many of those prisons which have large numbers of foreign national prisoners also provide translated versions of local information leaflets in languages relevant to their prisoner population. In some prisons, audio materials are also available.

  Induction staff will be responsible for making prisoners aware of the Prisoner Information Books but thereafter the Race Relations Liaison Officer, or in a few cases a designated foreign nationals liaison officer, will be responsible for ensuring that non-English speaking prisoners have access to information in an appropriate form.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review levels of criminal injuries compensation following the judgment in the case of Heil v. Rankin. [144926]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no plans to review levels of compensation as a consequence of the Heil v. Rankin judgment in the Court of Appeal. The tariff-based compensation scheme introduced with effect from 1 April 1996 broke the link with common law damages. Applications received on or after that date are determined by reference to a tariff of awards for injuries of comparable severity. Changes in levels of damages paid for personal injury in civil cases more generally have no effect on such tariff awards. However, compensation being awarded in the residual cases lodged before 1 April 1996 under the former common law damages scheme takes due account of the judgment.

  Prisons (Liverpool)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many new prison places have been created in the last 12 months at(a) Liverpool Prison and (b) Altcourse Prison; [145217]

  (2) what the capacity is of (a) Liverpool Prison and (b) Altcourse Prison; [145218]

  (3) how many prisoners there were in (a) Liverpool Prison and (b) Altcourse Prison on 8 January (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2003 and (f) 2001. [145219]
  94W
  Mr. Boateng
  On 12 January 2001, the certified operational capacity of Liverpool prison was 1,510 and the certified operational capacity of Altcourse prison was 850.

  No new uncrowded places were created at either prison in the preceding 12 months, although the operational capacity at Altcourse did change three times during the year to reflect changes to the number of overcrowded places available at the prison. In February 2000, the operational capacity at Altcourse increased to 900, from 860, in November 2000 it fell to 880 and in January 2001 it fell to 850.

  Official statistics on prison population are only held for the last day of each month. The total number of prisoners held in Liverpool and Altcourse prisons on the last days of January 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 are given in the table. Provisional population statistics are available for 8 January 2001 and these are included in the table.

  Date

  Population of Liverpool Prison

  Population of Altcourse Prison

  31 January 1996

  1,154

  1—

  31 January 1997

  1,243

  1—

  31 January 1998

  1,451

  459

  31 January 1999

  1,452

  670

  31 January 2000

  1,364

  685

  8 January 20012

  1,130

  755

  1 Altcourse opened on 1 December 1997

  2 Provisional figures

  Prisoner Activities
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of purposeful activity were spent on average by each prisoner in each Prison Service establishment since 1 April 2000. [145009]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average weekly purposeful activity hours in each Prison Service establishment for the current financial year to the end of November is set out in the table. The data for November included in the figures are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Prison name

  Average hours per prisoner per week

  Acklington

  23.6

  Albany

  22.9

  Altcourse

  32.5

  Ashfield

  28.2

  Ashwell

  31.4

  Askham Grange

  41.5

  Aylesbury

  15.3

  Bedford

  21.0

  Belmarsh

  13.4

  Birmingham

  15.2

  Blakenhurst

  23.5

  Blantyre House

  46.9

  Blundeston

  26.0

  Brinsford

  20.1

  Bristol

  23.4

  Brixton

  15.0

  Brockhill

  21.0

  Buckley Hall

  32.8

  Bullingdon

  14.0

  Bullwood Hall

  20.8

  Camp Hill

  21.6

  Canterbury

  19.8

  Cardiff

  22.9

  95W

  Prison name

  Average hours per prisoner per week

  Castington

  22.8

  Channings Wood

  33.7

  Chelmsford

  18.1

  Coldingley

  41.3

  Cookham Wood

  25.2

  Dartmoor

  18.3

  Deerbolt

  20.9

  Doncaster

  19.1

  Dorchester

  16.9

  Dover

  24.4

  Downview

  31.0

  Drake Hall

  35.5

  Durham

  19.5

  East Sutton Park

  41.2

  Eastwood Park

  23.7

  Elmley

  22.2

  Erlestoke

  24.4

  Everthorpe

  26.7

  Exeter

  21.9

  Featherstone

  24.7

  Feltham

  15.0

  Ford

  38.4

  Forest Bank

  26.9

  Foston Hall

  25.0

  Frankland

  21.4

  Full Sutton

  17.6

  Garth

  23.4

  Gartree

  30.2

  Glen Parva

  17.9

  Gloucester

  31.0

  Grendon

  36.6

  Guys Marsh

  29.1

  Haslar

  16.0

  Hatfield

  36.3

  Haverigg

  33.4

  Hewell Grange

  44.7

  Highdown

  16.1

  Highpoint

  19.2

  Hindley

  29.9

  Hollesley Bay

  36.9

  Holloway

  21.8

  Holme House

  16.2

  Hull

  22.1

  Huntercombe

  23.4

  Kingston

  24.8

  Kirkham

  43.2

  Kirklevington

  53.3

  Lancaster

  29.6

  Lancaster Farms

  22.6

  Latchmere House

  64.0

  Leeds

  16.5

  Leicester

  18.8

  Lewes

  18.2

  Leyhill

  39.9

  Lincoln

  24.6

  Lindholme

  27.1

  Littlehey

  23.7

  Liverpool

  23.4

  Long Lartin

  18.0

  Low Newton

  23.9

  Lowdham Grange

  24.0

  Maidstone

  23.3

  Manchester

  19.9

  Moorland

  24.4

  Morton Hall

  42.4

  Mount

  17.9

  New Hall

  22.7

  North Sea Camp

  42.6

  Northallerton

  18.5

  Norwich

  19.9

  Nottingham

  18.9

  Onley

  18.0

  Parc

  24.7

  96W

  Prison name

  Average hours per prisoner per week

  Parkhurst

  20.3

  Pentonville

  17.1

  Portland

  23.4

  Preston

  21.4

  Ranby

  26.3

  Reading

  30.5

  Risley

  24.1

  Rochester

  20.3

  Send

  32.2

  Shepton Mallet

  22.7

  Shrewsbury

  25.1

  Stafford

  26.9

  Standford Hill

  41.7

  Stocken

  23.7

  Stoke Heath

  24.0

  Styal

  24.6

  Sudbury

  42.1

  Swaleside

  26.3

  Swansea

  21.2

  Swinfen Hall

  28.7

  Thorn Cross

  42.7

  Usk

  38.9

  Verne

  28.0

  Wakefield

  19.2

  Wandsworth

  16.8

  Wayland

  23.9

  Wealstun

  33.0

  Weare

  20.4

  Wellingborough

  25.3

  Werrington

  36.5

  Wetherby

  26.8

  Whatton

  30.8

  Whitemoor

  21.9

  Winchester

  16.4

  Wolds

  28.9

  Woodhill

  17.9

  Wormwood Scrubs

  21.5

  Wymott

  27.5

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home House the Home Department what the average time spent out of cells for each prisoner in each prison establishment was(a) during weekdays and (b) at weekends in (i) 1990 and (ii) 2000. [144952]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average time prisoners spent out of Lancaster Farms cell during weekdays and weekends in each Prison Service establishment for the year 1999–2000 is listed in the table. Comparable data are not available for 1990.

  Prison name

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Acklington

  10.1

  8.6

  Albany

  9.6

  7.3

  Altcourse

  13.0

  13.0

  Ashwell

  15.5

  15.5

  Askham Grange

  16.0

  16.0

  Aylesbury

  8.7

  5.5

  Bedford

  9.3

  7.5

  Belmarsh

  8.8

  7.6

  Birmingham

  6.8

  5.1

  Blakenhurst

  11.5

  10.3

  Blantyre House

  15.3

  15.3

  Blundeston

  10.3

  7.4

  Brinsford

  9.7

  8.5

  Bristol

  10.4

  8.8

  Brixton

  8.8

  6.8

  Brockhill

  10.0

  10.0

  Buckley Hall

  13.0

  13.0

  Bullingdon

  9.5

  8.0

  97W

  Prison name

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Bullwood Hall

  10.0

  8.1

  Camp Hill

  11.2

  8.2

  Canterbury

  8.8

  7.5

  Cardiff

  8.8

  5.9

  Castington

  9.9

  6.6

  Channings Wood

  10.9

  7.2

  Chelmsford

  7.8

  7.8

  Coldingly

  12.4

  10.0

  Cookham Wood

  10.5

  8.5

  Dartmoor

  9.5

  6.6

  Deerbolt

  10.1

  4.2

  Doncaster

  10.3

  10.3

  Dorchester

  7.9

  6.8

  Dover

  9.3

  7.4

  Downview

  11.2

  11.2

  Drake Hall

  24.0

  24.0

  Durham

  7.5

  5.1

  East Sutton Park

  17.0

  17.0

  Eastwood Park

  11.8

  10.3

  Elmley

  8.1

  7.4

  Erlestoke

  11.5

  10.0

  Everthorpe

  11.0

  8.6

  Exeter

  6.2

  5.2

  Featherstone

  9.1

  10.1

  Feltham

  8.0

  6.0

  Ford

  13.5

  13.5

  Foston Hall

  9.6

  8.2

  Frankland

  10.0

  7.8

  Full Sutton

  9.5

  8.8

  Garth

  10.0

  7.8

  Gartree

  10.4

  8.6

  Glen Parva

  7.7

  4.8

  Gloucester

  9.3

  6.5

  Grendon

  14.7

  14.2

  Guys Marsh

  9.2

  7.7

  Haslar

  12.0

  11.0

  Hatfield

  13.3

  13.3

  Haverigg

  12.3

  12.3

  Hewell Grange

  24.0

  24.0

  Highdown

  7.8

  5.1

  Highpoint

  9.0

  8.3

  Hindley

  9.3

  4.0

  Hollesley Bay

  15.6

  13.3

  Holloway

  10.6

  10.0

  Holme House

  9.5

  7.3

  Hull

  10.0

  7.7

  Huntercombe

  10.8

  6.5

  Kingston

  12.3

  7.6

  Kirkham

  12.4

  12.0

  Kirklevington

  19.0

  19.0

  Lancaster

  10.0

  10.0

  Lancaster Farms

  8.5

  5.8

  Latchmere House

  18.4

  18.4

  Leeds

  8.3

  7.3

  Leicester

  10.9

  9.5

  Lewes

  9.3

  6.3

  Leyhill

  16.7

  16.7

  Lincoln

  10.5

  9.0

  Lindholme

  15.1

  19.0

  Littlehey

  9.8

  8.4

  Liverpool

  6.7

  4.1

  Long Lartin

  8.7

  8.7

  Low Newton

  11.0

  10.0

  Lowdham Grange

  13.5

  13.5

  Maidstone

  9.2

  8.3

  Manchester

  8.3

  7.0

  Moorland

  8.3

  5.5

  Morton Hall

  15.0

  16.0

  Mount

  8.3

  11.2

  New Hall

  10.4

  9.4

  North Sea Camp

  16.5

  16.5

  Northallerton

  5.1

  3.1

  Norwich

  8.1

  7.8

  Nottingham

  9.6

  7.1

  98W

  Prison name

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Onley

  11.5

  9.7

  Parc

  9.2

  10.5

  Parkhurst

  10.2

  7.8

  Pentonville

  9.0

  7.0

  Portland

  7.9

  4.5

  Preston

  6.4

  5.0

  Ranby

  13.3

  12.5

  Reading

  8.2

  6.5

  Risley

  9.8

  8.6

  Rochester

  9.2

  9.8

  Send

  12.7

  12.7

  Shepton Mallet

  10.6

  9.0

  Shrewsbury

  9.9

  9.9

  Stafford

  7.7

  5.1

  Standford Hill

  14.8

  14.8

  Stocken

  12.5

  12.5

  Stoke Heath

  10.3

  7.9

  Styal

  12.0

  11.8

  Sudbury

  24.0

  24.0

  Swaleside

  9.5

  7.3

  Swansea

  8.8

  8.0

  Swinfen Hall

  10.0

  6.6

  Thorn Cross

  12.5

  12.5

  Usk

  13.8

  12.5

  Verne

  14.5

  14.3

  Wakefield

  9.2

  8.0

  Wandsworth

  8.0

  7.0

  Wayland

  10.5

  8.5

  Wealstun

  12.2

  11.8

  Weare

  10.5

  10.3

  Wellingborough

  10.0

  7.8

  Werrington

  10.8

  9.8

  Wetherby

  10.3

  9.9

  Whatton

  12.8

  12.8

  Whitemoor

  9.8

  9.0

  Winchester

  7.2

  6.5

  Wolds

  11.5

  11.7

  Woodhill

  10.2

  8.5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  7.9

  4.8

  Wymott

  12.3

  10.8

  Prisoner Accommodation
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in each Prison Service establishment are held(a) two to a cell in a single cell and (b) three to a cell in a double cell. [144948]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one and those that are in accommodation units where prisoners exceed the uncrowded capacity at the end of November 2000 are listed in the table. These figures are provisional and subject to validation.

  The Prison Service does not collect centrally the number of prisoners held three to a cell designed for two. Prisons provide data on the total overcrowding level and on the numbers held two to a cell designed for one, known as 'doubling'. Total overcrowding includes those held three to a cell for two and those overcrowded in dormitories and larger cells.

  Prison

  Number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one

  Total number of prisoners overcrowded

  Acklington

  0

  0

  Albany

  0

  0

  Altcourse

  488

  488

  99W

  Prison

  Number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one

  Total number of prisoners overcrowded

  Ashfield

  0

  0

  Ashwell

  0

  0

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  8

  8

  Bedford

  0

  210

  Belmarsh

  0

  231

  Birraingham

  680

  680

  Blakenhurst

  350

  350

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  Brinsford

  78

  78

  Bristol

  56

  56

  Brixton

  242

  242

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  Buckley Hall

  52

  52

  Bullingdon

  36

  36

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  Camp Hill

  26

  26

  Canterbury

  214

  214

  Cardiff

  284

  284

  Castington

  0

  0

  Channings Wood

  8

  8

  Chelmsford

  62

  62

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  Cookham Wood

  42

  42

  Dartmoor

  0

  0

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  646

  646

  Dorchester

  90

  90

  Dover

  0

  0

  Downview

  32

  32

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  Durham

  468

  468

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  Eastwood Park

  60

  60

  Elmley

  222

  222

  Erlestoke

  0

  0

  Everthorpe

  0

  0

  Exeter

  252

  252

  Featherstone

  0

  0

  Feltham

  12

  12

  Ford

  0

  0

  Forest Bank

  0

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  Garth

  0

  0

  Gartree

  0

  0

  Glen Parva

  178

  178

  Gloucester

  138

  138

  Grendon

  0

  0

  Guys Marsh

  54

  54

  Haslar

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  Haverigg

  0

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  Highdown

  0

  132

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  Hindley

  0

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  0

  Holloway

  0

  0

  Holme House

  0

  0

  Hull

  0

  0

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  40

  40

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  Leeds

  806

  806

  100W

  Prison

  Number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one

  Total number of prisoners overcrowded

  Leicester

  290

  290

  Lewes

  32

  32

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  282

  282

  Lindholme

  0

  0

  Littlehey

  46

  46

  Liverpool

  358

  358

  Long Lartin

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  66

  66

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  Maidstone

  132

  132

  Manchester

  244

  244

  Moorland

  74

  74

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  Mount

  72

  72

  New Hall

  56

  56

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  204

  204

  Norwich

  232

  232

  Nottingham

  228

  228

  Onley

  0

  0

  Parc

  0

  0

  Parkhurst

  28

  28

  Pentonville

  382

  382

  Portland

  118

  118

  Preston

  470

  470

  Ranby

  70

  70

  Reading

  134

  134

  Risley

  0

  0

  Rochester

  20

  20

  Send

  0

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  100

  100

  Shrewsbury

  276

  276

  Stafford

  0

  0

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  Stocken

  52

  52

  Stoke Heath

  90

  90

  Styal

  10

  10

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  0

  0

  Swansea

  232

  232

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  Usk

  170

  170

  Verne

  40

  40

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  436

  436

  Wayland

  32

  32

  Wealstun

  0

  0

  Weare

  0

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  Werrington

  24

  24

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  Whatton

  0

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  Winchester

  238

  238

  Wolds

  0

  0

  Woodhill

  118

  118

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  0

  Wymott

  0

  0

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are sharing(a) two to a cell designed for one and (b) three to a cell designed for two at the latest date for which figures are available; what the equivalent figure was for each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [1449621]
  101W
  Mr. Boateng
  The average number of prisoners held two in a single cell at the end of November 2000 and at the same point in each of the last three years is given in the table. Figures for November 2000 are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  The Prison Service does not collect data on the number of prisoners held three in a double cell. Prisons report the total overcrowding level, which includes prisoners held three to a cell for two and those overcrowded in dormitories and larger cells. Overcrowding figures are not collected in this form before April 1998.

  Two to a cell

  Overcrowding

  November 2000

  10,980

  11,553

  November 1999

  12.722

  13,299

  November 1998

  12.102

  13,055

  November 1997

  12.116

  n/a

  Prisoners (Location)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in Prison Service establishments mote than(a) 25, (b) 50, (c) 100 and (d) 150 miles from their committal court town. [144953]

  Mr. Boateng
  The following information is based on the distance that prisoners are held from their committal court town. The data was collected on 6 October 2000 and is set out in the table in the nearest format to that requested. There are about 24,000 prisoners held under 25 miles from their committal court town.

  Distance from home area (miles)

  Number of prisoners1

  Between 25 and 50

  15,000

  Between 50 and 100

  15,000

  Between 100 and 150

  6.000

  Over 150

  5.000

  Total over 25

  41,000

  1 Rounded to nearest thousand

  Dr. Daniel Wani
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Dr Daniel Wani, a constituent, will receive his travel documents. [145104]

  Mrs. Roche
  We understand from Dr. Wani's letter to you of 14 November that he sent in his travel document on 18 October. I very much regret that we have been unable to trace any evidence of receiving it. If Dr. Wani can provide recorded delivery details a further search will be made to trace the documents and action taken to amend it and return it to him speedily.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cultural activities will take place to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. [145411]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A national ceremony, being televised, will be held in London on the evening of Saturday 27 January and will be attended by a wide 102W
  audience including senior public figures, community representatives, students and importantly survivors of the 1939–45 holocaust.

  There is a wide range of activities being planned by local authorities and community groups around the country. They have been encouraged to put details of their activities on the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk.

  We also anticipate that schools will use the new Holocaust education resource pack in the week leading up to Holocaust Memorial Day to mark the day in appropriate ways. We are receiving very positive feedback on its suitability and usefulness for this purpose.

  Northumbria Police
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) uniformed and (b) non-uniformed staff of Northumbria police there were in each year since 1996–97 and proposed for 2001–02. [145251]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information does not distinguish between uniformed and non-uniformed police officers as officers may be moved without notice between uniformed and non-uniformed duties.

  It is for the Chief Constable to determine the number of police officers and civilian support staff in the light of the budget set by the police authority for 2001–02. Current Crime Fighting Fund distribution for 2001–02 allocates 87 extra police recruits to Northumbria police, over and above what the force plan to recruit.

  The table sets out the number of police officers and civilian support staff for the Northumbria police for each year since March 1996.

  Northumbria police

  Year

  Number of police officers

  Number of civilian support staff

  1996

  3,668

  1,319

  1997

  3,677

  1,365

  1998

  3,769

  1,362

  1999

  3,840

  1.443

  2000

  3,788

  1,417

  20001

  3,885

  1,413

  1 to 30 September

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of crime in each main category there were expressed(a) as a total and (b) as a total per 1000 population in the Northumbria Police area for each six month period from April to October 1996 to April to October 2000. [145252]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of recorded crimes, and the number of crimes per 100,000 population, are given in the tables. The six-month periods addressed in the tables are from April to September 1996, to October 1999 to March 2000, as figures for April to September 2000 are not yet available.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime which came into effect on 1 April 1998, which means that figures before and after that date cannot be directly compared. Nationally, the change particularly impacted on the categories of violence against the person, fraud and forgery, drug offences (where a new category was introduced), and other offences.
  103W

  Number of offences

  Offence group

  Apr 1996 to Sept 1996

  Oct 1996 to Mar 1997

  Apr 1997 to Sept 1997

  Oct 1997 to Mar 1998

  Apr 1998 to Sept 1998

  Oct 1998 to Mar 1999

  Apr 1999 to Sept 1999

  Oct 1999 to Mar 2000

  Violence against the person

  2,785

  2,364

  2,328

  2,375

  6,361

  6,116

  6,677

  6,886

  Sexual offences

  345

  250

  300

  314

  532

  411

  499

  484

  Robbery

  670

  654

  618

  649

  661

  686

  667

  722

  Burglary

  20,198

  19,585

  16,827

  16,501

  16,325

  15,300

  13,326

  13,133

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  34,179

  31,477

  30.630

  28,322

  31,952

  30,362

  29,459

  28,716

  Fraud and forgery

  1,037

  980

  1,173

  1,142

  2,302

  2,689

  2,362

  2,660

  Criminal damage

  23,180

  22,213

  16,488

  15,630

  15,328

  16,306

  14,541

  15,895

  Drugs offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,830

  2,104

  2,205

  2,004

  Other offences

  586

  597

  551

  609

  1,043

  990

  1,035

  1,008

  Total

  82,980

  78,120

  68,915

  65,542

  76,334

  74,964

  70,771

  71,508

  Offences per 100,000 population

  Offence group

  Apr 1996 to Sept 1996

  Oct 1996 to Mar 1997

  Apr 1997 to Sept 1997

  Oct 1997 to Mar 1998

  Apr 1998 to Sept 1998

  Oct 1998 to Mar 1999

  Apr 1999 to Sept 1999

  Oct 1999 to Mar 2000

  Violence against the person

  194

  164

  162

  166

  445

  428

  468

  483

  Sexual offences

  24

  17

  21

  22

  37

  29

  35

  34

  Robbery

  47

  45

  43

  45

  46

  48

  47

  51

  Burglary

  1,404

  1,362

  1,173

  1,150

  1,141

  1,070

  935

  921

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  2,376

  2,188

  2,135

  1,974

  2,234

  2,123

  2,067

  2,014

  Fraud and forgery

  72

  68

  82

  80

  161

  188

  166

  187

  Criminal damage

  1,612

  1,544

  1,149

  1,089

  1,072

  1,140

  1,020

  1,115

  Drugs offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  128

  147

  155

  141

  Other offences

  41

  42

  38

  42

  73

  69

  73

  71

  Total

  5,769

  5,431

  4,804

  4,568

  5,337

  5,242

  4,965

  5,016

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of credit card fraud, with particular reference to cloning and skimming. [144733]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most prevalent type of counterfeit (cloning) involves copying genuine data from the magnetic stripe on one card, without the cardholder's knowledge, and putting it onto another card: a method known as skimming.

  To combat this problem the banking industry took the decision in July 1998 to introduce onto United Kingdom plastic cards an embedded smart chip (also known as an integrated circuit card, ICC, or smart card). The information chip can store much more information than the magnetic stripe (which they will eventually replace) and can not be easily copied, amended or corrupted, so making counterfeiting prohibitively difficult and expensive for criminals to carry out. Although about 15 million chipped cards have been issued so far, only 150,000 retail terminals are kitted out to use the technology and so the remainder have to continue swiping the magnetic stripe. By 2003, however, the banking industry expects most transactions to be "smart".

  It is most important that the roll of these new cards remains on schedule. This was one of a number of issues discussed at the seminar hosted by the Home Office in November for representatives from the banking industry, the retail community and law enforcement agencies, to report on progress since the first meeting held in June to examine the reasons for the increasing levels of card fraud. Further information on the projects discussed at that seminar is given in response to other Questions asked by my hon. Friend which I have answered today.
  104W
  While this work continues and before the full benefits of chip technology can be realised, the banking industry is continuing with a wide range of initiatives designed to combat fraud. These include:—
  Working closely with the police through a special intelligence unit based at Association of Payment Card Services (APACS), which has contributed to closing down a number of organised card counterfeiting rings.
  Use of "intelligent neural network" systems to spot fraud at an early stage.
  Introduction of hot card files carrying details of lost/stolen cards. Implementation of secure methods for delivering cards.
  Training material for retail staff to enable them to identify counterfeit cards.
  Rewards for retail staff who stop a card from being fraudulently used (£10 million was paid in rewards in 1999).
  Maintaining a close partnership between banks, retailers and the police.

  The banking/retail industries and the police service will also continue to inform the public how they can guard themselves against this particular crime. The key messages are:
  Guard your cards-never leave them unattended and try not to let them out of your sight while in a shop or restaurant.
  Make regular checks to ensure you still have your cards. Report any loss immediately so as a stop can be made on your card.
  Do not discard your receipts-keep them safely and check them off against your statement.
  Contact your card issuer immediately if you spot any transaction you don't recognise on your statement.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he has met recently to discuss credit card fraud. [144734]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office hosted a second seminar in November for representatives from the banking industry, the retail community and law
  105W
  enforcement agencies, to report on progress since the first meeting in June held to examine the reasons for the increasing levels of card fraud.

  Though it was clear that much positive work is already being undertaken to tackle this area of fraud, presentations were made on those areas considered to be of strategic importance in tackling the problem of card fraud within the United Kingdom.

  As one of a number of joint initiatives, the banking and retail communities are continuing to explore the introduction of chip cards, possibly with personal identification numbers (PINs) used at the merchant's point of sale across the United Kingdom. Cross-industry working groups are tackling the various technical, operational and business issues and are making good progress. The industry is expecting to make a final decision on chip cards and PINs in spring this year.

  Two cross-industry groups, facilitated by the Home Office, were also set up after the first meeting in June to address specific issues relating to plastic card fraud. The first is considering the setting up of a dedicated law enforcement team, on an initial two-year pilot basis, to target, investigate and arrest offenders responsible for organised payment card and cheque fraud. The second group has identified the need for enhanced collection and analysis of intelligence at a 'central hub' where known fraud intelligence data from business and government agencies could be collated and interrogated by professional analysts. These groups hope to bring forward proposals in the spring.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact recent incidents of credit card fraud have had on e-commerce; and what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of credit card fraud. [144729]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government take the problem of card fraud very seriously and we liaise very closely with the Association for Payment and Clearing Services (APACS) to establish and promote best practice in protecting cards and their use on the internet.

  Most of the fraud experienced by e-retailers is of the same kind as that suffered by ordinary retailers who accept "card not present" transactions over the phone or by mail.

  Although the Association of Payment Clearing Services does not specifically record the level of fraud associated with the use of payment cards over the internet (these losses would normally be recorded as part of the "card not present" category), they estimate losses for 1999 to be around £4 million, some 2 per cent. of the total reported losses for that year.

  I chaired a second Home Office seminar at the end of November to seek views from the banks, retailers and others about how the increasing levels of credit card fraud could be addressed. One of the main issues is the introduction of chip cards (card authentication), which would significantly reduce the use of fraudulent cards, and the introduction of a cardholder verification system, probably using a PIN number to confirm that the user of the card is genuine. This is currently being discussed between the retailers and the banks and the outcome of those discussions is expected later in the year.

  Terrorist Suspects
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the draft UK-wide codes in connection with the functions of examining officers and authorised officers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the order under paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 to the Act in connection with a solicitor's presence at interview in Scotland. [145842]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament draft codes of practice in connection with the functions of examining officers and authorised officers under the Terrorism Act 2000. I have also today laid before Parliament an order under paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 to the Act in respect of a solicitor's presence at any interview in Scotland carried out in connection with a terrorist investigation or for the purposes of Schedule 7 to the Act, relating to port and border controls.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers there are in his Department; and what his projected figure is for March 2001. [145564]

  Mr. Straw
  There are a total of 23 press officers in the Home Office press office, and a Chief Immigration Officer on attachment. By March 2001 it is anticipated that this figure will increase by one additional trainee at Assistant Information Officer grade.

  Police Reform
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with police organisations about police reform; [145553]

  (2) on what plans he has consulted police organisations about a new framework of police conditions of service; and if he will make a statement. [145552]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The discussions referred to in my answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 218W, are continuing; no conclusions have been reached.

  Police Budgets
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the real terms increase in local police budgets will be in 2001–02. [145018]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on net budget requirements for Police Authorities in 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of funding will be provided to local police budgets as standard spending in 2001–02 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [145023]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Total Standard Spending on the police in 2001–02 will be £7,732 million. This is an increase in cash terms of 5.1 per cent. or 3.1 per cent. in real terms over the previous year.
  107W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of local police budgets are used to fund(a) pay, (b) pensions, (c) capital financing and (d) national crime fighting agency levies. [145021]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The proportion of police net expenditure in England and Wales spent on Police Officer and other staff salaries for the latest year available (1999–2000) was 72.1 per cent; on pensions 12.7 per cent; on capital financing 1.7 per cent.; on the National Crime Squad/the National Criminal Intelligence Service levies 1.9 per cent.

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics–1999/2000 Actuals.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of his Department's national recruitment campaign was up to 1 January; and what cost(a) has been and (b) is planned to be incurred in 2001. [145095]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The first phase of the police recruitment campaign ran from September to November 2000 and cost £5 million. The second phase of the campaign is running now and will finish in mid March 2001, the planned costs are £3.2 million. These costs include both media and production and VAT—and equate to £6.98 million ex VAT.

  The costs of future phases in 2001 have not been finalised.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the monthly recruitment intake target for the Police College at Hendon is for 2001; and how many entrants have applied in respect of each intake date to date. [145094]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that the monthly recruitment intake target for each of the next two intakes in January and March 2001 at the police college at Hendon is 200. For the remainder of the year, the planned intake target is 247 for each intake. Applicants to join as police recruits are not allocated an intake date until recruitment formalities have been completed.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entrants have been recruited in each police force area under the Crime Fighting Fund initiative. [145554]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of recruits deemed to be Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruits taken on by each force is detailed in the table.

  The number of CFF officers is calculated as a proportion of total recruitment. If total recruitment for the year falls short of projections, the number of deemed CFF officers may fall.

  Forces

  Deemed CFF officers April-December 2000

  Avon and Somerset

  57

  Bedfordshire

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  Cheshire

  13

  108W

  Forces

  Deemed CFF officers April-December 2000

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  15

  Cumbria

  21

  Derbyshire

  38

  Devon and Cornwall

  56

  Dorset

  26

  Durham

  25

  Dyfed Powys

  19

  Essex

  0

  Gloucestershire

  18

  Greater Manchester

  89

  Gwent

  31

  Hampshire

  11

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  47

  Kent

  76

  Lancashire

  62

  Leicestershire

  32

  Lincolnshire

  26

  Merseyside

  75

  Metropolitan

  311

  Norfolk

  31

  North Wales

  26

  North Yorkshire

  9

  Northamptonshire

  32

  Northumbria

  55

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  South Wales

  39

  South Yorkshire

  52

  Staffordshire

  30

  Suffolk

  27

  Surrey

  45

  Sussex

  38

  Thames Valley

  36

  Warwickshire

  21

  West Mercia

  41

  West Midlands

  147

  West Yorkshire

  61

  Wiltshire

  15

  Total

  1,823

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many completed application forms have been received by each of the police forces in England and Wales as a result of his Department's national recruitment campaign. [145101]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office centrally handles responses to the campaign and expressions of interest (EOI) in applying to join the police service. The total EOI resulting from the campaign, that have been sent on to each force are listed. Completed application forms are received by each individual police force separately.

  Breakdown of EOIs and where they were sent as at 7 January 2001

  Force

  Cumulative

  01

  Avon and Somerset constabulary

  473

  02

  Bedfordshire police

  90

  03

  Cambridgeshire constabulary

  187

  04

  Cheshire constabulary

  507

  05

  City of London constabulary

  149

  06

  Cleveland constabulary

  308

  07

  Cumbria constabulary

  323

  08

  Derbyshire constabulary

  419

  09

  Devon and Cornwall constabulary

  379

  10

  Dorset police

  192

  11

  Durham police

  358

  12

  Dyfed-Powys police

  228

  13

  Essex police

  280

  14

  Gloucestershire constabulary

  100

  109W

  Breakdown of EOls and where they were sent as at 7 January 2001

  Force

  Cumulative

  15

  Greater Manchester police

  968

  16

  Gwent constabulary

  153

  17

  Hampshire constabulary

  221

  18

  Hertfordshire constabulary

  122

  19

  Humberside police

  313

  20

  Kent constabulary

  209

  21

  Lancashire constabulary

  748

  22

  Leicestershire constabulaiy

  207

  23

  Lincolnshire police

  204

  24

  Merseyside police

  833

  25

  Metropolitan police

  1,153

  26

  Norfolk constabulary

  222

  27

  Northamptonshire police

  128

  28

  Northumbria police

  451

  29

  North Wales police

  183

  30

  North Yorkshire police

  466

  31

  Nottinghamshire constabulary

  630

  32

  South Wales constabulary

  623

  33

  South Yorkshire police

  607

  34

  Staffordshire police

  456

  35

  Suffolk constabulary

  130

  36

  Surrey police

  123

  37

  Sussex police

  203

  38

  Thames Valley police

  254

  39

  Warwickshire constabulaiy

  126

  40

  West Mercia constabulary

  294

  41

  West Midlands police

  566

  42

  West Yorkshire police

  664

  43

  Wiltshire police

  105

  Total

  15,355

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) length of service and (b) age profile of police officers serving in the Metropolitan police. [145086]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table and reflects the position at the end of December 2000. The numbers of staff provided in the table relate to actual persons and not to full-time equivalent staff. The data have been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Number of officers

  (a) Length of service

  0–4

  4,810

  5–9

  4,064

  10–14

  5,171

  15–19

  4,557

  20–24

  4,109

  25–29

  2,391

  30–34

  467

  35–39

  58

  40+

  3

  (b) Age

  Less than 20

  73

  20–24

  1,467

  25–29

  3,362

  30–34

  5,320

  35–39

  6,226

  40–44

  5,021

  45–19

  2,822

  50–54

  1,131

  55–59

  208

  110W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entrants there were to the Metropolitan police service on each intake start date in 2000; and what the monthly recruitment intake target was for each such date. [145093]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am advised by the Metropolitan police that the number of entrants and the target for each intake start date in 2000 were as follows:

  Month

  Entrants

  Target

  4 January 2000

  104

  130

  7 February 2000

  61

  130

  13 March 2000

  66

  130

  17 April 2000

  101

  99

  22 May 2000

  102

  99

  26 June 2000

  98

  100

  31 July 2000

  89

  90

  No intake in August

  0

  0

  4 September 2000

  97

  95

  9 October 2000

  140

  142

  20 November 2000

  148

  150

  18 December 2000

  148

  150

  Recruitment intakes take place at five weekly intervals, so targets were set on the basis of intake dates not calendar months. The number of entrants shown includes new recruits and transfers into the Metropolitan police service

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many constables had less than two years police service in the Metropolitan police in each month of 2000. [145103]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information, set out in the table, has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Constables with less than two years service

  Month

  Number

  January

  2,221

  February

  2,205

  March

  2,242

  April

  2,326

  May

  2,284

  June

  2,229

  July

  2,150

  August

  1,963

  September

  1,902

  October

  1,900

  November

  2,026

  December

  2,154

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many officers left the Metropolitan police service in(a) the first and (b) the second year of their service in 2000; [145079]

  (2) what the average length of service of police officers was in the Metropolitan police in 2000. [145100]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the average length of service for police officers in the Metropolitan police service in 2000 was 14.3 years for males and 10.3 years for females.
  111W
  I am also informed by the Commissioner, that 114 officers left in their first year of service and 39 left in their second year of service during the period January to December 2000.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Metropolitan Police Service officers are employed on a part-time basis; and if he will make a statement; [144965]

  (2) what the (a) target and (b) actual police officer strength is of each metropolitan policing borough; and if he will make a statement. [144960]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that at the end of December 2000, 622 officers were employed on a part-time basis.

  The table sets out the targeted and actual workforce strength of the London Borough divisions. The information has been provided by the Commissioner. Each division of the Metropolitan Police has a police budgeted work force total which is set at 1 April 2000. The divisional strength figures are those for 31 December 2000. Actual divisional strength fluctuates because of wastage and recruitment variations.

  Since I last provided this information in my answer of 9 November 2000 to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), Official Report, column 393W, police numbers in the London Borough divisions have increased by 43.

  Metropolitan Police: budgeted work force total and actual strength at divisional level

  Division

  Police budgeted workforce total2

  Actual police numbers at 31 December 20002

  City of Westminster

  1,580

  1,524.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  557

  524.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  517

  493.4

  Camden

  671

  652.5

  Islington

  554

  542.9

  Harrow

  295

  292.5

  Brent

  602

  589.2

  Barnet

  517

  479.1

  Ealing

  611

  580.2

  Hillingdon

  376

  363.7

  Haringey

  533

  534.2

  Hackney

  673

  655.5

  Tower Hamlets

  548.5

  511.3

  Waltham Forest

  453

  430.3

  Redbridge

  390

  379.7

  Havering

  320.2

  298.6

  Newham

  582.6

  564.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  278.5

  264.6

  Enfield

  478

  458.5

  Southwark

  801

  762

  Lewisham

  584

  568.3

  Bromley

  440

  411.9

  Greenwich

  586

  563.4

  Bexley

  310

  306.4

  Croydon

  549

  557.8

  Sutton

  254

  268.7

  Lambeth

  875

  859.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  260

  255.1

  Hounslow

  411

  398.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  256

  252.8

  112W

  Metropolitan Police: budgeted work force total and actual strength at divisional level

  Division

  Police budgeted workforce total2

  Actual police numbers at 31 December 20002

  Merton

  290

  276.2

  Wandsworth

  555.3

  545.2

  Total

  16,708.1

  16,164.3

  Heathrow Airport1

  304

  290.3

  Divisional total

  17,012.1

  16,454.6

  1 These police posts are paid for by Heathrow Airport plc.

  2 Figures are full-time equivalents and have been rounded to the nearest one decimal point.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent representations he has received from police forces about recording of(a) stops, (b) searches and (c) stop and searches; [145024]

  (2) what recent reports he has received about the deterrent impact of stop and search in inner city anti-robbery initiatives; [145098]

  (3) what plans the Government have to revise Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and if he will make a statement; [145017]

  (4) what his policy is on police recording stop-only encounters, in accordance with Recommendation 61 of the MacPherson report; and if he will make a statement. [145081]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work on taking forward the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry has been overseen by a Steering Group chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary. At its meeting on 21 November, the Lawrence Steering Group agreed to set up a sub-group to take forward further work on stop and search. The meeting also agreed that Recommendation 61 will be the subject of further consultation with the community via local police authorities, with the support of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Association of Police Authorities. The sub-group is due to report back to the Steering Group by Easter on the results of this consultation.

  No research has been carried out specifically on the deterrent impact of stop and search on anti-robbery initiatives. The recent report by the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit "The Impact of Stop and Search on Crime and the Community" found little solid evidence that searches have a deterrent effect on crime. There is, however, some evidence that the very existence of stops may prevent crime, whether or not they involve searches. Although not investigated by this particular study, it is also possible that where searches are used intensively in particular location they may have a localised deterrence or displacement effect.

  Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will be revised to give officers clearer and more specific guidance on how stop and search powers should be used and to ensure that the rights of the public are properly protected. It is hoped to put a draft out to consultation in May.
  113W
  Several forces have been closely involved in the programme of work to improve the effective use of the stop and search tactic. A number of forces have recently inquired about progress on the reform programme. A joint letter updating forces on this is to be issued shortly by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Consultants
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the consultants used by his Department in 2000 and proposed to be used in 2001, and the costs involved. [145096]

  Mr. Straw
  The individual value of contracts are commercial in confidence and in the time available I have not been able to consult with all the listed providers to seek their agreement to publish details of the costs. In order to give as full an answer as possible I have provided the list of consultants and the total costs incurred for each year.

  January-December 2000
  Total cost: £13,203,090
  Consultants

  Ernst and Young

  Kermon

  PA Consulting

  Computer People

  Insight Consulting

  Insight

  University of Birmingham

  Lorien Consulting

  IWI Consultants

  SEMA

  CAPITA/RAS

  Sauve-Bell Associates

  University of Leicester

  Parkwell Management Consultants

  Willis UK Ltd

  Hedra

  Yale

  CCTA

  Colin Roberts

  Kelvin Medley-Jones

  Basic Skills Agency

  Roy Harrington

  Fiona Coffey Consulting

  DERA

  People Excellence

  Mott MacDonald

  Radley

  Prof F Burchill

  Ghizni Carroll Partnership

  Oxford Strategic Partnerships

  Hay Management Consultants

  Ionann

  Schneider Ross

  South Bank University

  Organisation and Management Development

  Clive Cole

  David Leigh

  Kudos

  WBS Consulting Ltd

  114W

  McNeil Robertson Partnership

  Advance Consultancy Limited

  Michael Briggs

  Performance Management

  Geoff Berry

  Emma Wallace

  Performance Management Group

  Symbia Ltd

  Cloran Consultants Ltd

  Capita Business Service

  Mouchel

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  Focus Consultancy Ltd

  CITI

  DBI

  Simon Green

  Brian Farrington Consultants

  Advantage Consultants

  John Hall Consultancy

  CEC Europe

  Price Waterhouse

  Goldsmiths

  Marsh UK

  Custodial Care NTO

  Towers Perrin

  Aquarius

  Professor N Anderson

  CHS Solutions

  CCTA

  AON Group

  Malcolm Ballantine Project Management

  W S Atkins

  Anite

  Organisation Consulting Partners

  Colin Welsh

  Goodcivic

  David Mathew

  SEMA

  Strategy Partners

  Gernic Software Consultants

  Yale

  Michael Peacock

  FT Knowledge

  Accent Marketing and Research

  Butler and Young

  Crown Solicitors Office

  DBI Associates Ltd

  Deloitte Consulting

  Government Actuary's Department

  MORI Ltd

  Murray and Company Ltd

  Richard Ellis St Quintin

  Rosslyn Research

  Willis Coroon Ltd.

  Bates Interactive

  Ashford Associates

  Logica

  CMG

  MHB

  115W
  January-December 2001
  Total cost: £11,019,447
  Consultants

  Lorien

  IWI Consultants

  CAPITA/RAS

  Sauve-Bell Associates

  Basic Skills Agency

  Mott MacDonald

  KPMG

  Radley

  Parkwell Management Consultants Ltd

  Alison Bowers

  Geoff Berry

  Edward Morgan

  Performance Management Group

  David Leigh

  Mouchel

  Simon Green

  Brian Farrington Consultants

  Advantage Consulting

  John Hall Consulting

  Price Waterhouse

  Marsh UK

  Aquarius

  CCTA

  Anite

  Organisation Consulting Partners

  Mike Haynes

  Synopsis

  SEMA

  David Mathew

  Beamans

  Method Applications

  CMG

  MHB.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the measures to address the decline in the number of special constables since April 1999. [145609]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police manpower figures are collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate every six months—as at 30 September and 31 March each year. The total number of special constables as at 31 March 1999 was recorded as 16,484. The latest statistics, recorded at 30 September 2000, show the total number of specials to be 13,528. During this same period, 2,603 specials have been recruited and 4,439 have left the service.

  Figures indicate that the number of specials has been in decline since 1993, with both numbers recruited and numbers leaving the service showing a general downward trend. The numbers leaving the special constabulary has, however, continued to approximate or outstrip those recruited. The problem evidenced appeared to be one of retention, therefore, rather than recruitment.
  116W
  Research was completed last year into the premature wastage of special constables and recommendations made. The research found that the primary reasons given for leaving were often external to the service, but that there were some underlying factors contributing to the decision to resign. The recommendations therefore included improving: the flexibility of duties and hours offered; the management structure within which specials operate; the quality of training provided locally; and local efforts to monitor and prevent wastage. The Home Office is exploring all of the recommendations from this research with the Police Service and Association of Police Authorities.

  With retention in mind, insurance to provide legal representation for specials was introduced on 27 June 2000, applying to incidents taking place on or after that date. The insurance company providing the service has been asked to provide an assessment of the scheme at the next meeting of the Special Constabulary Standing Committee in March 2001. New conditions of service for special constables and new misconduct regulations are also under development.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables(a) were recruited by each police force and (b) left the service between 30 September 1999 and 2000; and if he will make a statement on the number of special constables. [145087]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of special constables who were recruited to and left each of the police force special constabularies between 30 September 1999 and 30 September 2000 is set out in the table.

  Force

  Recruited

  Left

  Avon and Somerset

  58

  124

  Bedfordshire

  6

  20

  Cambridgeshire

  50

  92

  Cheshire

  7

  62

  Cleveland

  4

  17

  Cumbria

  11

  36

  Derbyshire

  45

  62

  Devon and Cornwall

  81

  100

  Dorset

  38

  39

  Durham

  35

  40

  Dyfed-Powys

  23

  40

  Essex

  78

  117

  Gloucestershire

  20

  44

  Greater Manchester

  37

  127

  Gwent

  30

  9

  Hampshire

  45

  224

  Hertfordshire

  28

  44

  Humberside

  16

  53

  Kent

  84

  152

  Lancashire

  37

  71

  Leicestershire

  7

  108

  Lincolnshire

  3

  41

  London, City of

  0

  20

  Merseyside

  47

  78

  Metropolitan police

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  23

  70

  Northamptonshire

  39

  67

  Northumbria

  66

  74

  North Wales

  11

  25

  North Yorkshire

  13

  40

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  11

  South Wales

  20

  69

  South Yorkshire

  25

  35

  Staffordshire

  61

  77

  Suffolk

  63

  79

  117W

  Force

  Recruited

  Left

  Surrey

  43

  54

  Sussex

  30

  72

  Thames Valley

  46

  104

  Warwickshire

  3

  0

  West Mercia

  27

  44

  West Midlands

  128

  144

  West Yorkshire

  120

  166

  Wiltshire

  35

  45

  Total

  1,554

  2,893

  Source:

  Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.

  Vehicle Crime and Burglary
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent assessment is of police forces' progress against crime reduction targets for vehicle crime and burglary. [145085]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Crime reduction targets took effect from April 2000 and are measured against recorded crime statistics. The first opportunity to assess progress will be in relation to the recorded crime statistics for the period October 1999 to September 2000, due to be published on 16 January.

  Police Service (Regional Structure)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a regional structure for the police service; and if he will make a statement. [145547]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no such plans, but we would of course consider on their merits any proposals from police authorities for amalgamations which might lead to more effective policing. We will continue to encourage chief officers and police authorities to take advantage of opportunities for collaboration between forces where this will help deliver Best Value.

  Beat Patrolling
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent reports he has received about the effectiveness of directed beat patrolling by police. [145548]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Last September the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales published a report "What the Public See is What They Think: They Get", which included case studies of forces where increased and targeted beat patrolling was being used more effectively and efficiently
  The Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate is about to begin research into the effectiveness of Humberside police's high visibility patrol work.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money from the Crime Fighting Fund has been spent. [145549]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Estimated total Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) expenditure to the end of December 2000 was £41.2 million.
  118W
  CFF grant payment to forces totaled £35.1 million.

  In addition, £6.1 million has been spent by National Police Training which is responsible for the initial training of recruits to provincial forces.

  CFF grant payments to forces are paid on the basis of anticipated recruitment of CFF officers. Variations in actual recruitment may affect total amounts due to individual forces. Any overpayment may be reclaimed or offset against future payments.

  Police Accelerated Promotion Scheme
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the new accelerated promotion scheme for the police. [145550]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work is in hand to establish an improved and extended accelerated promotion scheme, combining and developing the two existing schemes for graduate entrants and for serving officers. This work is expected to be completed by the autumn.

  Hendon Police College
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) residential and (b) non-residential training courses provided by the Police College at Hendon since May 2000 and the number of officers attending each course. [145563]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I will write to the hon. Member and will place copies of my reply in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to local authorities about the determination of the age of asylum seekers claiming to be minors; what plans he has to revise that guidance; and if he will make a statement. [145336]

  Mrs. Roche
  No such guidance has been issued to local authorities. National Asylum Support Service officials have discussed age dispute cases with local authority officials, who have responsibility for supporting asylum seeking children.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of housing asylum seekers who fall outside the dispersal scheme. [145329]

  Mrs. Roche
  Some asylum seekers provided with accommodation by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are not dispersed. In these cases the costs of their accommodation are met by the NASS.

  Local authorities are required to house only those asylum seekers supported by local authorities under the interim scheme (which consists of in-country asylum applicants who claimed asylum before the roll-out of the new NASS support arrangements and port applicants who received a first negative decision before the NASS roll-out) and those who are eligible for social security benefits (having claimed asylum at port before 3 April 2000 and not having had an initial decision on their case) and have a priority need for accommodation under the

  119W
  homelessness legislation. Local authorities can recover these costs by way of Government grant which is subject to unit cost limits.

  Based on unaudited grant claims submitted to the Home Office the net costs of local authorities in England and Wales of providing support to asylum seekers under the interim scheme, including housing and subsistence, for the first six months of 2000–01 was £7 million.

  Detailed information about the costs of the local authorities of accommodating asylum seekers under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (the homelessness legislation) is not held centrally.

  The latest figure available for net expenditure by local housing authorities in England on securing accommodation for households under the homelessness legislation (excluding administration costs) is £74 million in 1998–99.

  Information about the number of households accommodated by local authorities in England under the homelessness legislation who are asylum seekers was not collected by central Government prior to the second quarter of 1999. Between June 1999 and September 2000, the proportion of such households was typically around 16 per cent.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the policy bulletins issued by the National Asylum Support Service. [145080]

  Mrs. Roche
  Copies of all current policy bulletins issued by the National Asylum Support Service have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to local authorities about the duties of social services to asylum seekers who are unaccompanied minors when they reach the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement. [145338]

  Mrs. Roche
  No such guidance has been issued to local authorities. However, over the past 12 months National Asylum Support Service (NASS) officials have had discussions with local authority organisations on the most appropriate way of ensuring a smooth transition from care under the Children's Act 1989 to the NASS system of support.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's asylum policy following the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Aitseguer and Adan. [145334]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are disappointed that the House of Lords took the same view as the Court of Appeal in these cases, which raised issues about differing interpretations of the 1951 Refugee Convention in France and Germany.

  Since 2 October 2000 section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has provided that all European Union member states are considered safe destinations for the purpose of transfers under the Dublin Convention. This applies to all current and future cases, but the cases of Adan and Aitseguer pre-date this provision.
  120W
  The judgment will affect how we deal with a group of about 300 cases seeking to rely on similar issues. We are now considering what action to take in those cases. We already know that many of them can be distinguished from the issues in Adan and Aitseguer. We will therefore continue to make arrangements where appropriate for their transfer to the member state properly responsible for considering their claims under the Dublin Convention.

  The Government remain concerned about the effects of differing interpretations of the Refugee Convention in the different European Union member states. The United Kingdom will be actively involved in the forthcoming negotiations to establish minimum standards across the Union in respect of the qualification of nationals of third countries as refugees.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his Department's(a) Business Plan and (b) annual report for 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [145330]

  Mr. Straw
  In line with usual practice, the next Home Office Business Plan is scheduled for completion to coincide with the start of the 2001–02 financial year. The next Home Office Annual Report is planned for completion and publication shortly after the spring 2001 Budget.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his Department's summary cash plans for 2000–01 and for future years following the Comprehensive Spending Review 2000; and if he will make a statement. [145327]

  Mr. Straw
  Summary cash plans for 2000–01 were published in the Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000 (Cm 4065) published in April 2000. Plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 will be included as part of the 2000–01 Departmental Report to be published in spring 2001. These will be in resource terms with the introduction of resource budgeting from 1 April 2001.

  Young Offender Institution Rules 2000
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the differences between the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 and the existing rules which they are intended to replace. [145337]

  Mr. Boateng
  The significant differences between the consolidated Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 and the existing rules, consolidated in 1988 are listed. During the intervening years the rules have been amended via Statutory Instrument (SI) on 16 occasions. For ease of reference the relevant year and SI number are quoted with the key differences:1989 SI331 abolished the following offences against discipline within Rule 50: mutiny, doing gross personal violence, making a false and malicious allegation against an officer, repeatedly making groundless complaints. It created the following new offences against discipline within Rule 50: detaining a person against his wish, denying an officer access to part of a young

  121W
  offender institution, fighting, intentionally endangering the health or personal safety of another, obstructing an officer, intentionally or recklessly starting a fire.
  1989 SI2142. Rule 46 extended the period for which prisoners could be removed from association without the authority of the Board of Visitors from 24 hours to three days.
  1990 SI1763. Rule 9 required governors to hear oral request and complaints daily. Established the right for prisoners to complain to the governor or Board of Visitors in confidence. Rule 14 allowed for the opening of prisoners' correspondence with legal advisers on reasonable suspicion that it contained illicit enclosures or endangered security. Rule 53 increased the maximum period of cellular confinement from three to seven days.
  1994 SI13194. Rule 49A introduced compulsory testing for controlled drugs. Rule 50 amended to include the offence of administering a controlled drug.
  1995 SI984. Rule 53 increased a governor's punishments for prisoners found guilty of offences against discipline from 14 to 21 days forfeiture of privileges; from 14 to 21 days removal from activities; from 14 to 21 days extra work; from 14 to 21 days removal from wing; from 28 to 42 additional days and from 28 to 42 days stoppage of earnings.
  1995 SI1599. Rule 7 introduced the requirement to establish a system of privileges in each young offender institution.
  1996 SI1662. Rule 3 extended the regime day in young offender institutions and expanded the scope of regime activities. Rule 5 enabled the introduction of regimes providing for stricter order and discipline, emphasising standards of dress, appearance and conduct. Rule 50 introduced two new offences against discipline relating to alcohol.
  1999 SI962. Rule 10 provided the governor with authority to impose closed or non contact visits between the prisoner and his visitor. Rule 48 stated that a prisoner could not be kept temporarily confined in a special cell or room for more than 24 hours without the authority of the Board of Visitors. Rule 50 introduced a new offence against discipline of receiving a controlled drug or other articles during a visit. Rule 53 increased the maximum punishment of cellular confinement from three to seven days. Rule 71A added powers to prohibit certain visitors in the interests of security, good order or prevention of crime.
  2000 SI1700. Rule 53 removed the punishment of cellular confinement for those aged under 18 and/or serving a Detention and Training Order.
  2000 SI1795. Rule 50 introduced the following new offences against discipline relating to racist behaviour by prisoners: racially aggravated assault; racially aggravated damage to any part of a young offender institution or any property other than his own; using threatening, abusive or insulting racist words or behaviour; displaying or drawing on property or buildings threatening, abusive or insulting racist words, drawings, symbols or other material.
  2000 SI2642. Rule 49B introduced conditional powers for governors to place inmates under constant observation using closed circuit television (CCTV) in the interests of securing good order, for the health and safety of the prisoner or the prevention and detection of crime.

  Slopping Out
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons in England and Wales engage in slopping out; and if he will make a statement. [144961]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no prison establishments in England and Wales where slopping out is part of the operational regime. Twenty-four hour access to sanitation is provided in the majority of normal accommodation by means of integral sanitation, electronic unlocking or open access. The exceptions to this are D Wing at Exeter, C Wing at Dartmoor and B Wing at Swansea. When this 122W
  accommodation is in use, 24 hour access is normally provided by manual unlocking. Buckets are also provided in the cells as an alternative facility following which "slopping out" would take place. Consideration is being given to the provision of integral sanitation if these cells continue to be used. There is a proportion of cells in segregation units and places in health care centres where sanitation is not provided, for operational reasons.

  Police (Sick Leave)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are on long-term sick leave in each police force in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [144968]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about the number of police officers currently on long-term sick leave is not held centrally. The table provided shows the total number of police officer working days lost in 1999–2000 due to long-term sick leave for forces in England and Wales; and the number of officers on long-term sick leave as at 31 March 2000. The table is based on information provided by forces to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Long term sick leave 1999–2000

  Forces

  Working days lost to long-term sick leave

  Police officers on long-term sick leave at 31 March 2000

  Avon and Somerset

  19,969

  53

  Bedfordshire

  7,618

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  9,371

  41

  Cheshire

  15,523

  83

  City of London

  5,905

  16

  Cleveland

  11,918

  1—

  Cumbria

  7,691

  36

  Derbyshire

  14,127

  63

  Devon and Cornwall

  17,622

  99

  Dorset

  5,986

  23

  Durham

  10,610

  23

  Dyfed-Powys

  7,555

  142

  Essex

  22,714

  61

  Gloucestershire

  5,882

  16

  Greater Manchester

  67,022

  220

  Gwent

  11,545

  36

  Hampshire

  22,177

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  8,894

  27

  Humberside

  8,183

  35

  Kent

  18,492

  53

  Lancashire

  26,438

  81

  Leicestershire

  14,295

  42

  Lincolnshire

  6,517

  19

  Merseyside

  35,897

  124

  Metropolitan police

  157,261

  397

  Norfolk

  8,232

  23

  Northamptonshire

  4,609

  16

  Northumbria

  29,565

  57

  North Wales

  9,483

  38

  North Yorkshire

  9,994

  184

  Nottinghamshire

  24,461

  54

  South Wales

  31,190

  159

  South Yorkshire

  27,776

  86

  Staffordshire

  16,192

  60

  Suffolk

  6,385

  21

  Surrey

  11,106

  28

  Sussex

  17,051

  72

  Thames Valley

  36,752

  102

  Warwickshire

  7,631

  28

  West Mercia

  12,873

  32

  West Midlands

  64,982

  176

  123W

  Long term sick leave 1999–2000

  Forces

  Working days lost to long-term sick leave

  Police officers on long-term sick leave at 31 March 2000

  West Yorkshire

  23,929

  104

  Wiltshire

  4,349

  11

  England and Wales

  885,771

  2,965

  1 Details for Cleveland and Hampshire constabularies are not available.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [144963]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 123W. Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, together with Schedule 4 and related parts of Schedules 7 and 8, was commenced in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, on 11 January 2001.

TREASURY

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144080]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Comprehensive information is not available in the form requested.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons were prosecuted for offences relating to(a) tobacco and (b) alcohol smuggling in each year since 1990. [144834]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs prosecution records are not separated between tobacco and alcohol and are not held in this format. For the number of prosecutions generated by Excise Verification Officers for both alcohol and tobacco from 1994–95 to 1997–98 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 19 July 1998,Official Report, column 300W. The figure given in that answer for 1997–98 was corrected in the National Audit Office's "Appropriation Accounts 1997–98 (Volume 16: Class XVI, Departments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer)", p.1, which was published on 10 February 1999. The figures from 1998–99 to 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Number

  1998–99

  575

  1999–2000

  645

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the measures recommended by the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review have been 124W
  implemented; and if he will list the measures which (a) have been implemented and (b) remain to be implemented. [144836]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 343W. A schedule reporting progress on each of the recommendations has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vehicles seized as a result of offences concerning alcohol and tobacco smuggling have been(a) confiscated and (b) restored to their owners in each year since 1990. [144835]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the numbers of vehicles seized for excise offences from 1993–94 to 1997–98 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 18 June 1998,Official Report, column 274W. The figures from 1998–99 to 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  3,193

  1999–2000

  5,200

  I regret the information on vehicle restoration is not kept. As part of the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy launched in March 2000, Customs policy is now not to restore seized vehicles other than in the most exceptional circumstances.

  Manufacturing (North-west)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent measures he has introduced to secure manufacturing jobs in the north-west of England. [145215]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Manufacturers in the north-west of England, as elsewhere in the UK, are benefiting from the platform of economic stability that the Government's new frameworks for monetary and fiscal policy have delivered. Low inflation and sound public finances provide the right conditions for manufacturing companies to develop their full potential and offer secure employment.

  This hard-won stability provides an opportunity for all businesses in the north-west to raise their productivity performance—the key to long-term prosperity and job creation. The Government have already put in place a series of policies to strengthen productivity, including reductions in corporation tax from 33 to 30 per cent., reform of capital gains tax, and a new R&D tax credit.

  The recent pre-Budget Report proposed a package of measures that from April 2001 will help small and medium sized firms manage their entry into the VAT system, reduce their administrative burden and improve their cashflow. It also announced an enhanced role and funding for the North West Development Agency, which will enable it to target resources more effectively at local priorities.

  Regional Competition
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he plans to enable English regions to be economically competitive within the(a) UK and (b) EU. [145213]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government keep all fiscal measures under review and any plans will be announced in the usual way.

  The competitiveness of regions is a key factor in fiscal economic policy and there are already a number of measures in place, including those announced in SR2000—such as the new Regional Innovation Fund, which forms part of the Regional Development Agencies' much increased budgets. These measures are designed to ensure that the English regions are both competitive within the UK and the EU. Coupled with the Government's sound management of the economy, they have already made the UK the leading country for overseas investment in the EU.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent measures he has instituted to guarantee matching funding on an annual basis, to ensure the draw-down in the English regions of European structural funds. [145216]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the Spending Review the Government announced that they would ensure funding for the European share of Objective 1, 2 and 3 within departmental allocations. The resources for match funding are provided for within the total departmental spending settlements.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of deferred capital gains tax under(a) the enterprise investment scheme and (b) venture capital trusts in each of the last three years; what estimate he has made for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [144705]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: Separate estimates for the CGT element under both schemes are not available. Tentative estimates of the full cost of relief for both these schemes are published in Inland Revenue Statistics.

  Disabled Persons's 'Fax Credit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking(a) to improve access to the Disabled Person's Tax Credit and (b) to speed up consideration of cases. [144717]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: When the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) was introduced in October 1999 the qualifying benefit rules were amended to give people moving off various out-of-work incapacity benefits more time in which to find a job and apply for DPTC. From October 2000, a new route to DPTC, called the DPTC Fast-Track, was introduced to help people who became sick and disabled while in work, to stay in work. In August 2000, over
  126W
  25,000 disabled workers were benefiting from DPTC—37 per cent. more than were receiving Disability Working Allowance in July 1999. The Inland Revenue are continually monitoring progress against the turnaround targets for DPTC claims (set out in the IR's Annual Plan 2000–01) and these targets are reviewed annually as part of the Department's Public Service and Service Delivery Agreements with Treasury Ministers.

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the Exchequer yield from a 50 per cent. tax rate starting at(a) £50,000, (b) £100,000 and (c) £50,000 per annum with an additional rate of 60 per cent. starting at £100,000, and the number of taxpayers that would be affected in each case. [145248]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year effects and numbers affected in 2001–02 of making the changes are set out in the table.

  Change in 2001–02

  Yield (£ billion)

  Taxpayers affected (thousand)

  (a)

  50 per cent. for income tax for taxable income over £50,000

  5.7

  950

  (b)

  50 per cent. for income tax for taxable income over £100,000

  3.2

  250

  (c)

  50 per cent. rate for income tax for taxable income over £50,000 and 60 per cent. rate for income tax for taxable income over £100,000

  8.7

  950

  Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget Report.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been prosecuted for tax evasion in each year between 1994 and 2000. [145211]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of prosecutions for tax offences for both Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise offences is available from their departmental reports. These can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.

  Criminals (Assets)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value is of the confiscation of the assets of criminals effected by the Customs and Excise, in each year between 1994–95 and 1999–2000. [145212]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is contained in the relevant Customs and Excise Commissioner's Board Reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when HM Customs and Excise entered into a confidentiality agreement with a third party for the purpose of evaluating evidence from that third party which may be offered in respect of current litigation; and if he will make a statement. [145133]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise are not aware of any current civil litigation cases in which such a confidentiality agreement has been entered into.

  Self-assessment
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what appraisal has been made of the efficiency and effectiveness of the self-assessment tax process by(a) his Department and (b) the National Audit office. [145388]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue conducted a public consultation exercise during 1998 and the results were published on the Inland Revenue internet site in December 1998.

  The Inland Revenue commissioned Ernst and Young to undertake a Post Implementation Review of the Self Assessment programme and they did so last March.

  The Inland Revenue are always seeking ways to improve their processes and proactively respond to suggestions made by their customers and their own staff. They hold regular meetings with the main representative bodies and publish a quarterly bulletin called "Working Together".

  The National Audit Office have reported on Income Tax Self Assessment in the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports on the Inland Revenue's appropriation accounts as follows:
  Appropriation accounts for 1995–96: HC11—xii Session 1996–97
  Appropriation accounts for 1996–97: HC251—xvi Session 1997–98
  Appropriation accounts for 1997–98: HC1—xvi Session 1999–99
  Appropriation accounts for 1998–99: HC11—xvi Session 1999–2000.

  The National Audit Office are in the process of finalising a report on Self Assessment with the Inland Revenue. It will be published in due course.

  Tax Credits (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the annual expenditure by Her Majesty's Government on(a) the Working Families Tax Credit and (b) the childcare tax credit has been in Scotland since 1997; [145669]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of families with children in Scotland who are eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit; [145670]
  128W
  (3) how many persons in Scotland are in receipt of (a) Working Families Tax Credit and (b) the childcare tax credit; [145671]

  (4) what the (a) average Working Families Tax Credit and (b) average childcare tax credit payment per week was for persons in Scotland since 1997. [145668]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) replaced Family Credit in October 1999. The data needed to estimate the answers to the first three questions are available as follows.

  The WFTC Quarterly Enquiries from November 1999 contain estimates of the numbers of families in the United Kingdom and Scotland in receipt of awards, and the average weekly values of these awards. Copies have been placed in the Library. Estimates of national expenditure on WFTC and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit appear at Table B20 of the November 2000 pre-Budget Report.

  It is estimated that at August 2000 12,900 families in Scotland were in receipt of WFTC awards which included a childcare tax credit, and that the average extra award to these families due to the childcare tax credit was £30.41 per week.

  No estimate is available of the number of families in Scotland eligible for WFTC.

  VAT
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue impact on the Exchequer of harmonising VAT on repairs and new buildings at five per cent. [145594]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise estimate that the effect of harmonising VAT on the repair, maintenance and improvement of dwellings currently at 17.5 per cent. and on the construction of new dwellings currently zero rated, at 5 per cent. would be broadly revenue neutral.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue impact on the Exchequer that would result from harmonising VAT on repairs and new buildings on greenfield land at five per cent. [145591]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 356W.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of VAT paid by heritage groups in each of the last five years in respect of repair work on historic buildings; [145588]

  (2) how much VAT was paid by church groups in relation to repair work on churches in each of the last five years. [145610]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs & Excise do not have any reliable estimates of the amount of VAT that was paid by Church groups in relation to repair work on churches.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Age Discrimination in the Professions
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to promote the employment of professionals over the present retirement ages where there is need for their services and they are competent to perform those services.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment already sets the standard for good employment practices for all, including professionals. It promotes a flexible approach to retirement that does not use age as the sole criterion. It is being vigorously promoted with employers. Retirement arrangements should take individual and business needs into account. The evaluation of the code's impact will inform further plans for promoting the benefits to employers.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that to force people out of work because of their age when they are fit and capable and there is need for that work is totally unacceptable institutionalised ageism? Bearing in mind that many Members of this House have a personal interest in her answer, perhaps she will give an affirmative, friendly, positive and constructive answer to this first Question of the new year; namely, what steps will the Government take through legislation to ban ageism and institutionalised ageism of this kind?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that there is much interest in this House in a Question of that kind. As I grow older I daily become more interested myself. The Government's view is that we should be much more flexible about this matter where people over the age of retirement continue to make a positive and worthwhile contribution in whatever employment they are in. The Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment encourages employers to be more flexible in that respect. It is a complex issue so far as concerns legislation. I cannot respond other than to say that the issue requires a great deal of thought before we go down that road.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on reaching the Privy Council. I have some sympathy with her not wanting to legislate on this
916
rather delicate matter. The professions vary a great deal, but is she aware that lawyers do not always reach the prime of life until they are about to retire?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, l thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my elevation to the Privy Council. It is not for me to comment on when lawyers reach their maximum level of performance; there are many better informed noble Lords who can comment on that matter. We need to take a sensible, commonsense approach to the employment of older people. I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House will agree that many people over the age of 65 can make a contribution, just as many noble Lords do in this House. I am glad to say that there has been an increase in the number of people over the age of 50 in employment. Over the past two or three years the figure has risen by 6 per cent.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago which indicated that the voluntary code to which she referred in her first Answer is not widely known among employers, and is certainly not widely adhered to? Perhaps she can say something more about the promotional activities to which she referred also in her first Answer?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not see the article in the Sunday Times. However, I accept that there may be many employers, particularly smaller employers, who are not yet familiar with the con tents of the code. My department is in the process of evaluating its impact. It is perhaps too soon to tell my noble friend Lord Borrie what its impact has been and what further promotional activities are necessary. I hope that my noble friend and other noble Lords who feel this is important will help the Government in making clear to employers that age discrimination is unacceptable.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, does the Minister agree that often in the professions it is ageism which makes people anxious to get rid of older people and that, at least in the case of the teaching profession, it is the expense of employing older people rather than younger people? Does she further agree that many schools are desperate to have turnover among staff so that they can employ the cheapest teachers, who are the youngest and beginner teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are many reasons why employers want to retire older people earlier than is perhaps necessary. Sometimes they are good reasons. Perhaps an older employee does not have the skills and qualifications needed to carry out their particular job in different conditions.
In relation to the teaching profession, there was a substantial increase in the number of teachers retiring early in the early to mid 1990s. But the previous Government made sensible proposals for reducing the number of early retirements by making the cost fall on the employer rather than on the national scheme. As a

917
result, over the past two years the numbers taking early retirement in the teaching profession have reduced substantially to around 2,500 a year.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in this House noble Lords do not reach the full prime of their maturity until they achieve the age of 80 but that the rest of us are all trying?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that puts me in a very difficult position. Quite a few Members of your Lordships' House reach maturity a little under the age of 80 but some may not get there until they are nearly 90.

School Playground Injuries: Liability
2.43 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to mitigate the impact of no-win, no-fee litigation on school liability for injuries incurred during the playing of traditional schoolyard games.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government see no need to take any new action. The numbers of injuries to pupils in schools have reduced over the past three years. We have published guidance on making playgrounds safe. Schools can reduce the risk of litigation by having effective procedures for handling parental concerns and complaints. But where local education authorities or schools have concerns about the potential cost of litigation, they can take out insurance.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister may know, my Question is based on research carried out by the University of Keele, published just before Christmas, which suggests that this kind of litigation is having an effect on schools. If the noble Baroness had been watching ITV Channel 3 at a quarter to two this afternoon, she would have seen an advertisement by Claims Direct specifically aimed at litigation for accidents to children. In the Manchester Evening News on Thursday 11th January an article stated:
"Britain has gone compensation crazy. Analysts estimate that compensation is costing taxpayers £9 billion a year".
According to the article, Manchester City Council has already complained to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the effect on council budgets and council services of paying compensation. I have raised this issue on previous occasions. I am afraid that the noble Baroness shows the same complacency as did the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord McNally: My Lords, how long will we tolerate going down this slippery slope, with everyone being afraid to provide services because the lawyers will be at their throats?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not aware of the research published by the University of Keele to
918
which the noble Lord referred but I shall certainly try to get hold of it. There is no evidence of an increase in the number of cases being brought as a result of injuries to children in school playgrounds. The DfEE monitors the position and I shall ensure that we keep a close eye on the impact of changes in the legal system. The noble Lord referred to advertisements on television. It is perfectly reasonable that people with good cases should be entitled to know where services are available to them. Provided that the companies which advertise them do so with propriety, I think that they can extend access to justice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the reasons for the reduction in the number of incidents is the reluctance on the part of teachers to engage in various activities? They are vulnerable and often defenceless when it comes to defending their part in taking young people on adventure training or walking in the country. Sadly, some of these activities are now on the decline in schools. It is disappointing that our young people should not be enjoying canoeing, walking, riding and hiking.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, concerned accidents in the playground. There is no evidence that the kinds of activities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, refers are on the decline. The Government are keen to encourage schools to take young people and children out of the school environment into worthwhile activities of this kind. There is always a balance between putting children at risk and being overprotective. It is a matter of common sense as to where the line should be drawn.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the dangers of an increasing culture of compensation is that it increases the risk of people making false allegations, perhaps many years after the event—I think in particular of allegations of child abuse—because they have their eye on the pounds, shillings and pence as opposed to the truth of the situation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in raising the issue of child abuse, my noble friend is moving rather a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say to him that in no-win, no-fee agreements the client's solicitor and insurer bear the risk of paying both sides' costs if the case is lost. Therefore, they take on only good cases. That should be an important factor in reducing the number of compensation claims that are not based on a very good case.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has just entered the Chamber, is 90 years old today?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I should like to wish the noble and learned Lord a happy birthday and many happy returns of the day.

Natural Disasters in Developing Countries
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific action they will take to reduce the impact of natural disasters on developing countries, in the light of the White Paper on international development (Cm 5006).
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development is working to strengthen the UN-led International Strategy for Disaster Reduction as well as incorporating disaster preparedness and mitigation objectives into individual country programmes. Reducing risks and hazards, building capacity to withstand sudden shocks, as well as strengthening local arrangements for responding effectively when disaster strikes, are all essential aspects of our support for developing countries.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, will the Government help to ensure that, when working with the international strategy for disaster reduction, all the UN agencies will work hard on the question of the prevention of disasters? As we saw so tragically during the recent events in El Salvador, planning, technology and training might have helped. Will the Government also ensure that they make maximum use of UK technology and capability in this area, where we certainly have a great deal to offer?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like, first, to join my noble friend in expressing regret about the tragedy resulting from the earthquake in El Salvador. As regards the detail of my noble friend's question, the International Strategy on Disaster Reduction is a new mechanism which was set up following the International Decade for Disaster Reduction. We are working with the UN Secretariat to ensure that it adds value to the mechanisms which are already in place. Recently we received the 2001 work programme for ISDR and we shall consider it as a part of our strategy to enhance disaster reduction efforts through international organisations and networks. My noble friend may also be aware that, as a part of our effort to ensure the effectiveness of UN activities, our strategic partnership with the Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs seeks to strengthen that UN system as a whole. We shall continue to ensure that, through using UK technology, we work to develop disaster preparedness and prevention.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of Plan International. Does the Minister agree that two impacts result from any natural disaster? The first is the immediate impact at
920
the time, when often many lives are lost. However, the impact continues long after the event and the delivery of immediate relief. Many NGOs—l should point out that the Department for International Development has been extremely helpful in assisting here—are required to go in after the event to rebuild stable lives for people, thus enabling them to return to what was their normal way of life before the disaster.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. When a crisis strikes, immediate needs must be met. The humanitarian department of the Department for International Development deals with that aspect. However, the noble Baroness will be aware of our long-term strategy, which seeks to build sustainability in the countries in which we are working. That is why our strategy embraces working with countries to ensure that, as a part of their own planning, they incorporate issues surrounding disaster preparedness and mitigation.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, perhaps I may start by commending the swift reaction of the DfID to the crisis in El Salvador. I believe that representatives are already undertaking work in the region. However, is it not now time to look at responses towards debt reduction? Many small countries that are hit by disasters bear unsustainable debt. Would it not be a welcome initiative to look at the immediate suspension of debt to the Bretton Woods institutions rather than providing aid?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his comments as regards DfID staff who have been working around the clock since we learned of the earthquake in El Salvador. As regards debt relief, the noble Lord will be aware that we have played a central role in the HIPC initiative by working with the World Bank and other Paris Club members to hasten the process of debt relief. Indeed, at the end of last year, not only did we meet our target of 20 countries receiving interim relief, but we exceeded it; 22 countries qualified.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, this Question is timely and will be addressed more fully in the Statement to be taken later. However, I should like the Minister to respond to a more general point. Why is there no mention at all in the Government White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty, of disaster relief or emergency responses? Furthermore, when shall we be able to hold a debate on this extremely important subject?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness may not have looked at the White Paper in detail. There is a reference in the paper to disaster preparedness. Indeed, I could read out the reference if that would be of help. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness with the details of that. As regards a debate in this House, I am aware that discussions are taking place through the usual channels.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in light of the present disaster in central America, and in view of the efforts made and help given following the devastation resulting from Hurricane Mitch in the same area—help given not only by the British Government but also by many NGOs—can the noble Baroness tell the House what steps were taken to monitor that aid effort? What kind of feedback was received from those working on the ground in order to ensure that procedures could be improved and that we were able to learn from that experience?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that, since Hurricane Mitch, we have been working in the area and looking at the issues around disaster preparedness and mitigation. I shall write to the noble Baroness with further details on that point. As regards the monitoring of aid efforts, the noble Baroness may recall that some concerns were expressed, not about the emergency response, but about the delivery of some of the long-term aid which had been promised, in particular by the European Union. I can say to the noble Baroness that some delay has occurred with respect to that. However, some of the mechanisms within the European Commission have been improved as a result of pressure from member governments, including our Government. We hope that such delays will not occur again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, and in particular of her department, in connection with the scale of overseas aid, are very much appreciated? Will she bear in mind that the actions of the Commission have already been commented on by the "three wise men" established to investigate fraud and irregularity, some cases of which lie with the department in the Commission responsible for its share of overseas aid?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his positive comments on the work of the department. Perhaps I may repeat that the Department for International Development is working hard to improve the performance of the EC. Recently, member states held meetings with EU officials. We are putting in place mechanisms which will enable us to monitor how effectively and quickly money is being spent.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, returning to the original supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, concerning the response of the United Nations, does the noble Baroness agree that the history of the UN response to emergencies has itself at times been a disaster? Have we improved our international response at the UN level as well as at the level of individual countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have been working hard to improve the response made at UN level, not only through OCHA, but also through the new mechanism of ISDR which has recently been
922
established. We are looking at the workplans set up by ISDR, as well as assessing what the Office of Humanitarian Affairs is attempting to do, to see how those efforts can best be complemented. The noble Earl may also be aware that the World Bank has set up a prevention consortium. This brings together a key group of stakeholders—businesses and NGOs as well as governments across the world—to see how best humanitarian activities can be co-ordinated.

Prison Population
3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their objective to reduce the number of prisoners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the objective of the Government is not to set artificial targets for the overall prison population but to reduce offending, ensure that the courts have adequate powers to be able to effect a just disposal in the cases that come before them and to ensure sufficient provision for those whom the courts sentence to imprisonment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the excellent Minister for his gallant attempt to defend the indefensible. Everyone knows that the Government have no case to answer here. Are they aware that the Lord Chief Justice has come out strongly against them, describing the overcrowding as a cancer undermining the whole prison system? Are they aware that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has called for a reduction in the number of prisoners? Are they aware that the all-party Penal Affairs Group has done the same? I do not expect the Minister to put up a defence—that is impossible—but I am sure that he will do his best.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it will come as no great secret to the noble Earl that I disagree with him. The Lord Chief Justice probably disagrees with him as well because, speaking on the Today programme on 27th December, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said:
"Let me make it clear first of all that, if a person has committed a serious crime, I am strongly in favour of the person receiving serious punishment".
He went on to say:
"I also—and I've emphasised this—do not favour sending people to prison unless it's necessary but if it's necessary I'm all in favour because society has to be protected and it's very important that society knows that the judiciary will protect them".
The attitude of the Government is very much in keeping with that spirit.

923
The Home Affairs Committee made the point that,
"Prison will always be necessary for the most dangerous and/or the most persistent criminals, but it must be closely targeted on them, with other offenders being given non-custodial sentences which are effective and in which sentencers and the public have confidence".
I would also echo that.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, there is growing concern that in the coming months there will be a competition in the public debate and in the public arena as to who is toughest on crime. In what way are the Government prepared to demonstrate that being tough on crime can involve proper attention being paid to the rehabilitation of prisoners and preventive activities rather than to their upwardly mobile statistics?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course the Government are concerned to reduce reoffending; of course we are concerned to reduce reconviction rates. It is for those reasons that we have put in place a whole package of measures to ensure that when people are sentenced to prison they receive proper access to education and training which will enable them to lead a straight and fruitful life when they come out of prison. That will always be the case. We continue to press ahead with that investment and SR 2000 underpinned that. It is an important part of our policy.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are concerns about the large number of women in our prison establishments? Are there any plans to set up some kind of inquiry to look at the situation regarding women offenders, particularly those in penal institutions? In the meantime, will he draw the attention of sentencers to the fact that community sentencing is 15 times more effective and 15 times cheaper than prison?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, a review of the sentencing framework is currently being undertaken. No doubt it will look at some of the issues to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. We have made it clear, particularly through legislation such as the Crime and Disorder Act, that we see community penalties as being very important. The recidivism rates for those serving community penalties are much in line with those serving prison sentences. They have equal merit and equal value. We need sentencing which is appropriate to the crime and which has an impact on the life of the criminal.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister recall that at the time of the inception of the home curfew scheme his right honourable friend the Home Secretary undertook that no releases of prisoners serving sentences for serious offences would be made? Does he not agree that up to 30th November last year, 62 prisoners serving sentences for manslaughter and 269 for homicide or attempted murder had been released and that there have been 25 assaults on police officers by prisoners released under the scheme? In the
924
light of the Home Secretary's undertaking, can the Minister assure the House that the practice of allowing early release for serious offences will be discontinued?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the intention behind the noble Viscount's question. Home detention curfew has been a very successful policy. It replaced a very unsuccessful policy—the early release scheme—which was chaotic. We have made sure that there is something like a 95 per cent success rate for HDC. Of course, HDC means that when people are released earlier in their sentence than otherwise would have been the case they are under a kind of close supervision and licensing. That was not the case with early release, which led to abuses. That system was incoherent; it lacked clarity and cohesion as a sentencing strategy.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question tabled in the other place on British assistance to El Salvador. Immediately afterwards, my noble friend Lord Whitty will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a statement which is being made in another place on neighbourhood renewal.

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 this Bill be now read a second time.
I cannot overstate the historic importance of the creation of the International Criminal Court. To quote Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the subject,
"People all over the world want to know that humanity can strike back—that whatever and whenever genocide, war crimes or other such violations are committed, there is a court before which the criminal can be held to account; a court that puts an end t o the global culture of impunity".
The Bill before us today will put into practice the Government's commitment to that principle. It will pave the way for us to implement our obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to ratify it.
Your Lordships will be aware of the background. The International Criminal Court was debated in your Lordships' House on 9th June 1998 at the time of the diplomatic negotiations at Rome which led to the adoption of the statute, and on 20th July of that year after the statute was adopted. During those debates the International Criminal Court received eloquent support from all sides of this House.

925
The creation of an international criminal court is a tremendous step for international justice and the rule of law. The court will bring to account individuals responsible for genocide, for war crimes and for crimes against humanity.
The idea of creating a permanent international criminal court is not new. The ICC is the culmination of the will of the international community dating back 50 years. The process began at Nuremberg. The international community resolved that the appalling acts of the Second World War should not go unpunished; that the fact of conflict must not negate the rule of law. The creation of the Nuremberg tribunal was the first, crucial, step along the road of international accountability for conduct against international humanitarian law. This court will be a massive step forward along the same road.
I should like to pay tribute to the contribution of distinguished Members of this House to the remarkable achievements of Nuremberg. The principles identified then are the basis for the work we are doing now—that individuals, not states, commit crimes, and individuals should be brought to account.
But two world wars did not teach us our lesson. Crimes against humanity continued. Even in the past decade horrific atrocities were committed in Rwanda, in former Yugoslavia and in Sierra Leone, to name three examples.
It is an inescapable fact that the perpetrators of atrocities in the last century were largely left unpunished. The new century must not follow suit. When the genocide in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia again flagged up the need for justice at an international level, the United Nations responded by creating two ad hoc international criminal tribunals. The United Kingdom has given its full support to the tribunals, as we intend to do to the court.
The ad hoc tribunal only served to illustrate the need for a permanent court. A permanent court would be in existence before a conflict broke out, and so would already have the skills, the personnel and the structures to enable it to respond quickly. That must be a better model than a tribunal which must be created after a conflict, sometimes years later, and when there might be allegations of victor's justice.
Through the 1990s the international community worked together to prepare for such a court. The process was completed in 1998 with the Rome Diplomatic Conference when a statute of the international criminal court was adopted. The negotiations were difficult and many predicted failure. But the outcome was a triumph. In an unprecedented vote for international justice, 120 countries voted in favour. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that, by 31st December 2000, the number of states that had signed the statute had exceeded the number that had voted for it in 1998: 139 states have signed. We have undertaken several campaigns of lobbying around the world to encourage others to sign too, most recently in December. We are delighted that the
926
overwhelming majority of the international community, countries from all continents and of all sizes, have given their assent to the court, joining their voices to the cry for justice.
We are delighted that the United States, despite the voices of reservation there, has also signed the treaty. President Clinton, making a statement on the day that the treaty was signed, described signature as a reaffirmation of the US's strong support for international accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We welcome that commitment. We hope that in time the United States will ratify the statute.
One of the reasons the Rome statute enjoys such widespread support is that it is based on internationally agreed principles of international law. It draws on existing international humanitarian law, including the jurisprudence of Nuremberg and Tokyo, the Geneva Conventions and the work of the ad hoc criminal tribunal of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The Rome statute identifies and codifies some of the worst crimes known to humanity. The ICC will deal with genocide. It will deal with the crimes against humanity which are atrocities committed on a widespread or systematic scale. It will deal with war crimes committed in either international or internal armed conflict. The definitions and the extent of the crimes are set out in the Rome statute and in the Bill before the House. They are further elaborated in the elements of crimes document agreed by the ICC preparatory commission in June last year. War crimes include the intentional targeting of civilians, the use of human shields, serious sexual violence, and the forcible recruitment and use of child soldiers. The statute is equally strong on respecting the rights of the accused and the rights of victims and witnesses, including provision for reparations for victims.
The ICC will have jurisdiction over not only those individuals who have directly carried out crimes, but those who ordered them to be committed. It will have the authority to indict a future Pol Pot, a future Milosevic or a future Saddam Hussein. I say "future" because the ICC's jurisdiction will begin at the point it is established, once 60 states have ratified. It will not have retrospective jurisdiction. But all states will be on notice that atrocities may be punished in the future. The court will be a powerful deterrent.
The court will consist of a panel of 18 judges and an independent prosecutor, all elected by the states parties to the court. We intend to be among those states parties which will have the task of making the crucial first decisions. I hope that the Bill will receive favourable support both in this House and in another place to promote swift passage in order to give us a seat at the table as one of the court's founding members.
I should like to make three points about the way in which the court will work. First, the purpose of the court is not to take cases away from our own courts. The international criminal court is complementary to national systems. This means that it cannot investigate or try a case unless a state is unable or unwilling to launch an investigation itself.

927
The most common situation in which the court will act is when the rule of law in a particular country has broken down and a domestic prosecution is not possible; or when a dictatorial regime has refused to punish its own abuses. To quote again the United Nations Secretary-General:
"the Court represents no threat to a State with an organized criminal justice system".
To allow our courts to take advantage of this so-called principle of complementarity, we are introducing into our law all of the crimes which the court itself will be able to try. If there should ever be any allegation that a British citizen or member of the British Armed Forces has committed one of these crimes we shall be able to launch our own investigation. Any such accusations will be tried in British courts.
Secondly, how will a case get to the court? It will happen in one of three ways—an allegation could be referred to the court by a state, or by the UN, or the prosecutor could consider information sent directly to the court. In each case, the prosecutor would notify all states parties that an investigation is being considered. At that point any state with jurisdiction may declare that it will investigate. If so, the ICC investigation may not proceed unless a pre-trial chamber of judges authorises it, if they conclude that the relevant state is not itself able or willing to investigate.
Thirdly, how will the court's provisions be enforced? One-hundred and thirty-nine states have signed up to express their backing for the court; 27 have ratified. The number of ratifications is going up all the time. These are the states which will give, indeed will be obliged to give, practical assistance to the ICC in implementing its mandate—from arresting suspects to enforcing reparation for victims. The court will also be able to call on the assistance of the United Nations when the UN has referred a case to the court. This is a powerful international coalition of support. They will make the first steps of the court a reality. We hope that in time the whole international community will join them.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. It is a complex and technical Bill which has required careful preparation. The Bill extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since much of the subject matter falls within the devolution provisions of the Scotland Act, 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 provisions is being sought by the Scottish Executive
Perhaps I may now turn to the details of the Bill, while leaving aside the introductory provisions of Part I. The second part of the Bill provides for assistance to he given in the arrest and detention of suspects indicted by the ICC and for their transfer to its seat at the Hague. This will be by an expedited process based on those provisions already in place for the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Bill covers each eventuality so that wanted criminals
928
landing in the UK would find themselves quickly en route to the ICC at the Hague, while respecting their rights.
The third part of the Bill enables us to give full assistance to the ICC in other respects; for example, assistance in investigations, including the seizure of evidence and interviewing suspects and witnesses. There is also provision for the investigation of the proceeds of ICC crimes, and the freezing and seizure of property and assets at the request of the court. These provisions draw on existing principles and procedures developed for providing mutual legal assistance to other states.
Part IV of the Bill makes provision for prisoners convicted by the ICC to serve their sentences in British gaols. The details of arrangements providing for them to do so will be the subject of an agreement with the court which will be discussed at a later date. The Bill provides for a similar agreement to be reached with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Bill also sets out how we shall put into effect other orders of the court—sfor forfeiture of assets, restitution and compensation.
The Bill creates new offences under domestic law. As I said earlier, the ICC is designed to step in only when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling genuinely to do so. We intend to be both able and willing. The offences created in part V of the Bill, therefore, reflect the offences in the ICC statute itself, so that our courts will always be in a position to try these offences themselves. Domestic courts will have jurisdiction over ICC crimes if they are committed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. They will also have extra-territorial jurisdiction over these offences if committed outside the United Kingdom by a UK national, or by anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the UK armed services.
Your Lordships will be aware that we published a version of this Bill in August. I should like to express my gratitude for the learned and helpful comments received from a number of noble Lords in this House. A report on the consultation process has been placed in the Library of the House. The Bill before us has been amended in the light of the comments received. In view of the large number of comments on two particular points, I should like to mention those issues now.
The first issue was the question of immunity for official capacity. Commentators were concerned that suspects indicted by the ICC might be immune from arrest in the UK if they enjoyed state or diplomatic immunity. In the Bill before us today, your Lordships will see that there is a clear provision that in the case of a representative of a state party indicted before the ICC no such immunity will apply. This also applies to representatives of non-state parties where the sending state has agreed to waive their immunity. By ratifying the statute, states are accepting that their representatives will not enjoy immunities.
The second issue was separate from, but related to, our obligations under the ICC statute. Many respondents sought to have this legislation extend the jurisdiction of British courts not only to UK nationals

929
but also to anyone suspected of an ICC crime committed anywhere in the world. We do not favour the taking of such wide jurisdiction, so-called "universal jurisdiction", in this case. This is an issue that we have considered with great care. The primary responsibility for the investigation of crimes committed outside the United Kingdom lies with the state where the crime occurred, or whose nationals were responsible. If that state is not able or willing to investigate, the ICC will be there to step in.
The British criminal justice system is based on a territorial link to the United Kingdom and there are significant practical difficulties when our courts have to prosecute crimes that have taken place elsewhere in the world. Even in the furtherance of a cause as great as that of upholding the rule of international law we have to be practical and ensure that we can deliver what we undertake. It is our policy to assume universal jurisdiction only where an international agreement expressly requires it. The Rome statute does not. Rather than taking jurisdiction that will be difficult to enforce, we believe that those countries in which the offences took place should be encouraged to prosecute.
However, we have made one change to the Bill which is relevant to that issue. Under UK extradition law, it is the normal rule that we are unable to send people to another country to stand trial or to serve a period of imprisonment unless we could try that person under similar circumstances in the United Kingdom. This is the so-called "dual criminality rule". But under this Bill we are going to disapply that rule in the case of ICC crimes. This means that even though a state that requests the extradition of an individual suspect takes a wider jurisdiction than we do ourselves, we shall now be able to extradite that person to stand trial in the usual way. So even in cases where suspects were not liable to prosecution in this country or before the ICC they would be liable to extradition. This will ensure that non-UK nationals who have committed crimes overseas will not be able to come to the United Kingdom thinking that they will be immune from the reach of the law. They will be vulnerable to prosecution before the ICC, and they will be vulnerable to extradition.
My time is nearly up. I look forward to listening to a high-quality debate on the International Criminal Court Bill. The Bill before the House this afternoon will enable the United Kingdom to take its place at the heart of the development of the rule of law at the international level. The UK has been fully involved in the International Criminal Court since discussions began in New York in 1995, through the negotiation of the statute of the court at Rome in 1998, and into the ongoing technical discussions at preparatory commission meetings. We look forward to playing a full part in support of the court itself.
The International Criminal Court statute will come into force once 60 states have ratified it. To date, 27 have done so. This legislation will pave the way for us to join them— to join the global commitment to end impunity for some of the worst crimes known to
930
mankind and to send a message to those who think that massacre and mutilation are acceptable, even as tactics of conflict, that they will be stopped. They will be apprehended, and they will be brought to justice. They should not sleep peacefully in their beds, expecting a long retirement. They will be on notice that the world is watching, and that the world will act.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she set out the detail of this very important, but undeniably complex, Bill. At the outset, I should like to make clear that we on this side of the House strongly welcome all forms of enhanced international cooperation to bring to book the butchers and perpetrators of monstrous crimes against humanity who would otherwise go free. That must be a worthy aim. It is right that people in many countries have striven very hard over the years in good faith to achieve it. I should also like to make clear that we also agree with the principle of the Bill. I hope that there will be no doubt in that respect.
As the noble Baroness said, and as my website confirmed from an early morning consultation, as of today 139 countries have signed the statute—or had signed by the deadline of 31st December, before which it was possible to sign without also committing to ratify. After that date, any signatures made require the signing country to ratify. As I say, it appears that 139 have signed and 27 have ratified the measure so far. A number of those who signed before 31st December entered reservations on the website with regard to the way in which they would like the statute to be further reformed. The United Kingdom Government do not appear to have reservations. We seem to accept the measure as it stands. However, a number of countries have expressed reservations. Some signatures are missing. Japan and China have not signed the measure and, surprise, surprise, neither has Serbia, although I suppose we live in hope.
The United States of America signed on 31st December. When it did so, the outgoing President, Bill Clinton, made clear his motives in signing. He stated in the Financial Times that,
"the decision to sign was driven in part by a desire to keep the US actively involved in negotiations over the court's powers".
It was not, apparently, driven by the desire to ratify at this stage. He continued:
"With signature we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature we will not".
That is an important statement because it indicates that, as far as the United States is concerned, the deal is not done, the matter is not settled firmly in concrete, and there is a great deal more to negotiate.
We all understand and, indeed, admire the desire of the noble Baroness for a swift passage to enable ratification to proceed and the desire of the Foreign Secretary and the Government that this should be a

931
project where Britain is in the front row as a founder member, as it were. However, concerns and worries are obviously entertained by dedicated, senior American personnel and others. We must be careful not to overlook them even though we desire a swift passage for such an obviously desirable set of goals and aims. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, despite all the consultation that has taken place, your Lordships' House and indeed this side of the House have a duty to make sure that these concerns and worries are fully examined during the passage of the Bill. Some of them are serious and fundamental and should worry all those who love justice and wish to see the rule of law deployed even where the most hideous crimes have been committed whose perpetrators are the most deserving of punishment.
I begin by focusing in more detail on the American position and approach as I think that that provides guidance on where, if anywhere, we should seek to make further improvements or air worries on the Bill as currently drafted. The American negotiator, David Scheffer, is an extremely dedicated international lawyer who is widely admired and well known. David Scheffer is the State Department's first ambassador at large for war crimes issues. Over the years he has worked extremely hard in a positive way—which should not just be dismissed or criticised—to seek the signature of the United States to the measure, as has now occurred. No doubt he would also like to see it ratified. That involves taking, with the new President, the Congress of the United States which will clearly not be easy.
In early December Mr Scheffer said of the measure:
"If it were adopted—
in other words, if the whole project were ratified—
"I think it would have an injurious effect on US national interests and it would set back the cause of international justice unnecessarily … Through five years of intensive negotiation on this treaty and on the supplemental documents the United States has laboured constantly to achieve two major objectives. One: establish a truly legitimate engine for international justice on a permanent basis, and two: ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in the treaty and the treaty regime so that American personnel are not subject to any unwarranted investigation or prosecution by the court".
Those are Mr Scheffer's views. I do not think that anyone questions his determination to make progress on the project. However, we should listen carefully to what he and his colleagues say. The basic difficulty for the United States is that it has a written constitution. Therefore it cannot sign away the rights of its citizens; its hands are tied. We want to make sure that even though our hands are not tied, we do not sign away rights too readily. The issues that worry the Americans are: the basic right of free citizens of a free republic to open trial; the right to examine witnesses on equal terms; the right to have trial by jury; the right to no unlawful detention, rights of appeal and so on. It is clear that, even if others are satisfied that these rights are not being discarded, there are many in the United States who are not so satisfied, particularly, as I have already said, in the Congress of the United States.
932
We have no written constitution and therefore in a sense that problem does not arise. However, we have our ancient liberties and we have our new semi-written constitution; namely, the European Convention on Human Rights which is now within our law and is, indeed, all written. Article 6 is specifically concerned with the right to a free trial and all the necessary accoutrements to make that a truly solid right and for free and fair trials to take place. We need to ensure that we do not run into the kind of difficulties that, apparently, the United States legal profession envisages.
On the front of the Bill the noble Baroness is recorded as having satisfied herself that its provisions are compatible with the convention I have just mentioned. On rereading the articles and an excellent Home Office memorandum and explanation of what these extensive articles mean and what is implied by them, I am not yet 100 per cent satisfied. The noble Baroness may have satisfied herself and clearly her officials feel that she has the right to be satisfied, but she has not yet satisfied us. We shall want to be told more, both in this debate and at later stages, to enable us to be sure that the trials which take place—trying to put aside the fact that they may involve monstrous people whom we think should never have walked the face of the earth—are compatible with our ancient rights and liberties and anything that is now codified in writing in the European Convention on Human Rights.
That is the first American worry which I believe should also be our worry to some extent. We should not be too dismissive of that. The second US concern is one to which the noble Baroness rightly referred; namely, ensuring that servants of the state are protected. That matter arose at the consultation stage. I suggest that we need to take great care here and not dismiss the American worries as trivial or insignificant. Once the law has been passed and the statute has been ratified by the signatories, to put it in blunt layman's language, the International Criminal Court must be obeyed. Of course, its work complements that of national courts. However, if a state is unaKte or unwilling to bring charges against an individual, the will of the International Criminal Court will prevail as regards all state parties to the statute.
A state may have good reasons—perhaps it should not have—for being reluctant or unwilling to bring charges. However, once a provisional warrant is issued or, in some cases, even before a warrant is received, the domestic courts are powerless. They are on tramlines and they are obliged to proceed along strictly laid down rails. Article 59.4 specifically denies power to domestic courts to ask whether a warrant was properly issued or whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial. Those issues are denied to the domestic courts. The only protection seems to be the right of review—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness mentioned it—which is allowed. Other than that, there is no protection against the overriding will of the International Criminal Court. In most cases people would welcome that and say, "Well done, we need this

933
strong will to get hold of these horrible people". But we need to ensure that the power is not used in a more indiscriminate or arbitrary way.
The fear of the United States is that military commanders, soldiers, naval personnel, or pilots who have bombed civilian targets, will be charged. Although the Bill is not retrospective, we remember from the ghastly Second World War pilots who were forever strafing women, children, refugees and defenceless personnel or even people who had surrendered. Under Clause 65, politicians are protected under the standing conventions. However, Clause 72 is very wide. It states that people can be charged even if the alleged offences were not offences at the time. This is a very difficult area; one might well find a state unwilling to pursue matters.
A great deal will depend on who initiates the charges and why. The noble Baroness reminded us that these initiations can come from the UN Security Council. It seems a little unlikely given the present composition of the council, but that could change. Alternatively, they could come from a state party to the statute, the court prosecutor or as a result of some information placed in the prosecutor's office.
It is perfectly true that there is a pre-trial chamber of judges—I should like to be reassured that they are not the same judges who will try the case later—so there is a filter. Nevertheless, these are the ways in which the names will come up and the targets chosen. Can we ensure that they will not be picked on the basis of countries settling old international scores? There are plenty of international scores to be settled and plenty of people ready to try to settle them.
Can we be confident that the Bill's provisions will not be directed at criminals who happen to be accessible at the time? That is the other difficulty. Is it possible that the only people caught up internationally in this formidable and substantial new machinery will be criminals at large in small states which are without armies and suffering legal and social disintegration and where the international community in the form of US or NATO troops, or UN forces, can move in at will and make an arrest? How many such countries are there? One has to remember that while some people were picked up in Bosnia, a country where NATO is in effect in control, there has been reluctance to pick up many others. So what would the chances be in countries where it is not in control?
What will the Bill do for the atrocities committed in Chechnya where innocent civilians have been mowed down in the past year, or in Tibet where there have been massacres? What about the people who gave us the horrors of Tiananman Square; or the pilots who strafed civilians in World War II; or almost character monsters like Idi Amin who is still apparently at large? What about the Iranian child killers who do not hesitate to string up young children for various reasons; or the IRA terrorists who blow off the legs of little children? I had to visit them when I was a
934
Minister in Northern Ireland. Terrorists are excluded from the Bill, so those kinds of monsters will not come within its reach. What about Mr Kim II Sung and his delights in North Korea? Has Mr Putin something to explain from his KGB past, or the actions of his generals in Chechnya? None of the people involved in that list of atrocities will be touched. Perhaps I may quote from an interesting article by my noble friend Lord Hurd, the former Foreign Secretary. In the Financial Times recently he concluded—it is a conclusion upon which we may ponder—that,
"only the weak or the defeated are likely to find themselves in front of the new court".
That is not an encouraging prospectus for this operation despite our high hopes.
To "only the weak", perhaps one may add only those whom the state has good reason to protect. Through its own well-ordered machinery it must deliver the goods and obey the ICC. That could include intelligence officers—people deemed to have served the state well. The ICC selection process is bound to be selective and arbitrary. I put it in deliberately crude terms. I withdraw from those if readily challenged. In future it could get James Bond but not Pol Pot.
We cannot just dismiss these matters. We should have double concern that this enormous system will be accountable. We are setting up many international bodies and independent institutions outside the conventional channels of democratic control. The great question of our age, I suggest, is how we make those bodies accountable and link them to the democratic process. That applies as much to the ICC as to other institutions.
We shall wish to discuss many other items. My noble friend Lord Kingsland will bring his expertise to bear towards the end of the debate. However, it sounds nonsensical to introduce into the UK statutes genocide as a crime when we already have powers under the War Crimes Act and the Genocide Act. It may be necessary but it sounds absurd. The enforcement of sentences leaves us uneasy. Where will these prisoners serve their sentences? Some will be in UK gaols. However, they will not be held there at Her Majesty's pleasure, like every other prisoner, but at the pleasure of the ICC with no question of early release by the domestic authorities.
The system will not start tomorrow morning; it will happen a year or two ahead. Some big criminals will not be caught by this system and will wander around for a good while to come. What will the system cost? In the Explanatory Notes there is a shot at a figure of £5.7 million in the first year. After that the picture is vague. It is suggested that the costs are unquantifiable. However, such costs can become very high indeed. There is no provision in the Bill about who will scrutinise and monitor them. We all have experience of what happens to pay rates, expenses and facilities in these large institutions. They have a habit of soaring into a world far removed from the normal remuneration of dedicated public servants.

935
Finally, I return to the key questions on the Bill with its important goals. First, will it catch the big fish or only the minnows? Is it a serious force that will carry forward our aims? Or is it, as many feel, a cosmetic exercise? Secondly, do the democracies, and the citizens or subjects within them, have anything to fear from the Bill? The noble Baroness says that they do not. My question is "Are you so sure?" It seems to me that there is something to fear. Expert American legal minds see it. The UK is in a rush to sign, as the noble Baroness explained. We shall have to look closely at some of the American concerns to ensure that we do not allow liberties to be taken from our citizens of a kind we would later regret. My view is that the project will not get under way until the US is convinced and on board in this vast international undertaking.
I understand the hurry to see justice done, but there is a wide gap between rhetoric and reality. A sensible government—I am not saying that we do not have one—should proceed slowly, carefully and thoroughly. I have an uneasy feeling that that is not happening.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we greatly welcome the Government's decision to introduce the Bill, which will enable the UK to ratify the ICC Statute and to be among the court's founding members. The ICC Statute is the product of half a century's search for a balance between diverse political interests and an acceptable synthesis of the world's legal traditions. The statute is a great achievement—although, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, giving curiously tepid and unenthusiastic support, I wonder whether that is accepted on the Conservative Front Bench. It is a great achievement and a fitting culmination of that historic process. The Government and their advisers are to be congratulated on having played an influential and constructive role in making the statute and on introducing the Bill. The Minister is to be congratulated on her characteristically powerful speech.
Unfortunately, I shall be the only speaker from these Benches, because my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who would have spoken at the end, cannot be here throughout the debate. That is a misfortune, as I shall speak as a lawyer and she would have spoken as a human being.
Before I turn to the statute and the Bill, I draw attention yet again to the pressing need for proper machinery for parliamentary scrutiny of important international treaties that the Government intend to ratify on behalf of the UK. Some years ago, I introduced a Private Member's Bill to improve scrutiny and create a treaty scrutiny committee. Under the previous Conservative Government, I managed only to obtain a new system for publishing explanatory memorandums about treaties under the Ponsonby rule. The Bill well illustrates the pressing need for such a committee, similar to the scrutiny
936
machinery for EU law and institutions, to explain the content and effect of such international treaties for the benefit of parliamentarians and the public.
It is not enough for there to be scrutiny of legislation designed to implement parts of a treaty. As the Minister has said, the Bill is inevitably complex and technical in nature. One cannot understand its implications without a firm grasp of the principles contained in the treaty, but only gobbets of the treaty are schedules to the Bill.
The concise explanatory memorandum published with the treaty last year is accurate, but it is far too brief to enable Parliament or the public to understand the content of the treaty or its implications. Worse than that, as the noble Baroness may not know, the memorandum is FCO samizdat—that is, it is not available to the House for debate, because the Printed Paper Office has no copies of it. The explanatory memorandum is not there to serve its limited purpose.
Thorough scrutiny of the treaty would he possible only if it was referred to an expert committee to advise the House. It is unacceptable in a modern democracy that there is still no proper parliamentary accountability or scrutiny when the Government use their prerogative powers to enter into a binding international convention of such importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, rightly observed in his report in July last year:
"Parliamentary scrutiny should be seen by Government as a benefit, not a threat. A healthy and vibrant Government is one that is able to justify its measures and welcomes critical scrutiny".
I hope that we shall not have to wait much longer for a treaty scrutiny committee to be established and that the Government will support the proposal at last. After all, it emanates from Ramsay MacDonald's era and has still not been implemented.
The agreement achieved at the Rome conference creates a permanent international criminal justice system derived from the distinctive legal traditions of the world's major criminal law systems. This system consists of seven general principles of criminal law, together with essential legal provisions, safeguards and procedural rules. As a student of Harvard Law School many years ago, I think that I am entitled to say—pace the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—that those procedural safeguards are as effective as anything to be found in American constitutional law.
The provisions in the treaty are designed to secure an effective and efficient justice system while protecting individuals from frivolous, vexatious or politically motivated investigations. I have heard nothing from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to suggest that they are other than well designed. The prosecutor is given independent and discretionary power, but there are adequate safeguards to ensure impartiality and to avoid abuse. The prosecutor's investigative powers are carefully balanced with the rights of the accused.
Some may object to the ICC on the grounds of state sovereignty. Such an objection would be misplaced. The statute is intended to tackle crimes against the

937
whole of humanity. As the great French jurist Teitgen observed 50 years ago about the supranational character of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"I think we can now unanimously confront 'reasons of State' with the only sovereignty worth dying for, worthy in all circumstances of being defended, respected and safeguarded—the sovereignty of justice and of law".
The permanent international criminal system will not displace the important role of national courts. Prosecution and enforcement of law are carefully guarded sovereign prerogatives of the state. National courts must act in partnership with the ICC. That is why the key to the statute and one of the real achievements at Rome is the principle of complementarity. Complementarity means that the international court will complement rather than supersede national jurisdictions. States will still have the primary duty to prosecute those guilty of international crimes, but the ICC will act when national courts are unable or unwilling to perform their tasks genuinely or effectively. Detailed definitions of when the court will have jurisdiction avoid the possibility of arbitrary or politically motivated prosecutions.
The statute bears the hallmarks of political compromise. Criticism has been directed at the provisions of the statute that permit the Security Council to delay investigations and at the provision in Article 124 that enables a state party temporarily to suspend its acceptance of the ICC's jurisdiction over war crimes.
The statute does not provide for the principle of universal jurisdiction by specifying that the territorial state or the state of which the alleged perpetrator is a national must be a party to the statute or must accept the jurisdiction of the court ad hoc before the court may hear a case.
Those weaknesses reflect current political forces and realities in the international community. The reluctance of powerful democratic states such as the United States even to sign the treaty until the last moment—indeed, I understand that the Americans lobbied behind the scenes against it for a long time before and during the Rome negotiations—shows the importance of achieving a sensible political compromise. The key achievement is that a compromise that creates a universal, independent and impartial court to deal with the most heinous of crimes has been settled upon. By signing and ratifying the treaty, the international community no longer accepts that impunity for such crimes can exist; rather, it recognises that perpetrators must be held individually to account for their wrongdoing.
There is a political and moral responsibility to support the ICC and to implement the statute as soon as possible. The Bill fulfils that responsibility. It is careful to reconcile the principles of English law with the relevant principles of international law. It enables the UK to co-operate fully with the court. However, for the Bill to be fully effective, it must also allow us to
938
take proper advantage of the complementarity principles by ensuring that the UK can exercise jurisdiction effectively.
We welcome the changes to the draft Bill and, most particularly, the addition of a range of ancillary offences, procedural improvements, the setting aside of the double criminality provision and those provisions intended to remove diplomatic and state immunity for ICC crimes. As the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, observed:
"The common sense of mankind demands that the law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched".
Close to home, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said in the Pinochet judgment:
"How can it be for international law purposes an official function to do something which international law itself prohibits and criminalises?"
However, we are concerned about some aspects of the Bill which we raised during the consultation process. I am grateful to Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill for his expert advice on some of those points. I very much hope that in his reply to the debate the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be able to respond to our concerns.
It is a matter of concern—this has been touched on by the Minister—that the Bill does not fully implement the complementarity principle. The domestic offences created by the Bill will apply only to UK territory, UK nationals or those subject to UK service jurisdiction. It is a welcome development that the Bill extends jurisdiction to the actions of nationals overseas. But there can be little justification for refusing UK courts full and universal jurisdiction over ICC crimes committed by non-nationals.
The preamble to the statute refers to the duty of every state to exercise its jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes. The complementarity principle means that states must recognise that duty if the regime is to be comprehensive and coherent. The jurisdictional weakness of the ICC underscores the need for full and effective justice at a national level. Even after 60 states have ratified and the ICC is established, it could be at least another half-century before the majority of states are subject to the automatic jurisdiction of the ICC. That is particularly troubling when one considers that the state of nationality of the accused is often the same state on whose territory the crimes were being committed. In practice, that would mean asking Iraq to give the court jurisdiction to try Saddam Hussein or Chile for permission to try Pinochet, and so on. In effect, there may be significant gaps in the ability of the court to consider cases—gaps which should be filled by national courts but which are left partially open by the Bill.
Clause 56, which makes some reservation for universal jurisdiction recognised in existing enactments, seems insufficient to compensate for a clear statement of universal jurisdiction in all cases where it is afforded by international law. Genocide,

939
certain grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and torture, as defined by the 1984 convention against torture, are already accepted as international crimes of universal jurisdiction. The UK courts already have jurisdiction over other crimes committed outside the UK by non-nationals, including torture and hijacking. Under existing legislation, those who commit torture or grave breaches of the Geneva conventions outside the UK and are found in UK territory may be prosecuted by the UK courts.
However, under the Bill as it stands, if a UK citizen and an Iraqi citizen were to be involved in a crime against humanity abroad and fled to the UK, the UK national could be prosecuted under the Bill before the domestic courts but the Iraqi citizen could not be prosecuted. That may mean that if the ICC has no jurisdictional basis to try the non-UK national, conceivably his crimes could go unpunished. As a practical matter, our courts will only rarely face such cases, but they should be ready to shoulder that responsibility should a suspected perpetrator of genocide or war crimes come within our territorial jurisdiction in circumstances where the ICC is unable to take over.
The Bill stops short of providing a comprehensive legal base for the exercise of jurisdiction in the UK but it fails to take full account of the principle of universal jurisdiction. We very much hope that that is a defect which, although considered carefully by the Government, may yet be removed in Committee.
Clause 23 is drafted in order to allow state and diplomatic immunity to apply to ICC crimes tried before our national courts. Understandably, the Government may wish to give due regard to future relations between the UK and states which are not party to the statute. However, post-Pinochet it is questionable whether immunity should attach to anyone suspected of these most heinous of international crimes. Again, I hope that in his reply the Attorney-General will be able to touch on that point.
Article 75 of the Rome statute provides a framework within which the court may award reparations to or in respect of victims against convicted defendants. It contemplates that the judges will establish principles relating to reparations, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation, and will apply those principles in determining the extent of damage, loss or injury to victims. However, the Bill does not consider compensation either for victims of crime or for those wrongfully arrested. Clause 49 leaves the matter of reparation to victims to be dealt with by future regulations. We very much hope that the Attorney-General will be able to explain what is envisaged and, in particular, how such compensation or reparation will be catered for under the English legal system.
As I said, the safeguards for the accused are as robust as any provided for under US, German, South African, Canadian or British constitutional law. But in one respect the domestic safeguards in the Bill for the accused may be too narrow. This point is a little technical and I apologise for that, but it may be quite an important point. As I made clear during the
940
consultation process, it seems to me unnecessarily restrictive to confine the remedy for the right to review of a delivery order to an application for habeas corpus rather than the broader application for judicial review on the usual principles of administrative law. Again, hope that the Attorney-General will be able to clarify why the remedy has been confined to habeas corpus.
Clause 12(4) provides that the court which hears the application for review must consider the same issues as the court that made the delivery order, including those provided for in Clause 5(6)(b) requiring a determination on whether a person's rights have or have not been respected. That seems to go further than the issues that one is entitled to raise by way of application for habeas corpus, which concern only whether a person has been lawfully or unlawfully arrested and detained.
The success of the ICC depends on its ability to make a difference in the real world. That success will depend not only on the degree of support among states but on the initial actions of the inaugural assembly of states. The first 60 states will convene not only to adopt the rules of evidence and procedure and the elements of crimes negotiated at the preparatory commissions but, crucially, will also discuss the details of the financial regulation of the court. A significant role of the first ratifying states must be to convince other states of the values of the statute and the importance of the court; for example, neither China nor India—states which represent a great proportion of the world's population—feels able to sign and ratify the statute. Even though the United States has now signed, it is likely to take a very long time before it ratifies the statute.
One may reflect that the ICC would have been of great value in resolving recent international crises and concerns. For example, had the provisions been operational during Pinochet's regime, perhaps Chile's ordeal would never have assumed such tragic proportions, and the Law Lords would not have had to go through the great pains that they did in that regard. Those intending to engage in heinous human rights abuses would have known that sooner or later they would have been summoned before the ICC to account for their acts. Cases such as Pinochet, Ocalan and even Lockerbie could perhaps have been usefully or more expeditiously dealt with by the ICC rather than by national courts.
All that is speculation. However, one can say with reasonable certainty that there is now recognition across a large part of the world, north and south, of the fact that humanity requires a universal, independent and impartial court to deal with the worst of crimes and that there is a political and moral responsibility to implement the provisions as soon as possible.
Many of your Lordships have played a key role in lobbying for the proposal. My friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, whom I see in the Chamber, has for years been campaigning for such a court. We will have the pleasure of hearing him later.

941
The Bill will effectively discharge that great responsibility, and is to be welcomed not in a lukewarm or tepid manner but wholly enthusiastically.

El Salvador: British Assistance
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat the Answer given this afternoon by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development to a Private Notice Question in another place.
"At 17.33 hours GMT on Saturday, 13th January, a major earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale occurred off the coast of El Salvador. The epicentre was offshore, about 105km south-south-east of the capital, San Salvador. It was also felt in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica and as far afield as Mexico City.
"The Government of El Salvador report more than 400 people killed, some 800 injured and more than 1,300 still missing, many of them in an area of San Salvador that has experienced a major landslide. I am sure the whole House would wish to join with me in expressing our sympathy to the people of El Salvador. The airport was damaged and, although some relief flights are being allowed to use it, it is closed to civilian traffic.
"Since the main earthquake, there have been a number of aftershocks, some of which have been of significant strength. The president has declared a national emergency and appealed for international assistance.
"The Department for International Development emergency response centre has been operating round the clock since the earthquake struck and is in regular contact with British Embassy officials in El Salvador and operational agencies on the ground in order to obtain further information and to provide advice on regional procurement of urgently needed supplies.
"We have been in close contact with the Ministry of Defence but, regrettably, the West Indies guard-ship is not in the area. We responded immediately to a preliminary appeal from the United Nations and the Red Cross. We have given financial support to the UN disaster assessment and co-ordination team, which includes a British member, Mr Joe Bishop, and we have given a commitment to fund Oxfam's emergency water and sanitation programme and the Pan American Health Organisation—PAHO—programme of emergency medical assistance.
"Since Hurricane Mitch hit the region in October 1998, we have been providing support to the Centre for the Co-ordination of Natural Disaster Preparedness in Central America for a disaster preparedness programme in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and plan to support a
942
similar disaster preparedness programme with PAHO focusing on reducing vulnerability in the health sector.
"Once again, the UK has responded quickly and effectively to help people struck by a natural disaster. Our commitment to date is now more than £600,000, and we will respond sympathetically to further requests."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for repeating the Statement made in the other place. It is sad to start the new year with such a horrific disaster. We on these Benches deeply regret yet another tragedy and commend the Government for their response so far and for the £600,000. But why for the second time have we been found lacking?
On the mention of the close contact with the Ministry of Defence, it is sad that the West Indies guard-ship is not in the area. Has any other equipment been made available? We remember the images last year of the tragedy in Mozambique, the Government's response to that disaster and the squabbling between the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence over the use of much-needed helicopters and the need for the Prime Minister to intervene so that a ship was diverted from the Gulf. Has an assessment been made of the possible use of the West Indies guard-ship, or is it unable even to come to the area, despite the preparedness programme that the Government are supporting?
The situation in San Salvador illustrates the dire need for a plan for a coherent and immediate response to disasters. In the light of this tragedy, I quote the Government's position stated in their last Command Paper in 1997, page 41, paragraph 2.30:
"We will continue to be swift and effective in our response to emergencies and disasters, seeking not only to save lives but to rebuild livelihoods. This is described at Panel 17".
On which page and paragraph in the latest White Paper can we find even a reference to disaster relief? As I have already said, that is not obviously apparent. Is the Minister aware of the comments of one survivor, who said:
"Nobody has food or water. Children do not have milk … We need help please"?
The United Nations and the World Food Programme have donated food and emergency aid, but is the Minister confident that it will reach the area in good time? Will she tell the House what progress the Government have made in delivering food to the region?
Will the Minister also tell us about the European Community Humanitarian Office? Have the Government been in contact with ECHO; and will she give the House an assurance that after the emergency phase is over EU aid will not take two-and-a-half years to reach the region, as it did in the wake of Hurricane Mitch?

943
Finally, what plans do the Government have to make resources available to deal with the immediate aftermath of the disaster and, even more importantly, with the reconstruction phase, as so many other countries are doing?
4.18 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, would like to echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and extend our sympathy to those caught up in the disaster.
Earthquakes cannot be prevented as yet, and the country will suffer the immediate effects and the staggering costs of the blow to its infrastructure, which will affect its economic competence for some years hence. Rather than put questions to the Minister, I welcome the immediate and positive assistance that is being given. I believe that the £100,000 that was at first promised has now been raised to £600,000. Much work is taking place through local non-governmental organisations. Will the Minister assure us that, as in other places, the use of local NGOs on the ground and local procurement are the most effective means to provide financial assistance and are better than sending help from this country? Will any of the specialised teams that operate in this country consider going across?
The disasters raise various issues, including whether or not the Government should reconsider establishing a permanent UN rapid reaction force that could be sent to an area in time of need. The amounts that the Government are looking to give, although generous, will not go a great way to easing what is a terrible disaster. Obviously this earthquake is not as bad as the one that occurred 10 years ago. But it will take many years for the country to mitigate the effects. I hope that the Government will consider calling for a suspension in interest payments on debt relief until the country has dealt with and spent resources desperately needed in the disaster areas.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that this was a terrible disaster and not the way we would want to start a new year. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their positive comments in regard to the speed of our response and the work of the DfID staff who have been working round the clock since hearing of the disaster.
In relation to specific questions, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that government departments are working extremely closely on this matter. We have been in consultation with the Ministry of Defence. I said in the Statement that it was unfortunate that the West Indies guard-ship was not in the area. Unfortunately, the ship is not close enough to be of assistance right now. But we are sure that the help we are able to give through organisations like PAHO, the Red Cross, Oxfam. and the focus of all our emergency efforts on sourcing locally and regionally, means that the impact of what we are trying to do is swift and immediate.
944
With respect to the point made by the noble Baroness in relation to disaster preparedness and response to it, in answer to a Starred Question earlier today I undertook to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, drawing her attention to where both those matters are mentioned in both White Papers.
ECHO has promised 2 million euros. The noble Baroness will be aware that we have been working hard with the European Commission, advising it on ways of improving the effectiveness of its humanitarian effort. As the noble Baroness will be aware, the UK led the way in that regard. Indeed, we see ECHO's response to the disaster as a way of testing the new Europe Aid which was launched on 1st January.
With respect to the question on the reconstruction phase, at the moment we are focusing on the immediate need. It is too early to tell what we will do in terms of the reconstruction phase. We need to wait for the El Salvador Government to come forward with some ideas of what they would like to see. We have committed £600,000 to date in terms of the immediate humanitarian need. We have said that we will look at other needs sympathetically. Of course, we will also look sympathetically at what we will need to do in the long term. However, I am unable to tell the noble Baroness at this moment what that will be.
I have already answered in relation to working through local NGOs and procurement. On the matter of reconsidering a permanent rapid reaction force, we looked at that and agree in principle. However, we recognise that it is important that the agencies on the ground are properly resourced to respond immediately. We learnt from our work in humanitarian action over the years that immediate response is the most effective. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we need to look more closely at how the UN system might work and be co-ordinated in practice, support to local NGOs, working and co-ordinating what donor governments are doing and ensuring that our own rapid reaction force is up to speed are things we need to continue to do.
With respect to suspending interest payments, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will be aware that we have worked tirelessly in respect of the whole Pacific initiative. The World Bank has been looking at 'areas of conflict across the world and whether or not there should be some additional ways of thinking about debt relief payments. I am sure that it will continue to do that and will also look at disaster areas and whether or not they need special assistance.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too welcome the Government's speedy action and financial assistance in response to humanitarian need, following this sad and terrible disaster in Central America. Just over half a million pounds—£600,000£sounds like a lot of money in a personal context, but it is a drop in the ocean in terms of the real need. So I welcome what the noble Baroness said about the Government reviewing the position and, if necessary, producing further aid.

945
Do the Government efforts vis-à-vis El Salvador extend to neighbouring countries which also suffered damage, such as Nicaragua and Honduras?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, at the moment we are focusing on El Salvador, partly because of the results of the landslide which meant that the effects were felt mostly in El Salvador. If any other countries or NGOs working in those countries come to us because there has been significant impact and they need assistance there, we will look at that sympathetically. The noble Baroness will be aware that since Hurricane Mitch we have been looking at disaster preparedness in the region so are already present there. Organisations working in those countries know that we are available to support them if that becomes necessary.

Neighbourhood Renewal
4.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my colleague, Hilary Armstrong. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal action plan—New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal—that we are publishing today.
"When we published the Urban and Rural White Papers (in November) we set out our vision to ensure a sustainable quality of life. We made it clear that an important part of the framework was to turn around our most deprived areas and that the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal would spell out our ideas.
"This strategy is a long-term response to the appalling conditions created over decades in communities up and down the country. When this Government came to office, the most deprived areas of England had, when compared with the rest, nearly two-thirds more unemployment; a mortality ratio 30 per cent higher; and two to three times the levels of poor housing, vandalism and dereliction.
"Over the 1980s and into the 1990s the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country grew steadily. Places that started with the highest unemployment often also saw the greatest rise in unemployment. Health inequalities widened. The proportion of people living in low-income households more than doubled.
"This was partly the result of global social and economic changes. But it was also a legacy of a lack of political attention and policies that did not work. Past government action was unfocused and uncoordinated. Departments worked at cross-purposes on problems that needed a joined-up response. Regeneration initiatives were short-term and
946
limited to a few areas. Mainstream services, like schools and hospitals, were failing in far too many deprived neighbourhoods. Crucially, there was a failure to harness the knowledge and energy of local people and to empower them to work out their own solutions.
"The result was both socially and economically damaging. Communities were trapped in unemployment and deprived of the good schools and services that would help them get back on their feet. The economy was deprived of workers, taxpayers, customers and entrepreneurs and the bills of social failure mounted up.
"The Government have made tackling this long-term decline a priority from the outset, through new policies such as Sure Start, raising school standards, the New Deal, crime reduction, and the New Deal for Communities. Those policies are already showing results. Britain is a fairer and more prosperous country. Economic prosperity and educational opportunity have increased in all areas. Nineteen of the local authorities with the highest unemployment have seen their unemployment fall faster than the national average, and 44 of the most deprived local authorities are among those with the fastest improving key stage 2 numeracy results.
"But deep-rooted problems require a long-term and integrated approach that can be sure of avoiding the mistakes of past decades. In 1998 the Social Exclusion Unit was asked to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. Over 400 people from inside and outside government have been involved with the SEU in developing the strategy through 18 policy action teams. In addition, thousands of other people up and down the country—many of whom live and work in deprived neighbourhoods—responded to the consultation on the framework for the strategy that was published last April.
"In parallel, in the spending review last year we identified new resources to be invested in improvement. This has produced a framework for action that has the support of the people who need to make it work on the ground. It sets out an ambitious vision that, within 10 to 20 years, no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live; that the gap between the poorest neighbourhoods and the rest will be narrowed. This is an ambitious goal, but in the Government's view a vitally necessary one. It will take time to achieve, but we have clear steps in place to chart our path towards it.
"The action plan sets out a three-year commitment to raise the standard and performance of public sector services in the most deprived areas with clear outcomes of reducing crime; reducing unemployment; improving education and skills; improving health; and improving housing and the physical environment.
"There are three key elements to the strategy: first, new policies, funding and targets to tackle the causes of neighbourhood decline, such as

947
unemployment, crime and poor services. Mainstream services—health, law and order, housing and education—will be judged for the first time ever on their achievements in improving things where they are worst, rather than just on national averages. For example, the Department for Education and Employment will be working towards ensuring that by 2004 no local education authority has less than 38 per cent of its pupils getting five good grade GCSEs, and by 2005 no area should have a burglary rate three times the national average.
"In the spending review 2000, departments were given substantial new resources, like the £1.6 billion increase in spending on the police by 2000–4 and therise in education and health spending, and this year they will be reviewing their resource allocation to ensure they will meet these targets.
"Secondly, we will promote integrated action at local level to get services to work better and deliver for their communities. The local implementation of this strategy will be the responsibility of a single body, the local strategic partnership. These partnerships will bring together public, private and voluntary service providers with the community and business sectors. They will be responsible for drawing up local strategies that address the specific problems and aspirations of all their deprived neighbourhoods, and give communities a single door to knock on rather than being endlessly passed from pillar to post.
"We have already announced that the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide £800 million over the next three years to help local strategic partnerships in the 88 most deprived areas kick-start the process. In addition, I am announcing today that a community empowerment fund of over £35 million will support communities to develop their ideas for change and participate as equal partners in the local strategic partnerships. This will amount to an average of £400,000 over the next three years per area and will allow all residents the chance to have their say.
"There will be other models for community involvement too. A £50 million community chest fund will provide small grants to local communities in these areas to help run their own projects and we will put £45 million into at least 30 neighbourhood management pathfinder projects over the next three years. These projects will explore the benefits of putting one person, or a team of people, in charge of looking after a neighbourhood. They will provide a local presence to whom residents can go if they have concerns about the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood manager will be someone who has the clout to get things done in the area.
"These measures are essential. Communities are at the heart of neighbourhood renewal. Some past government efforts to address neighbourhood deprivation failed because they did not engage with communities in those areas effectively. We must learn from this. People living in deprived
948
neighbourhoods know their area better than anyone else; they must be at the heart of neighbourhood renewal.
"The third key strand of the strategy is better national and regional support to local activity. Central Government must be more joined up and work better with their local partners. The strategy will ensure this happens. We must bring to an end the problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods who are shunted from one service provider to the next, from one department to the next, where no one takes responsibility.
"In September, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that a new neighbourhood renewal unit in the DETR would be established by April. The unit, headed by Joe Montgomery, will have a cross-cutting, outward focus. It will be staffed by civil servants from across Whitehall and secondees with a broad range of experience in working with local communities. It will be responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating the implementation of the strategy. It will make sure that the Government as a whole deliver on their commitments to neighbourhood renewal, supported by neighbourhood renewal teams in government offices and annual statistics about how neighbourhoods are progressing.
"As our vision turns into reality in more and more neighbourhoods, people on the ground will see huge differences. For the first time someone locally will be prepared and empowered to take responsibility for the many joined-up problems that the poorest neighbourhoods face. There will be a genuine opportunity for residents to get involved and communities will have resources to support them in this. Residents will see further improvements in local and regional economies, new ideas like neighbourhood wardens and IT centres coming on-stream, and improvements in the quality of core public services such as schools, health and policing. Areas that suffer from the worst performance at the moment will see standards brought up to minimum floors.
"It is easy to be sceptical about change, but the improved policies of the last three years, and the concrete examples of what can be achieved by community groups and social entrepreneurs, are a measure of what can be achieved. They give us confidence that we can aim for a position where more neighbourhoods are advancing on all fronts.
"This new commitment to neighbourhood renewal builds on our existing policies; to end boom and bust and put the economy on a stable footing; to invest in public services; to invest in people and their futures, and to take active measures to ensure that everyone benefits from the prosperity and opportunity we have created".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement

949
made by his right honourable friend in another place. I am bound to say that I find these occasions, when a new and wonderful initiative such as this is being announced, rather depressing. There is a simple, old-fashioned reason for that, with which I suspect the Minister's noble friend sitting at his side, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is familiar. The primary agency which should undertake the functions of urban regeneration and renewal is the local authority. It is a depressing fact that over a period of time governments have found it necessary to use other agencies in this way to try to achieve their specific ends, because, I am bound to say, local authorities have not been particularly good and effective in fulfilling functions which should properly be their responsibility. The fact that the majority of the local authorities in these areas happen to be under Labour control is, perhaps, coincidental, but it is a fact.
The first point that requires to be made on this paper is very serious. Inevitably, the paper seems to be almost exclusively biased towards the inner-city areas. The recent third Wealth of the Nation report is beginning to reveal frightening statistics about rural communities, particularly those which are agriculturally based in the more western and northern parts of the country. Deprivation in those areas is now beginning to equal some of the worst in inner-city areas.
My first question to the Minister is whether there is sufficient flexibility within the programmes to permit help to go to those areas. The failures in those areas are of the same nature and come from the same services as those which affect inner-city areas.
We must be careful about how we use statistics. It is certain that measures of expenditure are not measures of output and still less of future expenditure. We must recognise that much of the document contains promises of future expenditure rather than matters of fact. It is interesting to note en passant that the Ocean Estate, where this morning the Prime Minister made a precursory comment to today's Statement, was a recipient of funding under the housing action trusts of the previous government. I say that in order to illustrate that deprivation has been with us in inner cities for a long time and that for a long time governments have been concerned about it. There is nothing new in this programme, apart from a few intervening agencies which may or may not do a good job.
A government Statement which is a genuine attempt—and I give the Statement credit for being that—to assist such areas is bound to be welcome. The fact that we are running towards an election is neither here nor there. If elections do no other good, they occasionally focus attention on matters which require action. We should be grateful for that.
The proposal may result in benefit to the areas with which the paper dealing with urban renewal is concerned. I note at the back a list of 105 separate commitments. Many are the result of existing programmes and some are new. I wish them success; one can do no other than to wish for success in
950
benefiting the areas with which the proposal is concerned. But we should not pretend that it is the solution to the problem or that it is particularly new: it is not. For a long time people have been trying to find the answers to the problems and I have no doubt that they will be trying for a good deal longer.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we on these Benches share the Government's concerns to make inroads into poverty and poverty of aspiration in many of our urban areas. We also share their view that such changes must come from the bottom up; that members of the community know best what is happening in it and how best to deal with the problems. However, the various documents and statements do not make it clear how these aspirations will be realised. Will the Minister make it clear precisely what the role of local government will be?
Last year, we on these Benches welcomed the fact that the Local Government Act 2000 had at last recognised the role of local governments as community leaders. The Statement mentioned neighbourhood managers and we wonder how they will fit in with the local government set-up. Will they have more power than local government and how will the strategic partnerships relate to local government? Who will appoint the management? Will it be the local community? I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify those points.
Secondly, we have concerns about funding—the type and the amount. There are many different projects for which people can apply so it is "challenge-type" funding. Many authorities find that costly and consuming and are demoralised when they do not win money for their particular projects. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify how the Government can improve what has previously gone wrong with challenge funding.
Thirdly, it is not clear how much of the funding is new money. Various figures have been bandied about today but we have heard other figures in the past. Can the Minister explain them? When one looks at the problem, the new money does not appear to be a large sum. Will the Minister say exactly how much it will buy? Some of us are cynical—perhaps more so than the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—about the Government's intent in the run-up to the general election.
We on these Benches also agree that it is vital to raise the standard of public services in these areas. That is the key to the sustainability of communities and programmes. Much has been said about what has been done and what will be done, but perhaps the Minister can clarify what is new money and what is recycled money. Some of us are cynical because such money and ideas are not always new.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we welcome the fact that the Government want to tackle the problems and we wish them every success in doing so. It is not an easy proposition. When I arrived home today from Alexandria in Egypt I found it

951
difficult to deal with a Statement on urban renewal because there I looked around and wondered how they dealt with it. At least we do not have problems on that scale and I wish the Government success in their proposals.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the welcoming comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and his wishes for the scheme's success. I am sure that all noble Lords welcome a move to provide a greater coherence and focus to the activities which speakers on the Opposition Front Benches indicated. Those activities have been tried in various forms for some time in an attempt to tackle the problems, but they have not focused on the areas of maximum deprivation. The approach will identify ways in which new and existing local authority and national programmes can be directed at raising the basic standards of our most deprived areas. Some of them are improving but others are declining.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the role of local authorities. They play a major and central role in our proposals. That is complementary to what is provided at national level and will be a significant part of what is provided locally. The neighbourhood management and identification of a single point of focus will enable many local authority programmes to be delivered more effectively and local authorities will be able to direct money and the services they receive from central Government, the police and the health authorities to more deprived areas within their boundaries.
The noble Lord suggested that all the areas were in inner cities. They are not. Many of the local authorities listed in the table on page 89 are not inner-city authorities. The bulk of cumulative deprivation arises in our inner cities and therefore that is where many deprived areas are to be found. But there are also one-industry towns—today there are no-industry towns. I refer to coal mining areas, which are basically rural, and to rural areas, particularly parts of Cornwall and Cumbria, which fall inside the 88 most deprived local authority areas identified in the Statement. Sixteen of the 88 most deprived areas contain significant rural deprivation. We recognise that there are special problems relating to poverty in rural areas, to which the rural White Paper published just before Christmas responds. The 88 authorities named in the report cover some 82 per cent of the deprived wards on the deprivation index. Therefore, they cover the vast majority of the situations in which there is cumulative deprivation and poor performance.
I believe that the noble Lord also asked about flexibility, in the sense of whether when areas moved up the relative index they would be replaced by those which moved down. There will be such flexibility. One is talking of a 10 to 20-year programme. Many areas will take 10 or more years to turn round in the way that we seek; some will achieve success more rapidly than others and the strategy will need to take account of that. There is flexibility to enable local strategic partnerships and local authorities in these areas to
952
address changing problems of relative deprivation. But it is important to identify at the outset the most deprived areas in the country and gear national and local expenditure and services to them to ensure that there is a minimum performance floor so that cumulatively they are able to enter a benign cycle and escape the vicious downward spiral that has taken place in many areas—rural, single town and inner city—over the past decade or so.
The noble Baroness asked what was new in the package. The overall allocations for regeneration and neighbourhood renewal were indicated in the spending review, but for the first time their direction is spelt out in the Statement and the earlier announcement about the £800 million for the neighbourhood renewal scheme. What is new includes such schemes as the community chest of £50 million over the next three years to be spent by communities on projects in deprived neighbourhoods; the community empowerment fund of £35 million over the next three years; the community task force which brings together everybody concerned with the delivery of services and the encouragement of community activity; the neighbourhood management fund which is a £45 million programme to support two rounds of pathfinder authorities which will run for at least three years; and the bringing together of both the public and private sectors into local strategic partnerships. The noble Baroness asked whether local authorities would be subordinate to them. All stakeholders will play their part and be brought together. Local authorities will continue to deliver services and be responsible for their functions which have been enhanced by recent legislation and policy changes.
Therefore, local authorities will be one of the major deliverers of, and influences upon, local strategic partnerships. But there will be a wider coalition which brings together the private, public and voluntary sectors. The £800 million neighbourhood renewal fund has been established for the development of those areas and the interface with their communities so that they can be resourced and provide back-up and access to better education, health, crime prevention, housing and quality of life in those neighbourhoods.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the Minister has announced a whole raft of admirable initiatives. I should be grateful if he could further clarify the way in which the public money directed to those initiatives is to be administered. What is to be the precise accountability? Who is to be responsible for that, and to whom? As the Minister made clear, the key to this is cross-departmental co-operation. Does the noble Lord envisage that there will be a series of small committees in each local authority area to deal with each independent initiative which will all come together under one supremo? Who is to ensure that there is value for money and public funds are properly accounted for?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the allocations of the new funding will be made by the local authority which will

953
have its usual responsibilities in relation to the provision of funds. The point of the local strategic partnerships and the other relatively small-scale funds to which I have referred is to ensure that there is a degree of continuity and cumulative effect as between the programmes that already exist. Some of those programmes, for example those concerned with public and social housing and housing generally, are funded through local authorities; others remain the responsibility of the health service or the police. The aim is to co-ordinate and bring them together. It does not cut across the primary responsibility on public authorities to deliver value for money and effective outcomes in relation to mainstream budgets. However, it gives authorities targets for the expenditure of that money to ensure that it is spread more equitably and the identified neighbourhoods benefit more than the rest of the country in the deployment of those funds. However, management of the mainstream funds remains where it is.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement. I note with satisfaction, and a degree of wry amusement, that when I was the incumbent of a parish I was, without knowing it, a community pathfinder. I think of the battered wife with black eyes and bleeding mouth who sought refuge and counsel from me and my wife. I also think of the number of times that the police phoned me as the vicar of a parish to ask whether I would help someone they held who was mentally disturbed. I also have in mind the countless homeless people who knocked on my door and asked for advice and help. I did what any parish priest would do anywhere.
First, can one guarantee that if local managers are to be appointed they will, like the clergy of this country, live in the places where they work; or will they, as I suspect, go home whenever appropriate? Secondly, will there be discrimination in the disbursement of funds against those religious and faith communities which stay in urban and rural areas of high deprivation, or will their central role in the provision of pastoral, physical and spiritual care be recognised in both word and action?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that faith communities in these areas are brought into the partnerships and play a major role for the very reason indicated by the right reverend Prelate. In many cases the parish priest, minister, temple, synagogue, or whatever, provides a major focus to improve the lot of families subject to the worst effects of living in these deprived neighbourhoods. An enormous amount of experience needs to be brought on board. It is certainly the case that the local strategic partnerships and the other bodies to which we refer should bring in the faith communities.
As to the appointment of staff, obviously it is sensible and desirable that whoever is appointed to a management role is familiar with the area and has considerable knowledge of the community with which he or she has to deal. Whether as a job condition we
954
can express that one actually has to live in the area being targeted is probably taking the matter further than I would be prepared to take it. But the objective behind that issue is clear.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the question of accountability for desirable work and expenditure has been raised. First, it would be much clearer if accountability came through regional authorities in England, as already happens in Wales and Scotland.
Secondly, the two Opposition Front Benches raised some points that they were critical of or unsure about. I believe that the key to them may be in the concept of community development. I point out that community development is completely different from consultation on official plans, desirable as that may be in its own right. Community development is concerned with the personal development of local leadership and the working out of local priorities for what needs to be done first. Without that structure one finds that potential local leaders move somewhere else as soon as they reach a certain degree of prosperity.
I hope that the Government will have a new look at community development as a subject. The issue has had a rather chequered history because it tends to threaten some of the established structures, whether local or central.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first point relating to regional level activity, it is important that the regional structure is fully involved. At present it is administrative. Although I would advocate moving towards a certain degree of regional government within England, we are operating on the structure as it is and it is important that the government offices are fully involved in this process. The government offices will have neighbourhood renewal teams which will be the link with the local strategic partnerships bringing together activity at the regional level. There are roles for other regional bodies such as the regional development agencies, particularly with regard to physical regeneration and employment creation. Therefore, there is a regional dimension to this issue. But the most important dimension must be at the local level.
I agree with the noble Lord's point about services and reallocation of funds not being provided solely on a top-down basis. This is about empowerment. It is about enabling communities to stand on their own two feet to bring forward local leadership and to develop communities through the process which he describes. Therefore, those communities will have some control over their own lives. They have so often suffered from the effects of decisions taken miles away without any regard for their own interests. Part of the process is that government and local government become more conscious of their needs and gear their activities towards them. But an important dimension is generating self-help.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, perhaps I may commend to the Minister a scheme which took place some years ago in one of the most deprived wards in

955
my then constituency of Plymouth. A committee of local people living on a small estate, together with various local professionals, local authorities and so on, worked out schemes really from the bottom up. They were not just consulted; they took initiatives and were guided and helped by the relevant professionals. That seems to me the answer because for too long it has been the other way around. In these very difficult areas it rarely works. It must come from the bottom up. That little estate was transformed from the time when I attended the committee's first meeting and was told that on no account was I to bring a car because it would not be in one piece by the time I left at the end of the evening.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that there are a number of heartening examples across the country. I am sure that the one in Plymouth is apposite. Many others are referred to in the document. We wish to generalise that without taking a uniform approach. Certainly we can learn from and follow the example of communities which have managed to develop schemes, persuading both public authorities and the private sector to back them. This produces a benign cycle of increasing confidence and therefore increased ability to deal with problems and to improve the quality of life. The more locally-generated proposals that we can come up with, the better in order for us to deliver the intentions of this programme.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate today, I, too, strongly support the aims of the Bill. I can state my reasons briefly, and, I fear, superficially compared to the learned speeches we have heard from the three Front Benches.
I was one of those who took part in the Pinochet case when the matter came before this House. The Bill is not in any way a response to the Pinochet proceedings. It is a response, perhaps a belated response some might think, to the Rome Statute agreed as long ago as July 1998, which was three months before Senator Pinochet was arrested.
It is perhaps interesting and instructive to look back at the Pinochet case now and to speculate as to what would have been the result if the International Criminal Court had then been in existence. Indeed my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has already indulged in a little speculation in that respect.
One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Government of Spain, and advanced very forcefully as I remember, was that there must be a means of bringing a person such as Senator Pinochet to justice. My answer at the time was a simple and perhaps even rather ingenuous one. My view was that he should be returned to Chile and tried there. That may yet happen
956
if Senator Pinochet is found fit to stand trial. However, that course did not appeal to the majority of my brethren so I say no more about it.
If sending Senator Pinochet back to Chile seemed to me to be the obvious way to deal with the case, it is certainly not the only way in which such a person can be brought to justice. I pointed out that he could have been tried in the domestic courts of other countries, claiming jurisdiction on whatever grounds in the case, provided the Government of Chile did not assert immunity on Senator Pinochet's behalf as a former head of state. In the event the Government of Chile vigorously asserted a state immunity.
Another alternative was that he should be tried in a specially constituted international criminal court, such as happened in the case of Yugoslavia in 1993 and Rwanda in 1994. Lastly, I said that Senator Pinochet could have been tried in the International Criminal Court if it had then existed because Article 27 of the Rome statute, which is the critical provision, in simple terms overrides a claim for sovereign immunity in cases of states which are party to the statute.
I am glad to see that Clause 27 of the Bill reproduces the effect of Article 23 of the statute. That is one of the most important, if not the most important, provisions of the Bill. If the court had been in existence in 1998 and Chile had been a state party to the statute it would have been idle for Spain to seek the extradition of Senator Pinochet, with all the trouble that then ensued. Senator Pinochet could, and no doubt would, have been arrested here under the relatively simple provisions of Part II of the Bill. The Bill has already been described as complex, as must be any Bill with 83 clauses and 10 schedules, but I am not sure that Part II of the Bill is much more complex than the provisions of, for example, the Extradition Act 1989 on which it is to some extent based.
If Senator Pinochet had been arrested under the Rome statute, it would have meant that he could then have been tried for all his alleged international crimes in a truly international court instead of the domestic courts of one or other of a number of different countries, all asserting international jurisdiction and all competing with each other to exercise that jurisdiction. That would surely have been a great advantage. It would also have meant that it would have been unnecessary—this is perhaps a more personal matter—to stretch the principles of customary international law in order to secure his extradition to Spain. However, I recognise that that is a minority view which perhaps I should not even have expressed. What I will say is that the Pinochet case proves the need for a court such as the International Criminal Court. It also proves the need for this legislation. To my mind it is an important Bill and I give it my warmest welcome.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, the House enjoys the presence of many human rights warriors. I join them in warmly welcoming the Bill. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, I see the

957
Bill as one of the important actions of the Government. It should not be forgotten how hostile previous administrations were to such a court. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on their role in the negotiations for the court and on securing a leading position for Britain in its creation.
The idea of a world criminal court is not new. It has had a long gestation period. It received its first concrete shape in 1937 when a draft statute for a court to try international terrorists was produced by the League of Nations. It came up again in the wake of the Second World War. After the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, the UN made a passing reference in the 1948 Genocide Convention to an international penal tribunal and draft statutes were produced over the next few years by the International Law Commission. But the project soon went into the deep freeze of the Cold War and was not brought out again until Gorbachev suggested it as a measure against international terrorism. The General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to resume its work, hurrying it along after large parts of a shocked world expressed enthusiasm for its creation when war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were exposed. The other important engine of change was that many governments were under pressure from NGOs active in the human rights arena to support an International Criminal Court. We should not miss the opportunity of saluting the many dedicated organisations—Amnesty International, the Helsinki Human Rights Watch, and others—which have campaigned for the court for many years.
What kind of court was a matter of wide disagreement and generated a very fractious debate internationally. While it is a source of celebration that 139 nations have now adopted the statute to create the court, we should also remember that 21 nations abstained. The seven which opposed included China, Israel, India and the United States, representing a massive concentration of people and power. There is, of course, a group of countries which does not want a court at all. I suppose that we could call them the usual suspects. The list will not surprise anyone: Iraq, Iran, Libya and Indonesia.
The United States initially wanted a court, but one that would never work against the interests of the United States. The model which the United States preferred was one where the court was controlled by the Security Council, where the US could use its superpower veto against any embarrassing prosecutions. Not surprisingly, China took the same view. That model for a court did not meet the aspirations of Britain, Canada, Germany or any of the other "like minded" group of 42 nations which believe in international human rights. However, trying to find compromises to keep America on side has greatly weakened the statute that was finally agreed. Concessions were constantly made in the negotiations to woo the United States and that has created flaws which are now embedded in the legislation that we are now endorsing. The legislation goes so far as to require
958
a state's consent before one of its nationals can be prosecuted, a clause introduced in a desperate attempt to placate Senator Helms, who demanded 100 per cent protection for American GIs. It does not take much vision to see the practical problem that that creates. Imagine Cambodia ruled by Pol Pot surrendering him or one of his henchmen for trial!
The court also has no "universal" jurisdiction—again at the objection of the Americans. The Rome statute gives the court jurisdiction either by remit from the Security Council—the Security Council gets to decide—or by the consent of the state of which the defendant is a national or in which the crime was committed. The "state consent" provisions within the treaty mean that no one occupying a position of current political or military power in any state is likely to be put on trial unless he invades another state or commits war crimes on its territory. Any retired war criminal like Pinochet in Chile who retains a power base in his state of nationality will remain safe, despite the belief of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that he could have been brought to trial.
The class of criminal most likely to be arraigned at The Hague is persons who commit barbaric crimes in a cause which has utterly failed, in a country which decides to surrender them because it lacks the facilities to try them itself. Otherwise the ICC will become a kind of permanent ad hoc tribunal dependent on references from the Security Council to investigate countries like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia where none of the combatants has superpower support. It will take strong advocacy by countries like our own to ensure that the court has teeth. As the noble Baroness said at the outset of this debate, the new court will not have any retrospective powers and will be able to deal only with future abuses, so there is no justice here for many of those monstrous criminals of the 20th century who are still alive and who still enjoy their freedom.
The powers of the prosecutor are also greatly shackled by the court. Perhaps that was because President Clinton had the unhappy example close to home of the special prosecutor in the form of Kenneth Starr. Whatever the reason, it is certain that the powers of the prosecutor fall short of what I would have hoped for.
However, I do not want to minimise the importance of this legislation. It is a truly great achievement. To take words from the preamble to the Rome statute, this is a huge step towards global justice:
"Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time".
The security of peoples and the patina of civilisation can easily be shattered. The Bill is probably the best deal that the human rights movement could secure with the realpolitik of state power in the late 20th century.
Finally, the viability of the International Criminal Court ultimately will depend more on the calibre and experience of its judges and prosecutors than on the

959
fine print of statute. I truly urge our colleagues, the Secretary of State and others to ensure that the judges in this court will be our finest.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as one of the speakers that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, categorised as a "human being" among so many fine legal minds, it is increasingly daunting to participate in the Second Reading of this Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to make some general observations. I echo much of what was said by my noble friend Lord Howell in his far from tepid and excellent speech. I, too, have no hesitation in strongly supporting the concept of an international criminal court.
We all desire a more just, a more peaceful and a more secure world. No one who believes in the protection of human rights, in justice and in the rule of law could doubt the worth of the principles underpinning the International Criminal Court. No one could doubt the importance of bringing to justice the perpetrators of many of the worst crimes known to man. Yet, despite millions of victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as citizens of a world society, and as the Minister rightly pointed out, we have frequently failed to do so.
All too often in the past, these criminals have gone unpunished. Most clearly believed that that would be the case and they have been right. The 20th century saw a tyrants' gallery overflowing with unpunished dictators. As a result, the world is awash with men, women and children denied justice, while true reconciliation between conflicting groups or states has often proved elusive.
The establishment of the first permanent international court dealing with individual accountability for crimes against international law is a step on a hard road towards ensuring that the most egregious evils of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes which have stained the 20th century with blood and tears, do not likewise stain the 21st century.
In 1998, the Rome Statute established the ICC as a permanent international body to be in harmony with national judicial systems, not in competition with them. That point has been reinforced from all sides of this House. There was a strong British contribution to the complex process of instituting the statute of which we can be proud.
Before I make my substantive points on the Bill, I should like to make some general observations on the efficacy of the court which needs to be explored in further detail. While the need for action is clear, we must ensure that what we are creating is a truly legitimate vehicle for international justice. Such a body must be a powerful deterrent with a broad reach, based on global fundamental principles of justice, able to respond quickly to events and, critically, it must be above damaging accusations of selective justice, under which the strong and powerful are favoured while the weak and defeated are prosecuted. Anything less risks harm to the credibility of the ICC and to international justice.
960
Lawyers, politicians and human rights groups have all lined up to give their opinions on the ICC and controversial issues, from whichever end of the political spectrum they are viewed, have abounded. For some, it is too much world government: for others, it is too little. The seven-year wait before some countries will accept the jurisdiction over war crimes, the potentially indefinite wait in relation to the definition of crimes of aggression and the failure to tackle terrorist offences have drawn criticisms on the one hand, while issues of national sovereignty and jurisdictional borders have been equally hotly debated. The degree to which concessions were required to reach consensus on the statute, in particular in the efforts to persuade the United States of America to sign, has caused some to wonder whether the result has inevitably compromised an effective, independent and fair body. I hope that that is not the case.
Yet I do have concerns about the court's efficacy. Except when the UN Security Council refers situations to the court, the ICC will have jurisdiction over crimes only in countries which have ratified the court's statute, or by their nationals. The preconditions for the court's jurisdiction are either territorial or nationa litybased, although only one is required. But while state parties are obliged to co-operate with the ICC, non-state parties must give their consent.
Much of the debate in setting up the statute centred around the question of where the international legal boundaries should lie between sovereign states and universal human rights. There is, of course, a delicate balance, but to what extent will this limit the effectiveness of the court, since those countries with the worst human rights records are precisely those which are least likely to become parties to the treaty? Iraq and China come to mind. Furthermore, the governments of non-party states whose members may be the subject of investigation are unlikely to cooperate. If they do not consent, what can be done? Will it be impossible to prosecute crimes across jurisdictional borders if states do not consent, and where do those borders lie in reality? To what extent is the back door left wide open for those who commit crimes in countries that have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court and does this potentially de-claw the court before it has even begun to operate? There is, of course, the mechanism by which the UN Security Council can decide that a situation presents a threat to international peace and security and refer that situation to the court under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The court can then take action regardless of whether the state concerned is a party to the court or has given its consent.
Yet, speaking from the point of view of a layman, this creates a new set of problems. The Security Council would have to carry the resolution and the recent record of the disagreement and paralysis which has stricken the Security Council on issues from Iraq to Kosovo does not always augur well for such unanimity. The Foreign Secretary has predicted that the Security Council would have referred Saddam Hussein to the ICC, had it been in existence. But what

961
about the example of China, which is a non-state party, but which is of course a permanent member of the Security Council? What action would the court have been able to take in response to the individuals responsible for the crime of Tiananmen Square? What will the court do when faced with such acts by future world leaders of non-state parties?
The absence of American support for the statute was initially a cause of grave concern. Here I echo many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Without the blessing of the US, the court would always struggle to claim the global mandate necessary for its credibility. However, at the eleventh hour, in a milestone for the ICC, President Clinton signed the statute. Yet US ratification is far from assured. President Clinton made it clear that in signing, the US was not abandoning its concerns about what he called "significant flaws" in the treaty, in particular in terms of the court's jurisdiction over the personnel of non-party states. There was a further sting in the tail. President Clinton said that he would not, and did not, recommend his successor to submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until the fundamental concerns of the US were satisfied. In effect, the US signature ensures a continued place at the negotiating table to influence the court's establishment, but no promises on ratification.
Only last month, Donald Rumsfeld, President-elect Bush's nominee for Defense Secretary, warned that,
"American leadership in the world could be the first casualty of the Court",
and there has even been speculation that George W. Bush could repudiate the signature.
In a sharply-divided Congress, where Republicans have vowed that they will never ratify the treaty and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms, has promised to work to erase "swiftly and surely" President Clinton's signature, the ICC and the international system of justice is likely to become a pawn in a vicious game of partisan politics in which clashes over the court's impact on US national interests and the President's constitutional powers to conduct foreign policy will raise the stakes sky-high. I ask the Minister, to what extent do the Government consider that the American Servicemembers' Protection Bill, which has attracted considerable support and which would prohibit American co-operation with the ICC while the US is not a party and would cut off US military aid to non-NATO allies who ratify the ICC, amounts to undermining the treaty?
Naturally, there are gaps and loopholes which will need to be addressed and appropriate safeguards put in place during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill—the issue of diplomatic immunity for representatives of non-state parties; the question of who is to carry out the enforcement of ICC orders; the question of a statute of limitations in the case of ageing war criminals; and the issue of the application of universal jurisdiction and its implications.
962
I end on a slightly different note, which I hope is not a controversial one. Criminal prosecution is but one thread in the web we can weave around the perpetrators of these crimes. War crimes tribunals are not the only means of facilitating peace. In certain situations, plea bargains, amnesties and pardons can be important too. Criminal justice should never be an instrument for revenge. Contradictory though it may seem, peace and justice are not always bedfellows, but without peace there cannot be justice. Establishing the truth of what happened in order that nations emerging from a post-conflict situation are able to confront and exorcise the ghosts of their past, has as much of a role to play as criminal prosecutions. In this respect, the example of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the aftermath of apartheid has much to teach us.
In conclusion, in formulating our strategy for a more peaceful world, a one-size-fits-all prosecutorial strategy or, for that matter, a uniform preference for a non-juridical alternative, would be too narrow an approach. It is true that circumstances differ and circumstances matter. I am glad to say that the atrocities with which the ICC will be concerned are still unusual. For precisely that reason, their resolution should be too. I hope that the ICC will be a further string in our bow for achieving such resolution. I look forward to the next stages of the Bill.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, this very important measure raises quite fundamental questions, including, I am glad to say, the wider picture outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of the contribution that different approaches can make towards an objective which I am sure the whole House, without dissent, shares; that is, how best to deal with the beastliness of the misuse of power and tyranny which some countries inflict on their own people.
We have in the United Nations Charter many defences against the tyranny of aggression. Indeed, the crime of aggression of one country against another is the one great reality to come out of the post-war world and the United Nations Charter. That is why throughout my political life I, and I am sure others, have always felt that when the call came—whether in South Korea or, more recently, in Kuwait and Iraq—the international community had the obligation to act. While the acts may not have been perfect, they were part of the civilising effect of the arrangements made in our post-war era.
The great gap in our post-war era has not been so much the means and organisation to deal with cross-border aggression but what to do with the appalling tyrannies that exist within the territories of sovereign states. One is straightaway up against enormous practical difficulties—the difficulty of power, for example. I am sure that I am not the only Member of the House who has had to do quite a lot of rethinking about our approach to such issues in the light of the Kosovo war and the appalling behaviour of the Serbs in relation to the Kosovar minority. Let no one have any doubt. We crossed an enormous frontier of

963
international action and law when we waged war on Serbia for mistreatment of its own people. No frontier was crossed and no crime was committed against neighbour states—except indirectly, perhaps, when they were burdened with the vast outflow of refugees and so on—but the enormous step forward was taken of criminalising the actions, which we all agreed were criminal, of a tyrant against his own people.
I have since thought a lot about the issue, as, no doubt, have others. When I try to apply that approach to other situations in the world in which we live—either those which have occurred in the past or those which we are facing today—I find that it offers very little opportunity of redress. Can anyone imagine that we would bomb China in order to rescue the people of Tibet? Does anyone think it would be right to bomb Moscow because of Russian behaviour in Chechnya? No. It is not possible. It is possible to contemplate measures of that kind only against insignificant military powers. I do not recommend it.
That is why I am interested, not, as it were, in abandoning the attempt to deal with tyrants but in looking at the whole range of possibilities available to us if we have the intelligence and the will to apply them. That is why I am in favour of this Bill. It is one of the many measures available to us, if you like, short of waging war. Economic sanctions, diplomatic approaches and diplomatic reprisals of one kind or another are there. Looking back on Kosovo, yes, if need be, open our frontiers, however temporarily or for however long, to give some shelter against the evil oppression of tyrannical rulers. Looking back on it, that would have been a better way of trying to deal with that problem.
The intensification of measures against those who behave wickedly against their own people is something with which we should be seriously concerned. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House share that concern and the worry about how effective the measures will be. I approve without reservation the general purpose behind the Bill. A measure that can bring to justice and punish evil men who misuse power is to be applauded.
Secondly, it must not be forgotten that if virtually all the nations concerned make it clear that they will do their utmost through international law to bring people of that kind to justice, however many years after they may have committed their crimes, it will have a deterrent effect. Those in power who are about to commit acts that are more wicked than usual will think harder about doing so. They will give thought to the fact that they may later want to retire to another country; they will wonder whether they will be arrested. Therefore, this matter should not be judged simply on its own, but as part of what I hope is a growing arsenal of effective measures which—short of waging war on countries that misbehave inside their own frontiers— can be effectively mobilised to the benefit of the many millions who suffer at the hands of tyrants.
That said, I must probe a little the provisions of the Bill. To some extent I follow the sensible approach of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, speaking from the
964
Opposition Front Bench. I say to his critics on the Liberal Democrat Benches that no Opposition can fail to scrutinise legislation in a serious way, as the noble Lord did, if it is to do its duty to Parliament. We all have a duty to examine carefully the measures placed before us.
In that context, I should like to raise a question and then home in on two worries I have. The question follows the line of thought developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I should be grateful if, in replying, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would give his view on the following. If this Bill had been passed and the convention had been activated by the 60 signatories, how would that have differently affected the arrival of ex-president Pinochet in the United Kingdom? It would help to clear my mind and would possibly help others.
I turn now to my worries. The first is a minor one. The Bill enacts Articles 6, 7 and 8(2) of the statute. I am slightly surprised that noble Lords have not directed their attention more to the content of those articles. Article 6 deals with genocide. Virtually all its provisions are unquestionable and present no problem. But one or two of the categories raise questions. One such example is,
"actions which are aimed at destroying an ethnic or religious group … in whole or in part … by causing mental harm to members of the group".
I select the words deliberately, but there is not the sharpness one might wish for in a legal document. I shall not make too much of that; it is merely that I should like to feel that opportunities are not presented in terms of loose wording for mischief makers to embarrass or to claim the headlines through judicial proceedings and so on. That, of course, partly depends on the good sense of the judges and the court. But, inevitably, as a court has not yet been established, one can only say that it is important that it should build up confidence in itself and its judgments as time goes on.
Now I must share with the House my major concern. When I looked at Article 8(2), dealing with war crimes, I could hardly believe my eyes. It provides a long list. Some items I wholly accept; they present no worry whatever—for example,
"Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science … Killing or wounding treacherously … Declaring that no quarter will be given".
A further such example is,
"Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations [etc.] involved in a humanitarian assistance".
All these are outrageous, and they are adequately dealt with.
However, I direct the attention of the House to subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of Article 8(2)(b). The items come under the general heading of other serious violations of the laws and customs applied in international conflict. Sub-paragraph (i) refers to,
"Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities".
What is air warfare about, for heaven's sake, if it does not involve such actions? The last time I had anything to do with this matter was when I was in uniform and

965
about to enter Bomber Command. I had to wrestle with my conscience, as I am sure did many others, over the question of whether it would be right to drop bombs on German cities. My answer, reluctantly, was, yes, it would be. I did not have to do so because the war ended, but that has been accepted so far as a legitimate act of war or punishment.
I am concerned, too, by the reference in subparagraph (ii) to,
"Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives".
Sub-paragraph (iv) refers to,
"Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment".
Sub-paragraph (v) refers to,
"Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives".
I am not an international lawyer, and it may well be that my astonishment simply reflects the fact that I have not kept up to date with the latest in the Geneva Conventions. But we have surely not forgotten the war which ended only months ago over Kosovo and against Serbia. Civilian targets? The radio and television centre in Belgrade? Objects of no obvious military use? Bridges over the Danube? Installations that have a major effect on the life of communities, as well as an environmental effect. I refer, for example, to the bombing of oil refineries and power generators. It is almost unbelievable that this part of the document should simply go through on the nod and without major amendment. Indeed, I cannot seriously believe that it will be the case.
If we read on through the document and the Bill, we see that all of this applies directly to military commanders. There will be no excuse for them if they defy the new convention and its law. Therefore, if they do partake in a bombing raid on, say, the bridges over the Danube or on the suburbs or major power stations around Belgrade, they will be committing an international offence. But what are they to do? Are they to defy their governments and obey international law? That really is nonsense. We need to hear a very considered explanation for the presence of these provisions and especially the way around them.
I may be exaggerating the position, but when my noble and learned friend responds to the debate I ask him not to conclude that I am deliberately trying to point out difficulties and possibilities that are perhaps remote or unreal. Frankly, on the face of it, it seems to me to be all too real. The problems are there in the convention that we have signed and in the Bill. Indeed, I believe that Schedule 8 lists the matters that I quoted from the convention.
Perhaps the following has some significance. We signed the document in either June or November of 1998. Of course, the war in Bosnia began in March/ April 1999. It is just possible that those who devised all these words were not in touch with NATO and its peace-enforcement mission plans. Was NATO
966
committing a crime? When the number of signatories reaches 60 and the legislation comes into effect, being, perhaps, dated from the moment of signature in 1998, will my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary be faced with the prospect of their arrest when visiting some other country in five or 10 years' time for their activities in Kosovo?
As I said, we need answers to those questions. I am not in any way happy to have to put these points to the House. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give me reassurances and explanations that will at least leave me satisfied for now.
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, it would be very unwise of a bishop, not least following the noble Lord's speech, to rise to speak in this House and make simplistic and naive claims about Christianity's role in creating a just society or a just world. Our track record as Churches in this respect is very patchy. Even those claims for Christian leadership in such matters for example, Wilberforce's fight to abolish slavery—often fail abjectly to mention that there were many Christians who were in favour of slavery and who brought to their terrible arguments a plethora of biblical "proof texts" as their justification. That kind of behaviour makes me hang my head in shame.
Therefore, I am very aware of some of the appalling things done throughout history in the name of the Church. Yet I am equally aware of those very courageous individual Christians and Churches who have, because of their faith and often at great cost with great heroism, tried to change the world for the better. Notwithstanding our failures and while acknowledging them, there is within the Christian faith a recognition that in a fallen world a proper relationship needs to exist between justice and peace. In a sense and at a philosophical level, the substance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, was just about the ethical dilemmas of the relationship between justice and peace. Further, there is now an increasingly keen awareness among Churches that the plight of the most vulnerable in our world should always be at the forefront of our thinking; and that, if any society wishes to call itself just and civilised, it will be to the care of the vulnerable that we should look to test whether or not its claims are genuine.
I warmly welcome this debate, believing that the creation of the ICC may be one of the most critical and most honourable steps that we are likely to take in our generation to create a more equitable and righteous world. But, among others that have already been mentioned, there are two areas that seem to me to require further thought. The first relates to Britain as a potentially safe haven for lesser players from overseas who may have carried out the wishes of their particular tyrannical leader. If I have understood the situation correctly—and I may not have done—I wonder whether it is just or logical that a British citizen, who served as a mercenary, could quite properly be tried in this country for committing exactly the same crimes as a foreign national. Because of our understanding of

967
the relationship between law and territory, the foreign national living in this country would not necessarily be brought to trial. If that is the case, there seems to be a great anomaly, not to say a very great injustice.
Secondly—and I may also have misunderstood this point—would it not be wise and generous to mention somewhere in the Bill, or elsewhere, the envisaged United Nations trust fund for victims? That would at least give some of the people who have suffered so severely some hope of justice.
The phrase that seems to me to sum up some of the debate comes from Nicholas Stewart, who said that our task is,
"to see our national interests from a truly international perspective".
I believe that the redemptive and healing effect that the creation of the ICC will have upon societies that have been subjected to tyranny could well be enormous. It is for those reasons that I warmly welcome the Bill in principle. However, I recognise that trying to establish a proper and fruitful relationship between the absolute moral demands of peace and the absolute moral demands of justice will require all the wisdom and the charitable ingenuity and energy that we in this Chamber and the rest of the world can muster.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise somewhat reluctantly and ambitiously to participate in this debate. I say "reluctantly" because the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan—and, to some extent, my noble friend Lord Shore—welcomed the changes envisaged by the Bill, but they did so with a certain reluctance. It is not easy to change and, to some extent, I echo their views. But I ask each of them one question: would they prefer the Bill as it is, with all its inadequacies (the same could be said of any international statute) to no Bill at all? Of course they would not. Indeed, I hope that they would not.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was enthusiastic about the Bill. I also welcome it, but I welcome it in a world that is far from perfect. The United Nations is living proof of the inadequacy of the rule of international law. But would we rather have a world without a United Nations organisation? I think that the answer to that is certain and clear.
Therefore I welcome the Bill with all its faults. We should appreciate that, increasingly, nations of the world have accepted it. There is a reluctance on the part of some in the United States to accept that point of view. However, I ask those in the United States whether they would rather have no United Nations at all? Perhaps some in the United States would prefer it if that were so, but it is our burden to go ahead with the Bill as swiftly as we can, whatever its inadequacies. However, it is clear that there should be a greater degree of political scrutiny and we should be more pervasive in what we seek.
The Bill seeks to fill a serious gap in international law. It is clear that individuals who have committed crimes of genocide—we understand what that means as it has been practised in Europe—crimes against
968
humanity and war crimes should be tried. It is right that the International Criminal Court should complement national courts, as has been argued.
If we have criticisms, they do not seek to undermine the Bill but to improve it. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may respond to criticisms when he replies to the debate, but there is still some point in placing on record some of the alleged deficiencies in the Bill.
First, with regard to the International Criminal Court itself, how many states have to ratify the statute? We have heard a number of different comments on that point today. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will make that point clear. To its credit, the United Kingdom signed the statute last November. It is now in a position to ratify. In my view it should lead the way in that regard.
The Government received some 45 submissions from a number of people who had read the original Bill. I am told that as yet the report has not reached the Library of this House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be able to inform us whether and in what way the Bill reflects the submissions which have been made.
I am told that the Bill does not include the crime of aggression. What progress, if any, has been made in defining that crime? Will the House be given its place in coining such a definition? I know that we have at least seven years after the statute has come into force, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General can give us some idea of the timetable.
I turn to the question of legal aid. So far legal aid has been organised on a national basis The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that legal aid is determined by the courts in which the defendant is due to appear and it does not apply outside England, Wales or Scotland. How can legal aid or legal assistance—if there is a distinction between the two—be applied as regards the International Criminal Court? The Explanatory Notes remain absolutely silent on that point. The issue may be referable to another enactment. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General obviously approves of that argument because he nods affirmatively. But is it not possible for the Bill to refer to that issue? We should not have to identify what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has to say with regard to the Bill. It should be made clear in the Bill.
A defendant may have no or insufficient means to employ a suitable advocate. The case may not attract much attention. Paragraph 53 in the Explanatory Notes refers to a number of issues but I do not believe that it refers to legal aid. Why is that? That matter should be referred to in clear terms.
Paragraph 54 refers to powers conferred by the Bill,
"to facilitate the voluntary attendance of expert witnesses".
But, frankly, I do not understand it. I think that the issue ought to be made clear in the Explanatory Notes. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to make it clear this evening. I do not believe that the

969
voluntary attendance of expert witnesses ought to be left to chance. What precedent can he cite in support of any argument that he seeks to adduce?
Finally, paragraph 21 of the Explanatory Notes headed "Proceedings for delivery order" refers to Article 59.2 and states that,
"The Statute does not … specify which rights must be respected and nor does it specify what is to happen if the judicial authority determines that there has been a violation of (b) or (c)".
Paragraph (b) of the article states that,
"the person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process".
Paragraph (c) states that,
"the person's rights have been respected".
The Explanatory Notes continue:
"In particular, nothing in the Statute allows a State to refuse to surrender a person to the ICC on the grounds that the person has not been properly arrested or his rights have not been respected".
I do not understand that. I have been a lawyer for some 47 years. We should not have an issue where lawyers of my standing do not understand the point the Government seek to make.
What I have said amounts to a Committee point. My noble friend Lord Shore will agree because he made the point in the first place. These may be Committee points but they are of such importance that I hope the Attorney-General will make clear in his winding up speech the Government's stand on them. I welcome very much the enactment of the Bill. I hope that the number of countries which will ratify and sign up to its purposes will be numerous indeed.
6.12 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, perhaps I may give double congratulations, first, to the Government on bringing forward this Bill, and, secondly, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who has worked tirelessly on the issue. I hope that he feels a sense of personal satisfaction today.
The Minister's opening remarks were detailed and I look forward to the opportunity to digest them. From both the noble Baroness and Peter Hain, the Foreign Office Minister, we have a commitment from this country to tip the international balance away from impunity towards justice. However, while I am delighted that Britain will put its full weight behind the establishment of the ICC we must, I believe, attempt to ensure that this Bill will be sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of the court in the exercise of international justice.
International law has long been described as an imprecise science based as it is in part on state practice. It would be unfortunate if we added to the overall complexity by introducing unclear or incomplete definitions of war crimes; or failed to include aggression as a war crime—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; and if issues of jurisdiction and referral are not clarified.
Who will decide when a country has proved unwilling to investigate? Are there adequate existing international standards of universal applicability? Is
970
the court's remit perhaps a little too broad in these early stages? Are we seeking to try the "top dogs", the leaders, at the ICC or, as some would have it, any individual who commits, orders, facilitates or otherwise assists in the commission of the crime? If it is the latter, the court will be overburdened and parallel truth and reconciliation approaches will have no opportunity to thrive.
Any legal system survives because it has the consent of the majority of those to whom it applies. We must be careful to ensure that the same applies to the jurisdiction and enforcement mechanisms of the ICC. We must be quite clear that this initiative is a genuine one and not an exercise in politicking. If we so disable the court at its inception that any exercise of independence or impartiality is impossible, then it will lose credibility and moral authority. Universal jurisdiction must be accompanied by universal application.
No one can be above the law. On a previous occasion during an Unstarred Question, I sought to introduce consideration of terrorism and narcotrafficking as crimes against humanity. Obviously the possibility of British nationals' involvement, in particular in funding these operations, is considerable. Is there scope for inclusion under Article 7, section 35(k)? If not, I again ask the Minister to widen consideration to those areas.
I believe we all know that in the area of terrorism organisations and individuals based in the United Kingdom are funding or otherwise aiding terrorism outside the United Kingdom, generally giving this country a reputation as a safe haven. If I heard the Minister's remarks correctly concerning the international targeting of individuals, am I to understand that from this point on individuals who are deemed to have ordered, for example, an execution of an individual abroad would now face the ICC, should the UK system elect not to pursue justice? By extension, will proven funding of an overseas terrorist organisation now finally be stopped by the UK authorities, so rendering it unnecessary for a state signatory to pursue the case through the provisions of the ICC?
In conclusion, it is vital that we not only record our commitment to establishing the ICC but that we ensure that every safeguard is in place to deliver international justice. That is the clear message that the world's tyrants will fear.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the need for such a court has been recognised by every noble Lord who has spoken. However, the main problem is how to resolve the practical difficulty of impleading the strong. That has been referred to in some detail by my noble friend Lord Moynihan' the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and others. It is as yet a practical difficulty which has not been resolved and may not be able to be resolved. But it is right that if possible an all-but-universal norm should be set to deter and serve as an aid to peacekeeping and diplomacy and, when

971
possible, to be enforced by arrest, adjudication and sentence. It will be welcomed no doubt as a beacon of light for those of whatever origin or faith, or none, who in times of peace or war, or in situations short of war, could suffer grave, perhaps the ultimate, indignity.
The court is assuredly a grand design, rooted and grounded in justice, the servant of human society, which could afford an effective means of resolution when the age-old fault lines erupt with volcanic intensity, but would it? Military intervention has afforded no lasting settlement and justice could do so only if it could reach out to and deal with the strong as well as the weak and not become a cosmetic exercise or a placebo for the conscience of the world.
There is much on which we have to be satisfied before we can ratify. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford that we should not rush to ratification. There are serious reservations, particularly in the United States, which have been referred to by my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan and others. There are improvements to be considered and appropriate safeguards to be introduced. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, rightly said, the Bill stops short of a satisfactory basis for jurisdiction. It fails to implement the complementarity principle—that is terrible treaty jargon. In those regards, it requires amendment.
Articles 6 to 9 of the statute can be amended only by members of the assembly of state parties. I read Article 8(b) with incredulity and would have referred to it, like the noble Lord, Lord Shore, if I had not been going to refer to another aspect of Article 8, to which I shall come in a moment.
Consideration must be given to improving the safeguards not only in the matters under Article 8(b)(i to iv), but for prisoners of war taken in international armed conflict, who are not covered by Article 8(c)—indeed, they are excluded. An agreement on those matters should be sought before ratification. We must ensure that threatening a prisoner of war with any form of slavery or humiliating or degrading treatment, implementing such a threat or selecting or using a prisoner of war as a hostage is expressly prohibited.
Relevant material is available from the Ex-Prisoners of War Association, of which my noble friend Lord Haig, who was one of the pre-selected hostages held at Colditz, is president. This narrative demands a declaration of interest, as I spent nearly five years of an indeterminate life sentence in Colditz, until I was fortuitously released in mid-April 1945 on the surrender of Colditz to the United States armed forces. That was fortuitous, as the castle was not designated as a prisoner of war camp on the campaign maps. The German armour was around the camp pending re-engagement. But for a home-made Union Jack, which was spotted by chance fluttering in one of the heavy artillery gun sights, we should have been taken out. As President of the Colditz Association and an erstwhile gunner subaltern on the reserve, one does not presume to speak on behalf of members, some of whom were of field rank and later became admirals or generals. The few members who survive prefer to speak for themselves.
972
My speech may disturb some noble Lords, as the House must recognise that if Hitler had won the war, the disposal of prisoners of war would have been truly horrendous. Colditz, a former palace of Saxony, remained in use as a lunatic asylum until it was occupied by an international closed community of prisoners of war from the three armed services. We were under the disciplinary command of our respective senior officers. There was a joint command on escape co-operation.
Over five years, the composition varied from time to time. That is relevant to the proposed new provisions. In the early days we were 25 in the British quarters, under the command of Colonel German. There was a massive presence of French, under the command of General Le Brigant. There were also Dutch and colonial troops and the brave remnants of the Polish cavalry. At the time of our release, there were many more British, together with Australians, Canadians after Dieppe, with one VC, New Zealanders, with another VC, Czechs, Poles and Yugoslays who had served with the RAF, Gaullist French and SOE, all under the command of Colonel Tod. The Americans were under the command of Colonel Duke and the Poles were under the command of General BorKomorowski. By that time, the French and Dutch were no longer with us, having been removed in 1943. Just before our release, a number of prisoners of war with family connections of no little consequence who were held at Colditz as hostages had been removed ahead of the US advance. I shall return to that in a moment.
In the early days, before the tide had turned in the battle for the Atlantic and before the United States entered the war, a tannoy was rigged up in the courtyard to give us a chilling blow-by-blow account of each disaster befalling every stricken or sunken vessel. A Feldwebel—a sort of RSM—came up and said, "For you the war is over. You will be put to work in the salt mines of Silesia. Without an eye guard you will go blind within three months and you shall die there". There is reason to believe that that was not his own idea, but a message. It was then state policy to use those from occupied territories for slave labour. Later, Russian prisoners of war taken on the Ostfront were so used. The Geneva Convention would have been repudiated as yet another scrap of paper. There was no international criminal tribunal and no way in which the implementation of state policy could be obstructed. If Hitler had won the war, all of us at Colditz—all prisoners of war—would have been liable to be put to slavery, and assuredly many would have been.
Perhaps I may return to the prominentes, which included Elphinstone, Lascelles and Hopetoun Winant, as they then were, Haig, Winert, the son of the United States ambassador at the Court of St James, Romilly and others. On 13th April 1945 they, together with General Bor-Komorowski and the Polish officers under his command, were removed from the castle to be taken to Hitler's last fortress at Berchtesgarten. That was so that, when put to torture, their lives could be bartered for the freedom of those later condemned at Nuremberg.

973
The plan was devised probably in the wake of Stalingrad, when it occurred to the German high command that they might not win the war. The prominentis were selected as part of the plan and were kept in separate quarters and guarded night and day.
Fortunately, the senior British officer, Colonel Tod, had forewarned the Swiss protecting power on his last visit prior to the United States advance, as we knew from our radio. Therefore, when they reached Konigstein, the Swiss intervened and persuaded General Berger to give them safe conduct through the German lines and then took them and handed them over to General Patch at the United States headquarters in Augsberg.
This narrative of events, when Hitler and those condemned at Nuremberg knew that they had lost the war, is relevant to the proposed provisions for further protection to which I refer. When the noble and learned Lord comes to reply, I wonder whether he could advise the House whether, in his opinion, there is a case for further provision. Article 8 makes no provision for dealing with any of these matters. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could also advise the House whether trials within the remit of Articles 6 to 9, in which the victor impleads the vanquished, should henceforth be conducted by the ICC. Could he also advise whether, when the ICC has been set up to implement the statute, an indictment laid under the War Crimes Act would be remitted to the ICC for the conduct of proceedings and whether the War Crimes Act should remain on the statute book. I apologise for making such a long speech.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is not on every occasion when I intervene in a debate that I shower praise on the Government. Even today, I do not pledge my unqualified approval for every jot and tittle in the Bill. But fair's fair. The Government's record in the negotiations leading to the statute, in their lobbying since the statute, and in finding time for this Bill despite the other pressures on their legislative programme, have earned not only my approval—whether or not that may serve as a comfort to them—but the approval of a wide sector of civil society not usually noted for its praise of governments of whatever political complexion.
Both my noble friends on the Front Bench have earned a special commendation for their appreciation from the beginning of the negotiations of the importance of this opportunity. Without appearing too fulsome, perhaps I may add a word of gratitude to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who I believe will be long remembered for his vision in this as in other matters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, were kind enough to remark, some of us have waited a long time for this day. When I first emerged from my political chrysalis—admittedly deep in the recesses of history—the prevailing wisdom was that governments had a
974
duty to protect their own nationals so far as they could within the rules of private and public international law, to punish their own nationals when within the jurisdiction they committed offences against nationals of other countries, and, beyond that, simply to maintain law and order within their borders. National sovereignty was sovereign.
However, in the 20th century events in Europe, which had believed itself to represent the ultimate in civilisation, persuaded the world that while bullies and tyrants anywhere could murder and butcher with impunity, peace and security were endangered everywhere because we humans are members one of another. Even in 1945 the International Law Commission began to explore the concept of an international jurisdiction. When in 1947 the General Assembly discussed the genocide convention, the topic was widely, if not particularly loudly, ventilated.
As my noble friend the Minister said in opening the debate, more recent events have reawakened the world's imagination. Events in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, have persuaded governments that there are some depths of human wickedness and some degrees of human suffering which cannot be dismissed as someone else's business, and that agreeing on standards and insisting on judgment are the right and the duty of the global community.
We come to this debate from differing backgrounds. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, spoke very movingly of his own experiences. My noble friend Lord Shore made a rather different point. But all of us agree that those who contemplate committing horrific crimes against humanity should know that they will suffer the curse of Cain, and that the blood of their victims will follow them wherever they seek to hide, not primarily out of malice towards them but, it is hoped, for the protection of their potential victims.
We are debating the Bill; we cannot amend the statute. Of course, criminals may evade justice in one way or another. That is true of any criminal. However, like Senator Pinochet, who was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, they can never be sure what the future will hold. Of course the statute was a compromise; otherwise, we would never have got a statute. But it is not the end of the story; it is the beginning. And it will be a continuing process towards the global rule of law.
It is a jurisdiction which can be made effective. When I last checked, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had already recorded seven convictions and 35 cases were awaiting trial. The Security Council has found it necessary to authorise the appointment of more judges. No one ever considered that there would be thousands of convicted war criminals in prison—simply enough to make political mass murderers stop and think.
We have just seen an international tribunal take place in Tokyo to rule on the allegation of sexual slavery practised by the Japanese army during the Second World War. A few weeks ago I noticed that the National

975
Council of Resistance in Iran had called for an international tribunal to try certain of the mullahs for murder and torture.
Of course, now that the world has accepted the responsibility of the international community to protect victims, there will be a temptation to drag that concept into political controversies. After the Falklands war, there were allegations of war crimes by British military personnel. They were investigated, I believe, carefully and rigorously, by the Metropolitan Police, and considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, although and no further action was taken. It might have been more satisfactory, particularly for those against whom the allegations were made, if they had been investigated under a reputable international procedure. I fully take the point made by my noble friend when she introduced the debate about complementarity.
One great advantage of a permanent court, an agreed statute and established procedures is that proper safeguards for defendants can be institutionalised and the court can be insulated from improper political pressures.
Having played a commendable role in the negotiations leading to the statute, the Government are understandably anxious to be among the first 60 ratifications. I pay tribute to the many NGOs, some of them mentioned by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, which have campaigned for this result and which have—I hope that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will confirm this—made available to the Government a body of expertise that even the Government's own experts found helpful, in particular those NGOs that formed the coalition for the International Criminal Court. Expertise is not the monopoly of governments, and dialogue between the Foreign Office and civil society can be a source of enrichment to both.
The Bill is to be welcomed for many reasons. Internationally, it is a the pledge that Britain is not about to repeat the mistakes made so often during the past half century of absenting ourselves when a new adventure was taking shape but, when events drove us willy nilly to the table, complaining that if we had been there earlier we should have suggested something different.
Domestically, it is to be hoped that if national governments provide a domestic jurisdiction for dealing with some cases, that would alleviate the need to channel them all through the international procedure. The great benefit is the establishment of an international culture, as my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney said. At a date not far in the future I believe that even the American Senate—I emphasise the Senate—will admit that some of the disasters that some of its members predicted have proved to be false prophecies and will accept that no state claiming a place in the community of nations can hide permanently in the 19th century.
I turn, admittedly belatedly, to the content of the Bill. It is disappointing that, as so often when a British government have played a noble role and could have
976
taken the stage and received the applause that the world was waiting to accord, they could not quite bring themselves to rise to the occasion. The Government could have included in Clause 51 a provision conferring on British courts a universal jurisdiction of the kind that is already on the statute book in the Geneva Conventions Act. That would have avoided some of the problems arising from the complementarity principle, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. At a later stage in our deliberations, some of us may seek to institute further discussions about that. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he will not be totally alone. The Government are clearly open to dialogue. It appeared from the consultation document that the Government were contemplating retaining diplomatic immunity for offences under the Bill so that a future Pinochet could still rely on a principle that was never intended for that purpose. They have listened. That fact is reflected in Clause 23, although there still appears to be a gap in the domestic jurisdiction, which is open to discussion.
However, I say at once that I do not propose to embark on a game of poker with my noble friends. I answer the question of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis: if the Bill were lost, or if it did not proceed quickly enough to enable us to be among the first 60 ratifications, the tragedy would far outweigh our disappointment about a Bill that could have been better.
I hope that I will be permitted a closing comment in this debate, which many people will read. There may be those among my friends in NGOs who believe that they should lend their support to nothing less than the whole of what they had hoped for. That dilemma does not arise for the first time. In 1833, when at long last the anti-slavery movement in this country was in sight of the objective that it had fought and hoped for—the abolition of slavery in the British empire—the movement split because the government offered emancipation subject to a provision imposing a period of apprenticeship on freed slaves, and compensation for the former owners. William Wilberforce was dead, and Thomas Buxton, who led the movement, believed that the best should not be the enemy of the good. He and those who agreed with him accepted the government's terms. There were others who accused them of betrayal, but there are few historians of the movement now who blame them—certainly not the liberated slaves and their descendants, nor the potential victims.
I believe that we are privileged to take part in this historic debate, and I venture to predict that within a generation the concept of global responsibility for crimes against humanity will have become so much a part of the global legal order that most people will have forgotten that there was a time when it had to be worked at.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Monson: As one of the minority of lay Members speaking this afternoon, I am not qualified to discuss most of the technical details of the Bill but I would like, if I may, to comment on its principles and

977
implications. I must try to do so with caution, otherwise Members of this august Chamber may suddenly resemble a Bateman cartoon, with hair standing on end, jaws dropping and hands raised in horror. From that, one may deduce that I have considerable reservations about the Bill, heretical though these words may sound.
First, the Bill is surely yet another step in the direction of world government. As I pointed out the first time that I inflicted my views on the public at large 40 years ago, if a world government were in place, there would be no political asylum for anyone anywhere. Moreover, a world government would soon become a tyranny—a benign tyranny, of course. However, a benign tyranny that is utterly convinced of its own righteousness is in some ways more alarming than a malign tyranny, which usually contains within it the seed of its own eventual destruction, in the form of the human conscience. However, those sentiments will cut little ice with those who are either indifferent to or enthusiastic about the prospect of world government, and I shall therefore give some further reasons.
An international criminal court, like all similar organisations and all bureaucracies that have ever existed at any time, is bound to become more and more activist in order to justify its existence. That has nothing to do with weaknesses or failings of individuals—those working in the court will doubtless be of the highest calibre and will be motivated by the noblest ideals—but it has everything to do with the eternal verities of human nature. That is bound to mean that sores will be re-opened, when those on the spot may have decided that the lesser of two evils is either to let sleeping dogs lie or to deal with past oppression and violence by means that exclude criminal prosecution and may even exclude civil restitution. In other words, they take the view that there are some objectives that must take precedence over justice. One thinks, first and foremost, of South Africa post-apartheid, post-1975 Spain, post-1990 eastern Europe, where there have been hardly any prosecutions, and, of course, of Northern Ireland. How disconcerted the British Government would be if an international body, composed mainly of individuals living thousands of miles away with little knowledge of the situation on the ground, declared that justice must prevail and that those deemed guilty of mass murder or torture must not escape prosecution and, if convicted, must not be released after serving no more than a year or two of their suitably lengthy sentences.
If the Bill had come into existence, say, 55 years ago in 1946, the court would have had its hands full, what with the killing of approximately one-third of the population of East Timor and the now largely forgotten earlier killings of tens of thousands, some claim hundreds of thousands, of Chinese throughout Indonesia on the grounds that they were Communist sympathisers; massacres by both sides in Vietnam; massacres when Bangladesh was breaking free from Pakistan; massacres at the time of Indian partition,
978
though they may have been more spontaneous than directed from above; massacres in Algeria both before and after 1962; massacres by Syrians and, to a lesser extent, Lebanese, Israelis and Palestinians; and in Europe the expulsion (and sometimes the murder) of over 1 million Sudeten Germans up to one year after VE Day.
If the Bill had been in existence before World War II, it would have had to pursue not only German and Japanese war criminals, but would also have had to go into numerous Russian atrocities which are unaccountably omitted from the War Crimes Act. The writer, Anne Applebaum, described how, when Soviet forces invaded East Prussia early in 1945, they literally crucified German women, children and elderly men by nailing them to barn doors. We all know about the rape of tens of thousands of women from eight to 80 in Vienna. Of course, those were acts of revenge; they did not occur in a vacuum. But revenge has never been held to justify such behaviour.
The court might have overridden Churchill's decision (taken for raisons d'état) not to prosecute Italian generals responsible for atrocities in the Balkans in 1943 following the Italian surrender. It would also have to examine the thankfully many fewer war crimes perpetrated by the western allies. I remember vividly a school lecture in 1944 in which an American brigadier general boasted that during the Italian campaign he ordered his men to take no prisoners at all. Even at the gung-ho age of 12 in the gung-ho atmosphere of successive allied victories at that time, I found that boast somewhat disconcerting.
The British Army of course—this is universally agreed—behaved better than anyone else. But even we were not immune, as I know from reliable first-hand accounts from people who served both in the European and Pacific theatres. I was thinking originally only of killing prisoners in cold blood. But from what both the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said, it would appear that the Bill, if it had been in force then, provides that our airmen could have been prosecuted for bombing residential areas of German cities.
If the court had come into existence as long as 80 years ago, it would presumably have had to prosecute those who drafted and signed the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which set in motion ethnic cleansing on a truly massive scale, as well perhaps as those who expelled at gunpoint at least 110,000 Protestants and pro-monarchist Roman Catholics from the south of Ireland at approximately the same time.
Despite all that, it may be argued that provided states could be given the right to opt out of the provisions of the Act in favour of reaching their own internal settlements, a permanent court would surely be preferable to the present ad hoc arrangements which are apparently favoured by most, I read, of the United States Senate and Congress. In principle I agree. There is something distasteful about only going for "soft" targets, such as leaders of small countries which are not nuclear powers, which possess no oil or other mineral reserves to speak of, which are not

979
strategically situated, whose inhabitants are not adherents of a religion which promises eternal paradise to those who are killed in combat fighting for their faith and where there is no huge Diaspora scattered throughout the western world, some of whose members are likely to commit acts of terrorism or sabotage if they felt their leaders back at home were being unjustly persecuted, as they saw it.
So casting the net wider than those relatively small number of countries is right in principle. But in practice things are likely to turn out rather differently, as both the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Shore, pointed out. However badly they behave, I do not believe that politicians or military men from Russia, China, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya or Algeria will ever come before the court as far ahead as one can reasonably look. I have my doubts too about those from the United States, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, most Latin American countries and Israel. At risk, therefore, will be those from smaller countries like Sri Lanka or Lebanon, or some of the less important African nations together with those from western and central Europe, and highly improbable candidates like Canadians and New Zealanders.
Even so, it will no doubt be argued, is not imperfect global coverage better than virtually no coverage? Even if only a handful of people are deterred in practice from inflicting unnecessary suffering, is that not worth it? The answer has to be "perhaps". One of the reasons the answer cannot be "definitely" is that the prospect of prosecution may encourage a ruthless politician or soldier to go much further than they originally intended by making sure that they eliminated all potential witnesses to their crimes.
Finally—this may be Committee stage material and if so I apologise for raising it now—I should like to say a brief word on Schedule 8, Article 8, which lists war crimes. Ridiculously, dumdum bullets are outlawed, but not the new bullets which splinter into 100 or more fragments when they hit human flesh, causing far worse injuries than a soft-nosed bullet does. Nor are the thermobaric bombs and shells used by the Russians against the people of Grozny, the blast from which apparently sucks people's eyeballs out, among other things. Surely something ought to be done about those omissions.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I too warmly welcome the introduction of this Bill, which will enable this country to ratify the statute of the international criminal court.
This Government played an important role in securing agreement on the statute of the court. If I may say so. the commitment more generally of this Government to human rights is very much to be praised. In the Human Rights Annual Report 2000, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said,
"No British Government has given a higher priority to human rights than this one".
I agree. That has been evident not only in the domestic sphere, particularly with the introduction of the Human Rights Act, but also in foreign policy; in the
980
conduct of the Government as regards Kosovo, Sierra Leone and in relation to this Bill. So it would be entirely fitting for the United Kingdom to be one of the founding members of the court by being among the first 60 to ratify the statute.
Why is the court so important? If I may say so, that has been powerfully explained by my noble friend Lady Scotland, by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer with passion, by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and, with clear logic, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is particularly plain, if he will forgive me saying so, that when one of the more hesitant voices in the Pinochet case supports this Bill as an important step towards justice and world peace, that should be very much heeded.
The preamble to the statute says that the court has a purpose; that is, to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of grave crimes, and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.
As my noble friend Lord Shore clearly demonstrated, that deterrent element is an important part of what the court will produce; that is, the fear that prosecutions may in future come about if particular conduct is engaged in. The need is for the court to establish individual accountability for the violation of international human rights' standards. No clearer justification for the court can be found than in statistics provided by the United Nations on its website. I find such statistics both horrifying and hard to believe. In the past 50 or so years there have been 250 conflicts; 86 million civilians, mostly women and children, have died, and over 170 million people stripped of property, rights and dignity. Many are simply forgotten while the men responsible walk free. The court is needed as a most important element in the strategy of trying to bring to an end that sort of injustice and evil.
At the heart of the need for the court is a need to reassess the idea of state sovereignty. It was probably John Austin, in his lectures in jurisprudence in University College in the early 19th century, who most developed the idea of state sovereignty; the idea that law is a body of rules fixed and enforced by a sovereign political authority that led to the view that there could be no such thing as international law as there is no sovereign political authority able to enforce it. It also led to the view that no individual within a state could complain outside that state about treatment because it was for the state, the sovereign political authority, to determine what happened in that state.
In many ways sovereignty is a good concept. It allows citizens to order their own affairs without external interference from powerful neighbours. But sovereignty—or at least this exaggerated notion of sovereignty—has also provided an excuse for despots behind which they can hide to justify no interference in the domestic affairs of the country. Many changes have been made over the past 50 years which have led towards an erosion of that sovereignty. However, it will take this court finally to establish not just that there are international standards but that there is a proper mechanism to enforce them.

981
In 1950 the great international lawyer, later a judge of the International Court of Justice, Hersch Lauterpacht, stated:
"the individual has now acquired a status and a stature which have transformed him from an object of international compassion into a subject of international right".
Perhaps at the time that statement was more wishful thinking than fact, but the court could make it now a reality.
Those are my reasons for warmly supporting the Bill. Before I turn to the content of the Bill, perhaps I may comment on two particular themes which have emerged in the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, started warmly to support the Bill. However, he appeared to lose his enthusiasm towards the end of his remarks. I respectfully suggest that one should look carefully at the points he made. I did not find them persuasive. Perhaps highest among them was the concern that the statute establishing the court might not give rise to the rights of fair trial to which citizens of this country are entitled. He put that on the basis that that was a concern of the United States. I am not sure that it is the concern of the United States or those concerned about this statute, or whether the idea of a politicised court, the fear of an interference with sovereignty, does not lie more at the heart of those concerns.
However, when I look at the statute of the court—I respectfully urge the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to do so—I find all sorts of safeguards. In Article 15 I find the basis for an investigation by an independent prosecutor. Article 22 contains the principle that there should be no criminal responsibility unless the matters constituted a crime at the time. Article 40 contains the idea that the judges as well as the prosecutor must be independent. I could go on through the statute to the right of appeal. However, I draw particular attention to Article 67, which provides the provisions for a fair trial: the right to be informed in detail of the charges; the right to have adequate time for preparation of a defence; the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses—indeed, all the safeguards which we find in the European Convention.
I understand that in the United States there is a different constitutional issue, on which not all lawyers agree; that is, whether there is a problem under the United States constitution in allowing a "foreign court" to try US citizens. That is not our problem. I very much hope that it is one which the United States' authorities will overcome.
The second theme raised was a concern that the statute—it is the statute and not the Bill—may go too far in the definition of certain offences. My noble friend Lord Shore developed that point with power and eloquence. I am not a public international lawyer. However, my understanding from that deficient background is that the statute identifies what is now recognised to be the definition of war crimes. Perhaps I may briefly refer to the example given by my noble friend, which is reproduced in Schedule 8 and relates
982
to incidental loss of life or injury. I draw attention to the fact that the full provision contains a number of important safeguards; that the act should be intentional and done in the knowledge that certain events will occur. In particular, the question is whether that incidental damage, injury or loss of life would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
I believe that it is only in the clearest cases, in which there have been direct and deliberate attacks on civilians for no discernible military objective, that that definition would apply and that today we would say that that is, indeed, a crime.
The two strands of concern about the Bill are not ones I share. However, before I conclude I wish to make two other points. The first relates to the question of diplomatic immunity. I readily acknowledge the great improvements to the Bill which have been made. The addition of Clause 23 to deal with diplomatic immunity is undoubtedly one such improvement. However, a distinction is drawn between diplomatic immunity attaching to a person by reason of connection with a state which is party to the statute and one which is not. In at least two cases the court may have jurisdiction though that particular exception for immunity would not apply. I refer first to the case in which the person is subject to jurisdiction because he has committed these offences in another country of which he is not a national, and it is only that other country which is a party to the statute, and, secondly, to cases where the Security Council refers the matter to the court. Perhaps when my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General replies he would indicate whether there is still concern over immunity and how that might be dealt with.
The other more important question was referred to by several speakers, most recently by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. It is the accountability gap. Only when all states are parties to the statute will it be inevitable that the court has jurisdiction in all cases. That will not happen—or will not happen for a long time. Yet this country could itself have taken universal jurisdiction by not limiting, as Clause 51 does, the right to prosecute to the case of British nationals or offences committed in this country.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, it gives rise to anomalies. The situation could arise where two people residing in this country are both accused of commiting the same atrocities. However, as one is a national and the other is not, we could prosecute the one but not the other, notwithstanding that there might be the clearest evidence and the clearest public demand for prosecution.
There is a second anomaly. We have universal jurisdiction in certain cases; for instance, the convention on torture and certain breaches of the Geneva Convention. In those cases, we can prosecute those who have committed offences abroad who are not British nationals but are sheltering in this country. It is anomalous that we could prosecute a man for torture but not for murder.

983
I accept that those are important and difficult questions, but I hope that the Government will think again about whether they can take the step of filling the accountability gap. People are already raising the spectre that the United Kingdom might become a safe haven for war criminals and those who commit atrocities. That would be terrible. I understand that Canada, New Zealand and Belgium in their statutes have assumed universal jurisdiction but that Germany and Switzerland, to name but two, have indicated their intention to take on that jurisdiction. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider the issue.
Subject to that important point, I repeat my warm support for the Bill. Secretary-General Annan described the statute as,
"a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law".
The statute is not perfect; it has compromises. It is not the only instrument to secure universal peace and justice but it is an important one. By introducing the Bill, the United Kingdom will continue to take a lead in the march towards that universal peace and justice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and in view of his criticisms of the speech of his noble friend Lord Shore, perhaps I may ask him to look at paragraph 2(b)(ii) of Article 8 which appears at the top of page 63 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, said that that provision was liable to misconstruction; that it was not a realistic presentation. In order to save time, I take only one aspect but it is most important. The provision states:
"Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects".
I suppose that the railway tracks to Auschwitz were civilian objects, as were the engines driven around Germany pulling trains. They were objects which were not military objectives. Therefore if the allied high command says that the railway tracks to Auschwitz and the engines are military objectives that is all right, so what is the object of the provision?
Does not the noble Lord, as a lawyer, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, that those provisions should be examined?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, far be it from me to do so; I do not have the noble Lord's distinguished record. However, I should have thought it clear that there will be circumstances in which roads, generators and bridges are military objectives. Perhaps I may make two other points. First, we are talking about the statute and not the Bill. We cannot amend the statute; it exists. It may not be perfect but it is what we have.
Secondly, I turn to the safeguards in the statute. They are, first, an independent prosecutor who must investigate the material; secondly, a pre-chamber which must decide whether a warrant shall be introduced; thirdly, a confirmation of the charges before a trial takes place; fourthly, independent judges
984
to determine it; and, fifthly, that the Security Council can still suspend investigations if it considers it appropriate to do so. Those safeguards satisfy me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps, by leave, I may inform the noble Lord that in my speech I made it plain that the statute could not be amended. That is why ratification should be delayed.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, who I am sorry is no longer in his place, raised with some incredulity several questions about the list of crimes in Article 8 within Schedule 8. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his speech and in his recent intervention, reverted to that topic. My interest is in paragraph 2(a)(i) of Article 8, which refers to wilful killing. Having been Minister for the Armed Forces at the time of the sinking of the "General Belgrano", I shall await with interest the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on this subject.
I support the Bill and hope for the success of the court. I am concerned that it should have wide and general support. I propose to point out some of the factors which I believe it should take into account if it is to succeed in earning that support.
The background against which the debate is taking place is a steady erosion of national sovereignty. The setting up of the court is a further step in that erosion.
That erosion has been caused by a number of factors with which we are familiar. I refer to two terrible world wars; disorder in the world following the end of a number of empires, including the Soviet empire; the unbelievable speed of global communication; and the military intervention in Kosovo, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, which involved the acceptance of the doctrine that in order to avert a serious humanitarian catastrophe it is permissible to intervene in a military sense in another country, even if that intervention is not backed by a specific resolution of the United Nations. Moreover, the Prime Minister, in his Chicago speech last year, said that the democracies have an obligation to intervene wherever bad things are happening in the world.
This process of the erosion of national sovereignty can have benefits in a world which is dominated by democracies, as it is at present. But should we not ask ourselves whether that would be different if the world were dominated, as probably it will one day be, by dictatorships. I believe that there must be limits to the speed at which the process of the erosion of national sovereignty can proceed and I believe that that is relevant to the actions of the International Criminal Court.
It is important that the court should have political antennae. I am not talking about politics entering into its judgments, although it will often be difficult for the court to escape entirely from political considerations. In particular, I have in mind the preliminary decision to bring a prosecution by the prosecutor and the

985
tribunal which assesses that question. The mistaken timing of a prosecution may cause considerable damage.
To revert to Kosovo, during the negotiations for an end to the fighting the international war crimes prosecutor announced that Mr Milosevic would be treated as a war criminal. That announcement, the timing of which was, I believe, ill-judged, did not prevent a satisfactory conclusion to the fighting, but it might have done so. I believe that that provides a lesson as to the care to be exercised by a prosecutor, not least in the timing of any prosecution. That decision could stop negotiations which might otherwise put an end to fighting in the modern world, with all its horror.
There is another recent example of a doubtful announcement by a prosecutor. Carla Del Ponte, Chief UN War Crimes Prosecutor, is reported in today's edition of The Times as saying that,
"her tribunal could open an investigation into the use of depleted uranium ammunition by NATO, which many blame for cancer among soldiers who served in the Balkans campaign".
It would be wise for Mrs Del Ponte to reflect very carefully before proceeding in that direction. That is a highly sensitive issue which, if pursued, could discredit the development, which in general we support, of international tribunals.
I believe that the court should also consider the effect of a prosecution in the country concerned. Even democracies may sometimes be reluctant to take proceedings, or to have proceedings taken, against their nationals or to surrender them to the court if in the judgment of their governments stability would be upset. I refer to the example of General Pinochet to whom frequent reference has been made in this debate. When the charges against him were originally brought in this country there was turmoil on the streets of Santiago. The situation was fairly delicate, because the history of Chile during the time of Pinochet, and before, had been fairly bloody and stability had been achieved with some difficulty between the supporters and opponents of General Pinochet. At the time that charges were brought against the general in this country there was a serious risk that stability might be upset. One was glad to observe that matters calmed down, but it is possible that if General Pinochet had stood trial in this country the turmoil would have been much greater than it was at the time he was charged.
I conclude by referring to the United States. I am glad that President Clinton has signed the treaty. What I say is put in a friendly way because I am a great admirer and supporter of the role of the United States in general in the world. I believe it is extremely important that the United States should ratify the treaty and become a member of the court. Voices in the United States have called for a guarantee that no US citizen will be convicted or imprisoned by the court. That is comparable with saying that the US will not engage in any military action if there is any risk of a casualty being suffered. Those two propositions are
986
parallel one to the other and are inconsistent with the position of a great nation, let alone the most important democracy in the world.
One noble Lord referred to the newly-appointed Secretary of State for Defense, Mr Rumsfeld. He has said that American leadership in the world may suffer if the US is a member of the court. I believe that that is entirely the wrong way round: US leadership will suffer if America is not a member of the court, because its influence, which is generally for the good, will be weakened. I recall what happened at the time that the United States decided not to join the League of Nations. That emasculated the League which was never of much use. Although the issues here are not as important as America's failure to join the League, which we know was one of the contributory factors of the Second World War, I believe that that example should be borne in mind by the United States.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, as I speak as near as proves practical to the gap perhaps I may be permitted to turn away for a moment from the substance of the Bill to pay a compliment to the draftsman of the Bill and explain why. I invite noble Lords to turn to Clause 80 of the Bill on page 38. That clause is an index of expressions defined in the Bill. The first column sets out the expressions which are defined in the previous clauses, and the second column points to the clause in which the particular definition is to be found. That admirable drafting technique serves two purposes. First, the index tells the reader immediately whether a particular word or expression has its popular meaning or a special meaning. Secondly, if the word or expression has a special meaning it tells the reader immediately in which provision that meaning is to be found. For example, the first column of Clause 80 tells the reader that "war crime" is a specially defined expression. The second column of that clause tells the reader to turn to Clause 50 for that definition or, more accurately, exactly where to find it.
This admirable drafting technique is not new but is not used as often as I believe it could and should be. It was used in one Act in Session 1993–94: in four Acts in the bonanza Session 1997–98; and in one Act in the previous Session. I congratulate parliamentary counsel on using the technique in this Bill and express the hope that it may be used more frequently in future Bills. It is immensely helpful to the reader.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, in a few days' time we shall observe Holocaust Day, but so far not much has been said about it. Noble Lords will recall the way in which the Germans turned killing into an industrial process on a massive scale: 6 million Jews, 80,000 to 100,000 romanies, or New Age travellers as we now call them, many trade unionists, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped, who today are described as people with learning difficulties, and those suffering from mental illness and physical handicap were killed. Most of that process, particularly the persecution of the Jews, began within a month of Hitler assuming

987
power on 30th January 1933. While we talk about Africa and one or two other places, we should remember that the backdrop to this must be the Middle East and the problems faced by Israel.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, with whom I am delighted to be in harmony on the Bill, referred to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as "tepid". That was more elaborately put by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, who said that he "lost his enthusiasm". He raised several important points. I should like to say a few words about them because most of my other material has been pre-empted by the 16 previous speakers.
The noble Lord referred to the United States' worries and that we must take them seriously. Particularly with the new president taking office in the United States, it is important that we do not make rash statements which will prejudice people in the Americas who are not particularly well inclined towards this legislation.
On 2nd January the Independent—to my prejudiced mind, that is about the only independent thing about that newspaper, otherwise I regard it as a chattel of the chattering classes—there was an editorial which stated:
"Bill Clinton's welcome move towards international justice".
It mentioned Senator Jesse Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has already been mentioned. It said:
"Mr Helms is worried that the establishment of the court, which 139 countries have now signed up for, would make US citizens liable for prosecution. Well, yes. Why should Americans think they are different?".
That is an example of the level that some political debate is reduced to these days; that is, if someone puts up an argument against you try to show them as isolated, bizarre, cranky and even call into question, in a polite kind of a way, their mental state.
I have always regarded the Americans as a quite remarkable people. They live on a very large land mass with great natural resources. They are separated from their neighbours to west and east by thousands of miles of ocean. They would have a perfectly legitimate case for an isolationist policy and could live perfectly well on their own. But we are all aware of their efforts in two world wars. Some of us actually saw them here and lived through the last war when without their help we could not have moved into western or southern Europe. We have to remember that they think about these matters. Since the Second World War they have assumed a much greater role in the world and when necessary have been prepared to send their men to various parts of the world. With their isolationist position and the possibility that they could have adopted that attitude, we have to respect that. When they express doubts we need to look at them rationally and allow them time to come to terms with what they are being asked to do. Justcastigating them will harden any resistance to going the whole way.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also mentioned cost. The Americans may well feel that if this legislation gets under way they will have to pick up most of the tab. It
988
is coarse, but that is the kind of argument which appeals to people. With 4.5 per cent of the world's population, already they pay 25 per cent of the United Nation's expenses. That is the absolute maximum that any one country is allowed to pay. They are coughing up there. Yet from time to time we hear them castigated in the Chamber for being a little behind with their expenses.
If this legislation gets off the ground, we have to make sure that the accounting—the money—is entirely transparent because there is nothing more destructive to an international organisation than accusations that someone is fiddling and money is going astray. Everything has to be absolutely above board. We have seen the damage done in the European Community when various issues have surfaced in the way of expenses abuses.
I am not over impressed with the consultation process that has taken place here. The document refers to it and to the responses, but I have an awful feeling that the people who have been consulted and who have responded come from a limited section of society. That is a matter which I previously mentioned in the Chamber when we were talking about constitutional changes. They are not truly a representative sample of the British people. Yet if they give the say so everyone clutches them to their bosom and says, "Well, here you are, a great groundswell of opinion", "endorsement", and so on. We should think more about how we consult.
I understand that this matter was on a website and that people could make contributions there. Not everyone has access to the network or can even use it. Instead of the old class system, we are now creating a new class system of people who have access to websites and people who have not. Noble Lords may think that this is an academic point, but in my former constituency the local council is consulting, people on secondary education. People can make their views known via its website. One can guess which parts of Bristol are benefiting from that. I have previously referred in the Chamber to the closure of a secondary school in the most deprived area of my former constituency because the people did not know how to make their voices heard.
The appointment of judges needs to be absolutely above board. There must be no question that anything other than merit is the criterion. If there is any talk about quotas or so and so's turn, the integrity of the court will be destroyed. One may say that integrity is automatically assumed in these matters.
A lady called Biljana Playsic has just surrendered for trial. There has been much speculation in the broadsheets that some kind of deal has been done. The court says that there has been no deal and there have been no talks. I simply do not believe that. Neither do a great many people who have studied the matter. If we start off with people suspecting that they are not being told the truth the whole process will be undermined. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill very much indeed.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and the noble Baroness the Minister will not mind if, first of all, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on the arrival of the Bill in your Lordships' House. More than anyone else in your Lordships' House, indeed in either House, he has played the main role in making sure that the Bill is with us today. He has been persistent; on some occasions he has been intransigent; but, above all, he has been indefatigable in his pursuit of that objective. Perhaps my only sorrow is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who also played such an important part in earlier years, is not here today to listen to the debate. One of the reasons why the debate has been so successful is because at the end of his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said that he was in total harmony with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That is indeed a statement to be much admired. We also heard it with some relief. I shall not attempt to summarise what all noble Lords will agree has been an outstanding debate today. I simply wish to add one observation which is primarily about the Bill and not about the statute.
As the noble Baroness the Minister said in opening the debate, the principle that underlies the Bill is the principle of complementarity. That is to say, as long as a national government investigates and prosecutes an alleged offence, the International Criminal Court has no role.
The matter is dealt with in Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Paragraph 1 of the article states, inter alia, that,
"the International Criminal Court will determine that a case is inadmissible where—

(a) the case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it unless the state is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution,

(b) the case has been investigated by a state which has jurisdiction over it and the state has decided not to prosecute the person concerned unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the state genuinely to prosecute".

Thus, unless the United Kingdom is either unwilling or unable to prosecute the matter, the International Criminal Court plays no part.
Clause 5 sets out the procedure for making a delivery order for the International Criminal Court as a consequence of its issuing to the United Kingdom something called a request for surrender. However, as a result of Article 17 of the Rome statute, such a request will be admissible only if the United Kingdom Government are unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute.
As my contribution to the debate, and looking ahead to the Committee stage, I want to ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General some questions about Clause 5. First, in what circumstances does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that government would be unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute? Second, if there are circumstances in which the Government are unwilling to prosecute, it surely means that they are willing that
990
the International Criminal Court should prosecute. What motive would they have for that? Would it be that they might consider the rules of procedure of the International Criminal Court to be more appropriate to a prosecution than our own rules of procedure?
That would be unlikely, from the point of view of the defendant. What about the position of the defendant, for the defendant will surely have a view about whether he or she would prefer to be prosecuted in the United Kingdom rather than in the International Criminal Court? Should that individual have the opportunity to have that decision of the United Kingdom Government tested in the United Kingdom courts? Should not the individual benefit from a procedure in our own courts whereby he can question the fairness of the Government's decision to refuse to pursue him in our own courts—a refusal which will, inevitably, lead to a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court?
Perhaps I may help the Minister by saying that I do not think the precedents in relation to the ad hoc court in Yugoslavia and Rwanda are helpful because the basis for the establishment of those two courts is not the principle of complementarity. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is aware, those two courts were established by a resolution of the Security Council under chapter 7 which makes both those courts subsidiary organs of the Security Council. It is clear that, in those circumstances, there is a judicial hierarchy where the international courts are superior to the national courts. But the situation here is in a sense the opposite. It is clear from the Rome statute that the principal court is the national court and that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction only by default.
That brings me to my next question, which concerns Clause 5(4). It states:
"In the case of a person alleged to have committed an ICC crime, the competent court may adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome of any challenge before the ICC to the admissibility of the case or to the jurisdiction of the ICC".
As I understand it, the clause is intended to stay the proceedings in the United Kingdom while the question of admissibility or jurisdiction is considered in the International Criminal Court. It is clear from Articles 55 and 67 that in a full trial of a matter before the International Criminal Court an individual would be entitled to legal aid. I can understand the uncertainty of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about that because the matter is not dealt with in the explanatory statement which emerged at the same time as the Bill. But would legal aid be available to an individual who wished to challenge the issue of admissibility as a preliminary matter in the International Criminal Court?
Furthermore, let us suppose that the United Kingdom Government disagreed with the International Criminal Court about issuing a request for surrender. In other words, let us suppose that the United Kingdom Government had initiated a bona fide investigation with an intention to prosecute and therefore did not believe that the International Criminal Court ought to take jurisdiction. Would the

991
United Kingdom Government deploy their own counsel at the admissibility hearing to pursue what they considered to be the national interest in that case?
Clause 5(6) states that if it appears to the competent court that in the process of the issuing of the warrant and of arrest a person's rights have not been respected, the court—the United Kingdom court—shall notify the Secretary of State of that fact and the Secretary of State shall transmit the notification to the International Criminal Court. What is the use of that to the individual involved? The rights here are not rights which are set out by the International Criminal Court; they are rights set out in our own law underpinned now by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. What is the point of protecting something if there are no adverse consequences for the state if it does not protect it? In other words, what is the point of setting out this protection in the Bill if an individual can seek no remedy in his own courts when the rights granted under the Bill are not respected?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I apologise for interrupting the list of interrogatories that lie is administering to the luckless Attorney-General. I want to encourage the noble Lord to go further. Does he agree that Article 59(2) of the ICC Statute plainly contemplates that a person arrested is to be brought before the competent judicial authority in the custodial state, which shall determine in accordance with the law of that state, among other things, whether the person's rights have been respected? Is it not therefore rather strange that, instead of the Bill providing for the determination by the UK court by judicial review as to whether rights have been respected under UK law, all that can be done is for the Secretary of State to pass on something which the UK court has itself mentioned? Does that accord with Article 59.2?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of noble Lords to that part of the Rome Statute. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made the same point in a different context when he drew attention to the right of review covered later. I respectfully submit that he was quite right to say that it is a pity that the Bill allows only for a habeus corpus remedy when a judicial review remedy would be much more appropriate.
Underpinning these questions—they were more harshly described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as interrogatories, although I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General does not perceive them as such—is my fear that the model taken for Clause 5 is not the model that should naturally flow from the principle of complementarity, so ably outlined by the noble Baroness the Minister, but a model which seeks to reflect a practice which has grown up over the past few years as a result of the jurisprudence of the ad hoc courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
992
This has been a splendid debate. All noble Lords will have been greatly moved by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Although some criticisms have been made of the outstanding speech of my noble friend Lord Howell, we remain to hear—I am sure that the response will be delivered in Committee—the reasons why the noble Baroness is so confident that the procedures set out in the Rome Statute accord with those set out for our citizens in the European Convention on Human Rights.
7.52 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe that we all recognise that this evening we are starting to make history. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell deserves our full-hearted gratitude and I particularly wanted to acknowledge the extremely generous tribute made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to my noble and learned friend. This is not the first time that my noble and learned friend has undertaken such noble work. Let us never forget that it was he who moved the amendment to the Human Rights Bill which did away for ever with that grotesque blot on our jurisprudence, capital punishment. I shall not be partisan, but it will be remembered by all noble Lords that no vote was registered against his amendment. Voices were raised, but no one voted.
This is an extraordinary time. I think that it is right to say that full credit ought to be given to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He has been quite indefatigable in pursuing this purpose. It is not a purpose that is likely to secure enormous electoral support, in that many people would not put their mind to this topic while casting their vote.
Perhaps I may mention two points by way of background. Last week I spend two days in Holland, one at Camp Zeist to attend the closing stages of the Lockerbie trial. The following day I attended the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia on the very day that Madam Playsic attended to be indicted. If we had held these exchanges 10 years ago and I had recited that short history, noble Lords would have thought that I had—temporarily, I would hope—taken leave of my senses.
In 1999, I was in Cambodia, talking to a Minister of justice who endured strains and pressures that none of us can possibly imagine. I discussed with him, reasonably and carefully, the prospect of establishing a tribunal to bring to account those who had committed dreadful and unimaginable crimes under the former regime. There was some difficulty. However, now the United Nations and the Cambodian Government have agreed on the creation of a special court involving both Cambodian and international judges and lawyers. On 2nd January, the parliament of Cambodia unanimously approved the law to establish a special court. So when we are asked to pass this Bill, perhaps we should undertake the task in the context of other, nobler acts to which our colleagues in other jurisdictions have put their hands.

993
Perhaps I may recite to noble Lords only some of the countries—I have picked them almost at random, though perhaps not wholly—who have signed the statute. As my noble friend the Minister pointed out, 139 have already signed. These include Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Haiti, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Zimbabwe and—I know that this recent signatory will please my noble friend Lady Kennedy—Iran. Not all of those names, which I have chosen at random, would have been immediate candidates for your Lordships' thoughts as regards who might be among the early signatories to this important statute. As my noble friend has mentioned, 27 countries have already ratified the statute. It is our purpose and determined desire to be among the first 60 countries.
This will be a transformation in the jurisprudence of mankind. I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friends Lord Shore, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Cocks, that this is not simply to bring about punishment, because one of the true and moral purposes of law is to prevent criminality. This is not, to use the jargon, a "signal". This is a weapon. If those who wish to commit gross crimes require any warning, it is to be found here.
A number of questions were put. They were not, I think, interrogatories, which would require me to respond on oath. If I get anything wrong, I hope that most noble Lords will forgive me. I respected and appreciated the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. The caution and prudence he demonstrated and the questions he put were legitimate. Not all states will sign with equal good faith. Furthermore, not all will ratify with anything other than reluctance. To many of us, that would imply that perhaps the statute and our Bill are quite useful steps forward.
The noble Lord also asked whether this would affect only the weak and the defeated. I think not. When Madam Plavsic surrendered herself to an international court, that suggests that this does not cover only the weak and the defeated. Will it be simply cosmetic? I believe not. One does not wish to be overly dramatic, but if there were still chancellories around the world, I think that some groaning might possibly be heard. Will it catch only the big fish? The growing and developing experience of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia is demonstrating the contrary. I do not wish to prejudice any future arrests or trials, but one can see—I put this quite neutrally—that up the scale of responsibility, more and more people are in fear, probably legitimate fear, that they may well have to answer to a lawful tribunal for their alleged crimes.
However, the noble Lord is right to say that the United States has reservations. We shall have to wait and see. Neither my noble friend the Minister nor I know more than that President Clinton signed the treaty on 31st December last year. We understand
994
perfectly well that some of his congressional colleagues—as they will continue to be when he has passed from his presidential stage—have serious doubts. I echo what a number of my noble friends have said: this is not a perfect Bill. It is not a perfect statute, but it is infinitely better than doing nothing at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked a number of questions. One of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland said, related to the question of appeal by way of judicial review in so far as it was in harmony or disharmonious with the question of judicial review. I shall be writing to the noble Lord on that question. I shall copy my reply to other noble Lords who have shown an interest and I shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
There is no doubt that it is an important question. It raises the general issue of the relationship between judicial review and habeas corpus, a matter on which the noble Lord has touched before in correspondence. He will know that the general issue is being considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department at the moment. There has been the Bowman review of the Crown Office List and it may be—I genuinely do not know—that some advantage may come from those questions. I simply do not know. When I have further information, even if it is disappointing—I do not know whether it will be—I shall communicate it to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, also raised the question of scrutiny, in this context and more generally. We are open—I say this quite deliberately—to considering ways of contributing to the efficient parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. I have to say—not simply because I am standing in this House—that this House does extremely well in carrying out that work. We made that point quite clearly in evidence to the Royal Commission inquiry into the reform of this House. Essentially, of course, it will be a question for each relevant House but, as far as we are concerned, we think that there is substantial virtue in the proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised questions about immunities. The Rome Statute provides that immunity shall not be a bar to prosecution before the ICC. States which have signed and ratified will have agreed to that provision and therefore diplomatic and state immunity cannot shield representatives—but I take his point—of states parties. The same is not true of non-states parties, a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. We are required by virtue of international law obligations to give diplomatic and state immunities unless the state concerned has agreed to waive them. We hope that as many countries as possible will become states parties. If they do not, we are in the position that has already been accurately described.
Clause 23 was the subject of particular inquiry by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. That clause provides that the Secretary of State may direct that arrest and surrender proceedings be not taken against someone enjoying state or diplomatic immunity. However, I remind the House that he can do that only after

995
consulting the ICC and the state concerned. I should say as plainly as I can that the Government's clear policy is generally that all those indicted by the ICC should be brought to trial. The provision in Clause 23 is simply a prudent measure against a possibly uncertain future.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for which my noble friend the Minister and I were extremely grateful. It is very valuable to have the view of someone who sat judicially in Pinochet's case. I believe that, post-Pinochet, the maps we formerly read have needed to be rolled up. This is, in part, one of the consequences of a changed world, which we are capable of improving.
In the context of the noble and learned Lord's remarks in regard to Senator Pinochet and the question put by my noble friend Lord Shore—I am dividing his questions into two—whether or not Chile had been a state party at the time that Senator Pinochet committed his alleged offences, he would have been triable domestically in Chile unless Chile was unwilling or unable to try him. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, on the basis of complementarity Chile had been unwilling or unable to try him, then the International Criminal Court would have had jurisdiction. I have put that answer carefully, of course, reminding the House—as did my noble friend the Minister earlier—that this is not retrospective. I have therefore put the conditions around that answer in that way.
I was grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am happy to be able to say that, as a fairly late signatory, Iran has now included itself.
I particularly welcome the strong support for the concept, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan described it. I simply do not know what the consequences of the protection Bill in the United States will be. I understand that there are strong, powerfully held views in the United States about the proposition that United States nationals should not be tried elsewhere. That is a political judgment for our friends in the United States to make. I echo, if I may, what my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe said: we should not be too eager to castigate the United States. In many ways it is an open, generous-hearted, fine country. Not that we agree with it on everything, but at least we can disagree, I hope, in an agreeable and decent way.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, then invited my particular response to the question of Article 8, an issue touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. I remember of course that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, also raised these questions. On pages 62 and 63 of the Bill, Article 8 contains descriptions of war crimes. They are purely descriptive of what international law presently regards as offences. We are bound by the Geneva conventions and the protocols we have signed. What one finds here have already been described and assented to by this country as being war crimes.
They are not as bald nor as brutal as they seem. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was quite right to point, for instance, to Article 8(2)(b)(iv). One has the
996
proportionality or the excessive argument put there. One has the necessity to prove intent. If one goes to the protocols—which I shall not because I do not have time to do so—there are many installations, devices, buildings and objects which are capable of military use and also capable of civilian benefit, such as electricity generators. One has to approach these matters proportionately, rationally and reasonably.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for turning his mind to this rather difficult problem. Certainly one wishes to ban war crimes but, within the memories of all of us, specifically listed are actions which were undertaken by the whole NATO alliance in defiance of what is now written into Article 8(2). It is a very serious contradiction. The fact that the Americans, for example, may be rather reluctant to ratify the convention as it is at present may be well understood. But also, surely, we agreed. We took part. We bombed civilians, we bombed the bridges and we bombed electricity plants. We did all that, not because we are aggressors and ferocious people but because it was a necessary part of liberating, as we saw it, the people of Kosovo from the oppression of Serbia. There must be some way in which this different motivation and approach can be recognised in the treaty or in the Bill. We must find a solution.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with what my noble friend has said. We did not act unlawfully in Kosovo. We acted on perfectly legitimate international grounds. We did not deliberately bomb civilians. It is not illegitimate in international law to bomb bridges if they are used for military purpose—and plainly they can be. It is not illegitimate to bomb railways if they are used for military purpose.
I return to the cautionary note sounded by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith about Article 8(2)(b)(iv) on page 63 of the Bill, referring to,
"Intentionally"—
I stress that word—
"launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians … which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated".
That is a well-known and well-understood concept in international law.
I repudiate as firmly as I can that the British Government or our Armed Forces were acting unlawfully in Kosovo in terms of international law. I do not believe it to be correct. The Government have taken the most careful advice about the legality of such actions and the Armed Forces have similarly taken their own advice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I merely seek information in view of the previous exchange. I am not returning to the matter of Kosovo but deal merely with a point of construction as to the words used. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that they originate from the 1957 Geneva Convention and that, therefore, they

997
are part of international law and we must accept them today in our modern concept of war? Is that the position?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is what I am saying, except that I include for completeness the 1949 convention, which is set out at page 62 of the Bill under the first definition of "war crimes". The noble Lord is right. The world has changed. We have international obligations. It is useful, if I may say so as respectfully and gently as I may, occasionally to remind ourselves of what they are. In the context of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, which fits in here, in his example the protection is that given to those who are protected by the Geneva Convention: in other words, protection for those who are specified—as, for instance, civilians—by virtue of their having particular protection under the Geneva Convention.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. I shall be brief. To make it absolutely clear, I do not for a moment consider that our actions justify the charge against us of committing war crimes. But how do we defend ourselves from accusations by those who are not friendly to us that we have committed war crimes, given the range of actions that we are obliged to take for military purposes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we do so without the slightest difficulty; indeed I should be happy to do so if called upon, as I may be. The fact is that we studied carefully the ambit of our international legal obligations. The fact is that we have the right in international law to prevent overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. I assert that on behalf of the Government. I would put it forward to any court that 700,000 or 800,000 people being driven from their homes, in the greatest act of mass forced deportation since the end of the last war, is an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe requiring action. It is true that some civilians were killed. Did we set about the deliberate murder of civilians? No, we did not. Did we sometimes make errors? Yes, we did—but those errors were made in a nobler cause and I believe that history will applaud us.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Am I right in thinking that Justice Richard Goldstone's independent commission appointed by the United Nations to look into the matter concluded that there was a technical problem about the absence of authorisation by the Security Council under the charter, but that so far as the merits were concerned what had happened in Kosovo was entirely justifiable and that there might be a need to amend the UN charter in that respect; but that so far as any other matter was concerned, what had been done was in accordance with international law? That is my recollection; I wonder whether I am right.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do recollect fully the text of what Judge Goldstone said. However, I am content in my view that we were lawfully justified in what we did—bearing in mind that if one carries out such activity mistakes will sometimes happen. No one regrets those mistakes more than I. But, qualitatively and legally, it is wholly different to make a genuine error—bombing, firing and shelling from a distance is utterly different from the wilful, monstrous ethnic cleansing that was carried out on defenceless people. To deviate for a moment from the purpose of the Bill, we had no selfish interest there: we had no investments, oil wells or installations to protect. We behaved properly, decently and lawfully.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I admire the robust way in which the noble and learned Lord defends the right and lawful actions of this nation in our involvement in Kosovo. I agree with him 100 per cent. But is that the point? Is not the question whether other state parties who may take a different view hold us in the same admiration for what we did? Might they not interpret what we did in the name of liberty and right as aggressive and damaging to their interests and their national viewpoint?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that may well be so—and where parties disagree, even for ignoble motives, the courts then decide. I should be happy to argue the case in any domestic court; Britain will be a state party and we should be willing and able to examine such allegations. I should also have no difficulty in arguing the point in an international court. It is not simply a matter of presentation but of whether what was done was right. I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Did we do the right thing? Did we behave lawfully? I believe that those two short questions offer their own internal reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, asked a number of specific questions about legal representation. He is right to make those inquiries. The statute makes provision for legal aid to be provided to suspects being prosecuted if they do not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance. That is one of the rights recognised specifically in Articles 55 and 67 of the statute. As it is in the statute, and as the Bill gives effect to the statute, no specific reference to legal aid is necessary.
The noble Lord asked detailed questions about ratification. Sixty signatures will be needed before the court can be established. The NGO coalition for the International Criminal Court, to which I readily pay tribute, has set July 2002 as its goal. Eight of the European Union countries have ratified; the other six are in the process of doing so. In terms of signatures, four of the permanent five members of the Security Council have signed; all members of NATO apart from Turkey have signed and, as I said, all of the European Union nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, asked about the definition of "aggression". That has not been arrived at. Rather than spend further years attempting to produce an agreed definition, we decided to proceed

999
at this stage. If there is agreement about the definition of "aggression" as a crime in international law, it can become a crime only by virtue of this statute when the statute itself is amended, which cannot happen for seven years.
The noble Lord also asked about the report. I can tell him that it was placed in the Library of the House on Friday 12th January. I am sorry if a copy of it was not readily available for him. As to the question of expert witnesses, we have not, in practice, found any difficulty in getting many expert witnesses to attend the Yugoslav tribunal or the Rwandan tribunal. Therefore, we have not considered that the power would be required.
I was grateful for the support expressed by the noble Viscount. Lord Waverley. I believe that I have dealt with the specific questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway because, in a sense, they intermingled with topics to which I have already responded.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer asked about universal jurisdiction, as did other speakers. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith was quite right to say that we have universal jurisdiction elsewhere in our domestic jurisprudence. However, we have had that in the past when it was part and parcel of an international agreement. So noble Lords are quite right: we have jurisdiction over torture because it is part of the convention against torture. Similarly, we have universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions because that is an obligation of such conventions.
As I believe all your Lordships know, there were very lengthy negotiations leading up to the Rome Statute but they did not deal with universal jurisdiction. The statute does not require universal jurisdiction; that is why it is absent from the Bill. I give way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is such an important matter that I feel it worth taxing the patience of the House for a few moments in order to follow up the question. First, was the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, right to say that other signatory states in their implementing legislation—notably, New Zealand and Canada—are taking universal jurisdiction? Secondly, if we do not do the same, will there not be a problem of a hole in the middle; that is to say, that there will be some rare cases where neither the United Kingdom courts nor the ICC will have jurisdiction over offences that ought to be dealt with by one court or the other?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the first question, but I shall undertake some research in that respect. My noble friend simply mentioned that in his speech and I do not have such information with me. It is not clear to me whether those domestic statutes have actually been passed. As regards the noble Lord's second question, I do not believe that there will be a hole in the jurisdiction. Obviously, bearing in mind the questions put by the
1000
noble Lord, Lord Lester, and those raised by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, I shall want to look into the matter.
On behalf of my noble friend the Minister and myself I ought to have pointed out that any amendment that is put forward that is consonant with what we wish to bring about—in other words, that is consistent with the spirit of the Bill—we shall consider most carefully. Moreover, as both of us had agreed on this, I should have said earlier that, if there is any meeting that is usefully to be called, we should be more than happy to attend it in an effort at least to talk through these issues. I recognise, with a single exception, that all noble Lords have given the spirit of the Bill the most generous welcome. The exception is the noble Lord, Lord Monson—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend proceeds, I must raise a further point. I apologise for being tiresome, but it is most unusual to catch him out in a non sequitur. I believe that he said a few moments ago that the statute does not require universal jurisdiction and that is why it is not in the Bill. However, does my noble and learned friend agree that that is not conclusive and that the Government will not regard that as a conclusive argument?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was not a non sequitur because my noble and learned friend forgot the first step; namely, as I correctly described it, the fact that the negotiations did not produce a consensus on universal jurisdiction. It is absent from the statute and, therefore, it is not to be found in the Bill, which is putting the statute into effect. That is not a non sequitur. It is a perfect sequitur, if that is the opposite.
I return to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He gave us a useful reminder of man's hypocrisy and endless capacity for self-deception. I agree with him. However, the fact that some powerful members of state organisations have committed what I believe I can fairly call "state crime" should not disable us from doing the best that we can, with limited opportunities, to bring about improvement in an area where lawlessness rules. I cannot dispute the noble Lord's historical references, but I would not draw gloom from them: I would draw from them the prospect of improvement.
I have dealt with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and also the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. I was very happy to have the commendation—vicariously, I have to say—for the parliamentary draftsmen and the Bill team from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He had the decency to smile at me because he has constantly urged me to do this in the past. Although I should not really be saying this, the truth is that we knew many months ago that the Second Reading of this Bill would be dealt with today—which happens to be the 90th birthday of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It was intended as a gift-wrapped birthday present for him because I know that he shares the same views as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.

1001
I believe that I have covered the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cocks, with which I fundamentally agree. It is very important that the quality of the judiciary be high. Judging from my experience of Monsieur Jorda, the president in the Hague of the Yugoslav tribunal and in particular, if I may say so, of the British judge, His Honour Richard May, my opinion of them in that respect could not be higher.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and his questions. He invited me to contemplate circumstances in which I believe he said that this Government would be unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute those who pass through these shores. That is entirely my point: this is not a Bill for this Government. It is a Bill for the next 25 to 30 years. It is possible, even if unlikely, that a different government might take a different view on these matters. However, one has to allow even for catastrophe in Bills put before the House of Lords. There could well be occasions where, domestically, a government might legitimately not want to prosecute on the basis that it was more appropriate, say, for their non-nationals to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. It might be logistically better; indeed, it might be better for all sorts of reasons if the opportunity—in other words, the option—is there contained.
I have done my best to answer the questions that have been put with great courtesy and tact. My noble friend the Minister and I are both extremely grateful for that. The only regret that we have is that there was such a sparse attendance in the Chamber tonight for a measure that really matters for the future of this country and for the future of international legality. But, then, perhaps it is not enormously popular.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gulf War Illnesses
8.27 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further consideration they are giving to the needs of Gulf War veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and of the dependants of those who have died.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate, I warmly congratulate my noble friend the Minister on joining the Privy Council and welcome her aboard. Nothing in my parliamentary life has given me me greater joy than being made a privy counsellor 23 years ago.
As Clement Attlee said:
"The way a nation treats its citizens in greatest need is ultimately more revealing of its moral worth than all the oratory of its leaders".
1002
By that and the no less-defining test of how a nation meets the compelling duty to act justly to those prepared to lay down their lives in its service—and the dependants of those who do so—the people this debate is about deserve well of your Lordships' House.
My principal concern, on the eve of the 10th anniversary tomorrow of the outbreak of fighting in the Gulf War, is for the service men and women who sacrificed their health and well-being in the conflict and for the dependants of those who sacrificed their lives.
Many veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses—scores of them terminally ill—now rank among the most needful of our fellow citizens. They include people known to me from my work, over many years, as Honorary Parliamentary Adviser to The Royal British Legion, and as a founder member in 1994 of its Gulf War Group of parliamentarians, medical and legal specialists, veterans of the conflict and ex-service charity leaders. Other members of the group, ably chaired by Colonel Terry English of The Royal British Legion, have included the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, Michael Mates MP and Paul Tyler MP; and Flight Lieutenant John Nichol among others from the veterans' associations.
Medically A1 when they went to the Gulf, more and more of those who fought there were in broken health soon after coming home. Of the 452 who have since died, 83 took their own lives. One of the veterans now seriously ill and known to me personally, Major Ian Hill, wrote on 15th December to the Prime Minister recalling a pledge he was given as Chairman of the Gulf Veterans' and Families' Association that:
"No stone will be left unturned to alleviate the physical, mental and social suffering of Gulf veterans".
Major Hill's medical condition is now described as one of "total burn out" and his future as,
"a slow and agonising death sentence".
He recently became registered blind and his wife, on whose care he relies day and night, is also severely disabled with "a crumbling spine". They have to cope in inappropriate housing.
Thinking about this debate earlier this month, I intended to refer to the case of Major Hilary Jones, ex-Queen Alexandra Royal Army Nursing Corps, as the most distressing of any of which I was aware. Living alone and terminally ill, she was denied a 100 per cent war pension. Hilary was recently described to me as,
"trying desperately to get her affairs in order while she can still attempt to do so."
Very sadly, I heard last week that she had died. In deep anguish a friend, going to her funeral last Friday, said that she will be,
"just another statistic before anything is done".
None of us here wants Gulf veterans in broken health to suffer the gratuitously added strain and demeaning indignities of long delays in settling their rightful claims. There was no delay, 10 years ago, in their response to the call of duty. And there can be no excuse now for failure to meet in full our debt of honour to them.

1003
This 10th anniversary is a timely moment to reflect that the Gulf conflict was on a scale bigger than any British troops had been involved in since the Korean War. It was also the first in which chemical and biological weapons were deployed against British troops since 1918; and they seemed certain to be used. The stark effects of Saddam Hussein's use of these weapons against Iranian civilians had been widely televised only months before. Both US and British commanders expected their use to involve a high level of fatalities, the Pentagon as many as 150,000.
MoD correctly appreciated the threat, but not all the health risks of the protective measures taken. These comprised an immunisation programme of unprecedented range and intensity—a veritable blitzkrieg of the immune system—that included protection against anthrax; the first ever issue of Pyridostigmine Bromide (PB) as antidote to biological agents; and the deployment both of toxic sensors and pesticides, including organophosphates, to prevent fly-borne diseases.
Veterans say many of their illnesses were caused by the immunisation programme; inappropriate use of PB tablets; the effects of toxic substances; pesticides such as organophosphates; the heavy deployment of depleted uranium; massive oil pollution from burning the oil wells; and the normal stress of war, made worse in the Gulf by the imminent threat of chemical and biological weapons.
Military training in preparation for the conflict is not questioned, but veterans blame flaws in administrative back-up for many of their problems. They include poor documentation in recording treatments of and the protection given to the individuals deployed; inadequate training and instructions for using antidotes for biological exposure, not least NAPS tablets; failure to record the nature of toxic substances; and poor debriefing and rehabilitation, more particularly for reservists, after the conflict.
Within weeks of the conflict ending, US and UK veterans began reporting illnesses. An early trickle soon became a stream. Here it now exceeds 5,000; in the United States it has risen to 110,000. The number of war pension claims here is over 4,000.
The initial MoD reaction to claimants was to say it was "open-minded" about them; but veterans say they were treated with disbelief and even cynicism. The department was slow to set up the Medical Assessment Programme (MAP), which became a fully established unit only in 1994; and there were constant official denials of any specifically "Gulf War" health problems. The use of organophosphates was denied as was the exposure of British troops to fall-out from US bombing of an Iraqi arms dump in Khamisyah where chemical weapons were stored. This latter denial was made by Ministers in Answers to Parliamentary Questions I tabled in another place, to assist the Royal British Legion's Gulf War group.
It was this group that led to veterans' cases first being put direct to all Members of Parliament. Its effect—strengthened by pressure from the Defence
1004
Select Committee—brought admissions that there were specifically "Gulf War" health problems to address. MAP was placed on a full-time footing and epidemiological studies were initiated.
The UK's most significant study, however, has been that funded by the US Presidential Committee and led by Professor Simon Wessley of King's College, London. He compared the health of veterans deployed in the conflict with control groups deployed to Bosnia or who stayed at home. The study reported in 1999 that Gulf veterans had a higher incidence of ill-health. The study is ongoing and has significant credibility both in the UK and the US.
A similar study funded by the Ministry of Defence and conducted by Professor Nicola Cherry of Manchester University is believed to have reached similar conclusions to the Wessley study.
My Lords, veterans and their families strongly resent the implication of being told to accept that, where mistakes were made, they were not deliberate. They know as well as anyone in Whitehall that decisions about protective measures often have to be made on a "needs must" basis. But they will never accept that the victims of mistaken decisions alone should be left to cope with their consequences. They rightly insist that the nation, not the individual, should meet the cost of such decisions.
Moreover, claims that extra-statutory compensation is not paid by the state unless negligence is proven are simply not true. What about the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme and the Macfarlane Fund for people infected with HIV by contaminated NHS blood products? Again, what about the decision in 1974, by the then Minister for War Pensions, to treat as war-attributable the death of anyone who, having served in a theatre of war where gas was used, died of a cardiothoracic illness? I speak as the Minister who took that decision 27 years ago.
As the cases of Major Ian Hill and other needful UK veterans demonstrate, care for them needs urgently to be improved. When veterans have been assessed by MAP, continuing care is provided by the NHS. That care is patchy, occasionally unsatisfactory and hampered by poor medical records for the Gulf War period; cynicism about Gulf War illnesses among some GPs and inadequate knowledge of symptoms; lack of any priority for hospital treatment, made worse by the closure of service hospitals; and lack of any continuous health monitoring of Gulf veterans by the MoD.
I return briefly to depleted uranium. The mass media across the world headlined day by day over recent weeks Britain's growing isolation as the list of countries screening for adverse health effects from its use rapidly grew. Then came John Spellar's announcement last Monday of what The Times headlined as
"Downing Street's retreat on depleted uranium risk."

1005
The paper reported a "morning of confusion" at the MoD. The Defence Secretary, it said, intended to make a statement two days later but pressure from No 10 required an announcement forthwith:
"Downing Street intervened"
said The Times,
"after Tony Blair's advisers cautioned that the Government could not wait another 48 hours".
DU shells were heavily deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo; but so were they in the Gulf. Yet Gulf veterans appeared to be excluded from screening by last Monday's announcement. It will be widely seen as incomprehensible and deplorable if they are in fact excluded and I hope that my noble friend can make it plain now that this will not happen. If it does, feeling among Gulf veterans will be further inflamed. But even today they are already saying that:
"the MoD's vacillation is reminiscent of such denials as the use of organophosphates".
It was strong feeling among veterans that led The Royal British Legion's annual conference in 1998 unanimously to call on the Prime Minister for a public inquiry into the handling of Gulf War illnesses. Over 16 months went by before a response came from the MoD in which John Spellar rejected an inquiry. Yet it had been emphasised to the Prime Minister that the Legion wanted the inquiry to go wider than the responsibilities of the MoD or of any other single department.
The rejection was deeply unfortunate. For ultimately there will have to be an independent and wide-ranging inquiry, not only in fairness to those afflicted but to restore public confidence and demonstrate that our Armed Forces will be fully protected in future deployments. In my view, any further delay can only postpone, not frustrate, the securing of an inquiry.
Too many families are bereaved for an inquiry to be indefinitely delayed. They crave the truth about their bereavement too strongly to allow any even possibly revealing stone to remain unturned. And public support for them is too strong for anyone to stop right being done.
The inquiry will help to end speculation, establish facts and answer questions by parliamentarians that have long gone unanswered. Most of all veterans and their dependants will be assured that they are not being treated as "yesterday's people".
My Lords, that should not be too much to ask on this 10th anniversary for those who served our country with such distinction and gallantry in the Gulf War.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, other noble Lords speaking in this debate know far more than I do about the long and complex saga of the Gulf War veterans and the illnesses to which they have been subject. There has been extensive publicity in the past week about the reported existence of an MoD report of March 1997 warning that soldiers who recovered or worked upon destroyed tanks,
1006
"should be warned that inhalation of uranium dust carries a longterm risk to health. They should be counselled appropriately. They should wear protective clothing if working on such vehicles in the Gulf".
The MoD confirmed that a signal was sent but publicly acknowledged that it did not reach the appropriate people. It has also been reported that a US report of 1992 reached similar conclusions on the potential threat to health from depleted uranium.
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement made by the Minister in another place that,
"DU ammunition has represented a battle-winning military capability and that therefore it will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because when this country commits our forces to conflict, we fight to win. Our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that. To deny them a legitimate capability would be quite wrong".
We do indeed have to remember that if we send our troops into war we must give them the best available weapons.
However, Mr Spellar said in the same statement that,
"alternative methods are not as effective".
I find that difficult to square with reports that the Americans, recognising the dangerous nature of the depleted uranium, are replacing it with tungsten, and that the Royal Navy, which has bought these weapons from the Americans, is therefore phasing out its own Phalanx weapon. I hope that there will be no delay in replacing them also with the tungsten variant, since this does seem an acceptable alternative, and that this will not be at the expense of some other equally vital defence expenditure. The Treasury must meet any increase in the bill to equip our Navy safely as well as effectively in the light of this new development.
But while we have an undoubted duty to equip our forces with what they need to be an effective fighting force, we have an equally paramount duty to protect them from any danger which need not be incurred. If healthy men and women are ready to go into battle, we must be equally ready to equip them to take proper precautions against threats to their health which could arise from that service. If we fail to do that, and more and more evidence is emerging to suggest that there have been failures in that regard, we must do everything possible—and I do not make this as a party point, since all governments since the Gulf War have failed in their duty to the forces in this matter—to rectify the damage to human lives which has arisen not from enemy action but from our own obstinate refusal to concede that there is danger. We must recognise fully that the Gulf War veterans, like the former PoWs in Japanese hands whose rights have at long last been recognised to some degree, went to war for us hale and healthy men and returned sick men.
I honour this Government for recognising that the issue of the Gulf War veterans' illnesses should be dealt with openly and sympathetically. I quote the Minister's words in a recent Gulf War newsletter. But openness is just what there has not been. I also

1007
welcomed the setting up of the MoD's Gulf War Veterans Illnesses Unit when it was created by the previous government in February 1997 as a result of long, patient and unremitting pressure from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, above all others. But more and more men have been dying in this group in the 10 years since the Gulf War, some, as we have been told most movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, by their own hand, and it is simply not good enough for the MoD to continue to await the outcome of a long series of academic and other research projects to determine whether or not there is such a thing as a Gulf War syndrome and to refuse to take any real action unless and until they have the results of the research. That will take years. Meanwhile both the men and their desperately unhappy families are left without help.
What is the point of a Gulf War unit if the MoD and the pensions agency can continue to offer such contradictory advice to men and their dependants who are sick and in need? There has been total confusion, for instance, over the advice received by the former TA Reservists who served in the Gulf on the operation of the attributable benefits reservists scheme. Why were they told in writing before they went to the Gulf that they would be treated on exactly the same footing as regular soldiers only to learn later that this written statement had no legal standing? The Government, in their reply to the Defence Committee's report on 11th May 2000, said—and I quote this from the Gulf Update—that,
"The government believes that the current financial provisions are the most appropriate way of compensating Gulf War veterans—they are able to apply for attributable benefits for reservists".
How, in this joined-up government, was it possible, therefore, for the claimants to be told the week before Christmas—very nice timing—that they had no entitlement to this benefit? I wonder how many forms they completed and over what period before they heard that constructive reply to their problems? What does the MoD intend to do to ensure that hopes are not raised and then dashed by hopelessly contradictory advice?
I believe that I first spoke in support of the efforts of my noble friend Lady Mar, and later in support of the noble Lord whom I shall also claim as a friend, Lord Morris of Manchester, and not least in support of the men themselves six or seven years ago. It beggars belief that we and the country can cheerfully send healthy men to war and then spend years denying in effect responsibility for the state in which they return, fobbing them off with endless research, especially when it now seems that an American report gave support to their case, that in 1997 there was a medical report from our own MoD and, to judge from The Times today, there were warnings long before from the Atomic Energy Authority.
We must not treat this issue as a party political football. If we take the defence of the realm seriously, as I am sure we all do, we must surely recognise that no amount of excellent weaponry can replace the will of our men and women to put their lives at risk for the
1008
country's sake. I do not believe, however, that that will long continue if they and their families see what happens to those who come back as sick men. In reply to a Written Question in May 1998, I received from the War Pensions Agency a letter which, having stated that so far extensive international research had failed to identify a specific Gulf War syndrome, went on to say that,
"it is however acknowledged that illness has occurred in relation to Gulf service".
That is the nub of the matter. A significant number of claimants went out as healthy men and returned as sick men. They deserve better than the treatment they have so far received. I know that the Minister and, I have little doubt, her colleagues too care about this issue, but the question is what is going to be done now—not next year, or the year after, or when we have the results of further research. A great deal of money is being found for many worthy objectives just now, and I do not grudge money for education, the NHS or, certainly, pensioners. But I do suggest that there must be money, too, for this relatively small group of people who have deserved so much from us. This is a question of human dignity as much as anything.
8.49 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Gulf Veterans' Association. Once again I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for returning to this topic. As he said, we are now approaching the 10th anniversary of the beginning of what was known as the air war in what must be the environmentally dirtiest war ever fought.
As noble Lords know well, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I, together with some other Members of your Lordships' House and those in another place, have been asking questions about the many factors which may have contributed to the ill health reported by Gulf War veterans for at least six years. Many ofthe responses I have received in that period have been at least unhelpful and have often been misleading. Whether or not this has been deliberate I leave for others to judge. It matters not which party is in government, the answers are similar and ministerial pronouncements, while they may be couched in slightly different language, all mean the same thing.
The question of the effects of depleted uranium munitions will, naturally, be today in the forefront of our minds. In last night's news, the Secretary of State for Defence was repeating the MoD mantra that,
"there is no scientific evidence that DU causes ill health".
He said that if there is a problem, it is a very minor one and that the risks to our troops are outweighed by the protection that the use of DU gives against enemy tanks. He and his colleagues have also said that the possible damaging effects on health from exposure to DU have been known for anything from 10 to 40 years. Which is it? Is DU safe or not?
Perhaps most important in this context is the ministerial statement to the effect that our troops have always been aware of the dangers and have taken the

1009
necessary precautions. That "always" seems to imply that British troops serving in the Gulf were advised of the dangers and that if they are found to have DU in their systems, it is their fault. Where have I heard that before? It is a disingenuous statement. There is a surfeit of evidence to show that British troops in the Gulf were not made aware of the risks. I have been told of coach parties organised for our troops to view the remnants of Iraqi tanks when hostilities ceased. I have photographs of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in T-shirts and shorts clambering over tanks that had clearly been disabled by DU weapons. It is known that the radioactive constituent of DU can be found in dust. The inference that our troops were not exposed to any dust under desert conditions with hundreds of military vehicles passing through contaminated areas is nothing less than idiotic.
I understand that today the MoD has offered to examine any Gulf veteran who has symptoms of DU poisoning. The veterans do not know what those symptoms are, unless they involve overt cancers. Will the Minister arrange for the two veterans' organisations to be informed of the symptoms so that they can tell their members?
In the desire to find a universal illness with a universal solution, there would appear to be a measure of acceptance of post traumatic stress disorder as a diagnosis for the ills of the Gulf veterans. That is not corroborated by the epidemiological study conducted by researchers from King's College Hospital. Ministerial statements invite me to repeat Toyber's dictum:
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
If you do not look, you will not find, and, lo and behold, there is no problem. The Government have singularly failed to conduct new clinical research. Epidemiological studies and literature reviews are not new science.
In fact, there is not an absence of evidence. Many medical researchers—some in the UK, but most in the USA—practising in a number of different fields have demonstrated organic causes for the illnesses of Gulf veterans whom they have examined. Those researchers do not have access to government funding and, of necessity, their sample populations must be small. Instead of stimulating scientific curiosity and encouraging those who hold government purse strings to sanction further research, the findings of those individual researchers are trivialised and attempts are made to discredit the men and women doing the work.
I have thought long and hard about why that is. One difficulty arises from the apparent variety of signs and symptoms that the veterans present. Conventional medicine is currently divided into specialities. That means that patients are examined by a number of different consultants and are treated symptomatically. I am told that it is rare for a full history to be obtained from a patient. There seems to be an extraordinary absence of natural curiosity from clinicians about causation. As a result, not all the information is gathered. If any solution is to be found to the ills that
1010
the Gulf veterans are suffering, there is a need to look at patients as a single body and mind, not as a series of fragmented parts, and to look at all the various medications and toxins to which they were exposed. I understand that in their training, doctors are told to listen to the patient and the patient will tell them the diagnosis. They have obviously not done so in this case.
Only yesterday it was revealed that US Government-funded research had found that pesticides used in the Gulf were not the cause of illness among Gulf veterans. Tell us something new. In the past, individual vaccines and NAPS tablets have been singled out and given a clean bill of health. That is not the way to tackle the problems faced by the Gulf veterans. I have always contended that there is not a Gulf War syndrome. That was an invention of the press. There are Gulf War illnesses. It has always been clear that there are variations in the reported symptoms, although there are underlying symptoms that are common to many illnesses. Not all the veterans had the same vaccination programme. There were significant variations in the frequency with which they took their NAPS tablets. Some were billeted in the desert, where their camps and equipment were sprayed frequently with an assortment of pesticides. Others were lodged in permanent housing that did not need the sprays. Some were exposed to fumes from oil well fires and others crawled on tanks that had been struck by DU munitions. In addition, they had to adjust to changes in their physical environment and diet. They would have been physically and emotionally stressed. The veterans have been exposed to several of those factors, if not all of them.
There is a large body of scientific evidence that demonstrates the interdependence of all the systems and organs of the human body. There is also evidence that some individuals are better able than others to cope with toxic exposure, for a variety of reasons, such as age, gender, nutritional status or genetic make-up. It is too late for more than 500 Gulf War veterans, but it may not be too late for many more who are currently suffering from unpleasant and disabling illnesses. As the noble Lords who have already spoken have said, we must do something about those people.
Since the departure of Group Captain—later Wing Commander—Coker from the medical assessment programme, there has been little trust or credibility placed in those who have run it. The current director, Professor Lee, has apparently said that he sees only the "well sick", that he is there to assess and reassure veterans and that he is not responsible to either the MoD or the Gulf veterans illness unit. Yet he told one of the Gulf veterans last November that he is a medical expert for the MoD and appears for the Ministry in medico-legal cases. Is that true? If so, in how many cases has Professor Lee appeared on behalf of the MoD? Is he to give evidence on behalf of the MoD if any of the Gulf veterans' cases reach the courts? Is it ethical for a medical practitioner who is in charge of such patients to place himself in a position in which it is apparent that his patients' interests are not paramount?

1011
Why has there been so much procrastination? Why have Ministers from successive governments voiced sympathy for the veterans, yet failed to obtain any substantive relief for their ills? With enormous reluctance and a careful study of the many, many answers to my questions, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that those who advise the Government have been aware for some time that the measures that were used to protect our troops in the Gulf were not without significant risks to the health of some of the members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. There is no other explanation.
That stance of denial was adopted in response to the earliest parliamentary questions on the subject and has been steadfastly maintained until, as in the case of organophosphates, the evidence can no longer be resisted. Only a fool never changes his mind. These people have played a cruel and—dare I say it?—immoral game with the lives of men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for the rest of us citizens of their country.
I shall end on a conciliatory note. I thank the Minister for arranging for Gulf War illness unit staff and Professor Lee to visit the hospital that I told her about. I hope that, in the absence of any other apparent effective treatment, proposals for treatment for the veterans at that hospital will be seriously considered.
8.58 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for his Unstarred Question. Given the current media interest in the matter, it is surprising that more noble Lords have not put their names down to speak. The noble Lord posed his Question with his usual skill and vigour, so I shall not repeat all his very valid points. I remind the House that I have a peripheral interest.
I intend to cover two points: testing for depleted uranium and allergies. DU is necessary to defeat the armour of modern enemy armoured fighting vehicles. It is not used for training, as it is unnecessary or undesirable for technical reasons. It is not a mini-nuclear warhead and is only very slightly radioactive. It works solely by means of kinetic energy.
Ministers are adamant that uranium poisoning is not causing the problem. I am inclined to agree with them. Previously, DU testing would be undertaken at MoD expense only if clinically indicated. That was very convenient because generally the symptoms of DU poisoning have not been seen in Gulf War veterans. However, the absence of a medical indication for DU testing does not mean that there is an absence of a DU problem; for example, it may not be acting as a poison but as a catalyst for some undesirable effect. I believe that it should be eliminated as a problem. That could be achieved by a proper programme of testing with suitable controls. That would then insert a sense of reality into the debate about the use of DU ammunition.
Can the Minister confirm whether that is what her honourable friend Mr Spellar announced last week, or will the test merely be available haphazardly when
1012
requested by an ill veteran and without the proper control groups to ensure that meaningful results are obtained? It is hoped that the Minister will be able to enlighten us tonight by answering the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about exactly who will be tested. The Minister nods her head.
Ministers rightly have made much of the epidemiological survey of Gulf veterans. I, too, was relieved to see the results and I am sure that the Minister will draw your Lordships' attention to them tonight. I have a slight anxiety that the survey concentrates on the death rate of veterans, which in some categories is better than that of the control group. However, as Gulf War illness has more to do with disablement than the death rate, is the Minister confident that the medical disability rate is no worse among the veterans than in the control group?
There has been speculation in the media that troops on operations spend much of their time clambering over knocked-out enemy armoured vehicles. So far as concerned Kosovo and despite the claims of the Minister at the time, there were in any case few knocked-out Serb armoured vehicles. But, more importantly, troops would be ordered specifically not to go near a knocked-out vehicle because of the threat from mines and booby traps. That was certainly my experience.
My second point concerns allergies. However, in making the point, I claim no special understanding or knowledge. It is a little unfortunate that, although we have a noble and gallant Lord with us tonight, we have no noble and eminent clinicians. Sadly, we know that the medical records of Operation Granby were poor, to say the least. We know that a veritable cocktail of vaccines and drugs were administered, but it is not known how they would have reacted with each other or in the presence of some other environmental pollutant. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, talked about some of those problems.
However, it seems to me that the symptoms are similar to those which involve allergies arid what is known as "multiple chemical sensitivity". I understand that there are two main types of allergic reaction. The immediate allergic reaction is the best known, although it does not appear to be the type which affects Gulf War veterans. Occasionally, that reaction can be dramatic and life threatening, as in bee and wasp stings and peanut allergy.
The other type is the masked allergic reaction. The symptoms are very similar to the type of chronic health problems that Gulf War veterans are experiencing: unusual and debilitating fatigue, headache, irritability, reduced mental alertness, muscle and joint pain, and respiratory and other problems. Such a variety of chronic symptoms have one possible common link: a damaged immune system. Given the cocktail of vaccines administered, all affecting the immune system, that is a very plausible scenario.
My understanding is that it is possible to unmask those allergies or chemical sensitivities by keeping the patient in a carefully controlled environment for a few days, free from any possible allergens. lf the symptoms

1013
disappear, there is probably an allergy problem. Once the problem has been identified, treatment procedures are available.
The Airedale Allergy Centre has had one ill Gulf War veteran—a staff sergeant who was treated, largely successfully, but privately at his own expense. Some noble Lords will recall the Starred Question in the House about the future of the Airedale Allergy Centre which was experiencing funding difficulties with the NHS. Having listened to the replies from the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I believed that the centre's future was secure. However, apparently it has now been mothballed due to financial problems. I certainly did not recall him questioning the validity of the centre's work. There may be other, similar facilities available elsewhere in the world but they are certainly not common.
When the Minister replies to my suggestion, she may describe it as "interesting". If she does, it will be the first time that I have received that particular accolade.
When she returns to her office in Main Building, no doubt her sensible senior medical advisers will tell her to have nothing to do with any alternative medicine. However, the fact is that we do not know what Gulf War illness is or how to cure it, and we should explore every possibility for a solution.
In conclusion, your Lordships hold the Minister in high regard. Undoubtedly she will feel at least as, if not more, sympathetic to the Gulf War veterans as any other noble Lord. She will agree that it is indeed our duty to leave no stone unturned in the search for a solution. Among other things, we need a proper DU screening programme to eliminate the furore and widespread concern over DU ammunition and we need to check for masked allergies.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I, too, greatly welcome the well informed initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on this matter. One of the troubles that underlies the whole problem is the fact that the phrase "Gulf War syndrome" means different things to different people and evokes quite different emotions depending on their different perceptions.
To those who served in the Gulf campaign and subsequently, for whatever reason, suffered seriously debilitating, sometimes fatal, illness as regards which they and/or their close relatives deserve the greatest sympathy from all sides of your Lordships' House, it provides a possible, perhaps probable, reason why those who have served have been so tragically struck down and it provides an opportunity in their deep distress to apportion blame and obtain redress.
However, to Whitehall officialdom—deeply apprehensive that such a condition, if established, could involve considerable financial compensation and set a precedent with untold ramifications to its already greatly over-stretched budget—that is seen as a contrived explanation. The various medical conditions are more likely to be attributable to the law
1014
of averages or the wheel of outrageous fortune than to anything that the patient experienced during or in the aftermath of combat in the Gulf War.
To old soldiers such as myself, there must be, when one considers what generations of fighting men have endured from the Crimea, through the Somme, Paschendale, Alamein and Burma, right up to the Falklands, some built-in irritation about the fact that the general and undoubted pressures, traumas and risks of combat should somehow be linked in a blanket and imprecise phrase to account for all subsequent ills and misfortunes, and thus become a means for those who had served their country to get back at the government who sent them to war.
On the other hand, like any other serviceman or woman, if, during or after the battle, those people incurred a medical or physical condition that was attributable to active service, let alone duty, they would be fully entitled not only to sympathy and understanding but a full and proper war disability pension that was appropriate to their condition.
Through all the verbal sparring that has been going on during the past few years because of the different perceptions and attitudes that I mentioned, one glaring question stands out above all others. Was the cocktail of inoculations—the veritable blitzkrieg of the immune system, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, so aptly described it—some of which had been given individually for many years but not, because of the urgency of time, given all at once, liable to cause, in some individuals, a harmful chemical or physiological reaction that would lead to a loss of future immunity? Presumably, no tests were done before inoculations. For that the Ministry of Defence could hardly be blamed, because of the urgent need to give all those entering the Gulf War zone comprehensive protection, including protection against nerve gas and anthrax. I hope that we can keep the stigma of negligence out of this argument. Once the whole question of so-called Gulf War syndrome was raised, that should have been done at once.
I was staggered, when I questioned the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—then the Minister—many months ago, to hear him say that a comprehensive medical study of the whole question, including the medical histories of those who had subsequently so tragically suffered, would be undertaken, and that part of that approach would involve an analysis of the effects of dispensing all the inoculations at the same time. As I said, that should have been done at the outset, because it was by far the most likely common factor for inducing some subsequent indisposition, or worse.
So I put it to the Minister to tell us what the results of that particular test have been. It must by now have been carried out—if it has not been, that can only mean that the Ministry of Defence is not serious enough about getting at the truth. As I said, given the circumstances prevailing at the time, there may well have been no negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence, nor any need to prove that. However, if those tests raise the suspicion that certain individuals could have been affected by that form of battle

1015
contamination, or by any other—such as the stuff that was used to spray camouflage nets or the uranium shells that we are currently hearing about and which were fired from aircraft cannon—will the Minister tell us whether the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry that is responsible for pensions intend, at this appropriate 10-year anniversary, to pay a proper disability pension to those who are suffering and who have suffered?
We keenly look forward to all that the Minister is now prepared to tell us on this very sensitive and emotive subject.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who has, yet again, eloquently highlighted tonight the plight of Gulf War veterans. I also pay tribute to those noble Lords who made some extremely moving speeches in tonight's debate.
We last debated this subject in January 2000, when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, initiated the debate. The situation has radically altered since then. In a bewildering week of leaked documents, the credibility of the Ministry of Defence has, frankly, plummeted dramatically. Many people, including myself, have criticised the Ministry for its lack of urgency and care. However, there has been a severe loss of trust in the MoD since then. In fact, we are now in danger of having a catalogue of mistrust.
The key issue that has most recently been raised is that of depleted uranium and its effects. But there is clearly a long line of reports which gave warning of the dangers now revealed in the leaked documents. It appears that the MoD was clearly apprised of the dangers of depleted uranium. In particular the report by the Atomic Energy Authority nine years ago gave due warning of those dangers.
Have the Government revised their figures of the rounds fired in the Gulf War in the light of that paper, which was written at the time and claimed much higher figures? A 1993 US document from the Surgeon-General also gives the lie to the Government's attempts to minimise the dangers. It appears that there is an even earlier, 1990, document from the US which also makes clear the dangers of depleted uranium.
The facts are clear. It is well established that depleted uranium ammunition was used in the Gulf. It is clear that all necessary safety notices did not reach their destination in the Gulf. Does the MoD categorically deny that depleted uranium dust inhaled by troops taking part in the Gulf conflict may lead to lung cancer, bone cancer, kidney disease and chronic kidney damage, or even leukaemia, as its own scientists advised was the case in 1993?
A number of Gulf veterans tested in Canada have been found to contain high levels of depleted uranium. Does the Ministry deny that? The US Navy has withdrawn depleted uranium shells, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and substituted tungsten-tipped shells. Why cannot we withdraw those for military purposes? Is that not all a prompt to action
1016
by the Ministry? Above all, we need a comprehensive publication of all the advice that the Ministry of Defence received to date to enable us to evaluate for ourselves what that scientific evidence is.
On testing, following the Statement by the Armed Services Minister last week, can the Minister confirm what is being offered to Gulf veterans by way of tests for depleted uranium? Is it in accordance with the Government's response to Llew Smith MP's Question on 29th November, which said that only those who had paid for testing in Canada prior to August 1999 will be tested in London? Or is any Gulf veteran now entitled to be tested on request? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, rightly raised the issues as to what those tests entail. What will they be? When will they start?
The Secretary of State stated on "Newsnight" last week that if Gulf veterans had any symptoms of illness they would be tested. Surely, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, it is not good enough to wait until veterans show signs of illness before allowing them to be tested. Furthermore, there have been doubts about the quality of the Ministry of Defence screening. The Ministry needs to offer independent screening. That should be available for all Gulf War veterans on request. It should be available as soon as possible and well before the end of this year.
A further case of mistrust has been over government-funded research, not just that relating to depleted uranium. The research by Dr Nicola Cherry published in the Lancet last year purported to show that war veterans only had a marginally higher mortality rate than normal. But there are strong views that the selection of people was flawed; that they had, in effect, been picked by the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the methodology was of the Manchester research. Were the subjects selected by the Ministry of Defence?
A great deal of other scientific evidence has been raised. There was research by Professor Abou-Donia of the Duke University in the United States; research by Matthew Hotopf on vaccines; claims by Mr Bernie McPhilips about the effects of Gulf War illnesses on his children. Work has also been done on post-traumatic stress disorder. I shall be grateful if the Minister could adumbrate the research being done to evaluate some of those pieces of work.
Then we come to the legal actions. Perhaps the Minister can also tell us how many claims or notices of claims have been received so far from Gulf veterans. Will the Ministry now accept mediation rather than putting ex-servicemen through the full legal process? Or will the Ministry still insist on establishment of legal liability before agreeing to mediation? After all, why should veterans have to rely on that sort of legal action? Why should 1,800 veterans have to sue in those circumstances? The key questions are not so much causative as financial. The Defence Select Committee, in its conclusions in May last year, said that it might well be that the causes of Gulf War illnesses will never be found. We could spend another 10 years picking over the causes. We need, as the Select Committee said, to provide proper care, treatment and financial provision for those Gulf veterans.

1017
Gulf veterans expressed complaints about treatment by the War Pensions Agency itself. Why is the Ministry insisting on legal liability before paying compensation? Why does it not pay compensation simply on the basis that those veterans have been in combat? After all, the Gulf was the largest mobilisation of troops since the Second World War. Do we continue expecting establishment of legal liability and doing more and more research? As a distinguished American involved with the Gulf War veterans in the US asked in September,
"Do we really give our veterans the benefit of the doubt? Or will we continue to study this until no doubts, and perhaps no veterans remain?".
In the light of recent events and the failure of the Ministry to come up with adequate compensation, I fully support the call by the Royal British Legion for a public inquiry into Gulf War illnesses. We are rapidly reaching the point where there is no public confidence in the ability or willingness of the MoD to get to grips with the issue or provide adequate care and compensation. It is a measure of the respect in which our Armed Forces are held that veteran campaigners and claimants have been so patient and tolerant of delays.
Ian Townsend, the Secretary General of the British Legion stated that,
"If a member of the public suffered from chronic fatigue, hair loss, severe bouts of depression or cancer, they would ask for and receive assessment, answers and treatment. But many veterans of the Gulf. the Balkans and Kosovo, who have risked their lives in combat for peacekeeping appear not to for various reasons".
That is a shocking statement. We must ask ourselves what effect all this will have on our troops and our ability to recruit for the future.
On the tenth anniversary of the end of the Gulf War, as the noble Lord, Morris, said, it is high time for the Ministry to re-evaluate its approach. Failing that, no member of the Armed Forces, who, after all, risked their lives on behalf of our country, can confidently say that the Ministry of Defence is acting in its interests. The Ministry has always said that it owes a debt of honour to those veterans. It is high time for that debt to be repaid properly.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has shown considerable prescience in his timing of this Unstarred Question. It was, I have no doubt, scheduled to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War. In fact it comes at a time when depleted uranium, and all it involves, has been hitting the headlines, as mentioned by many of your Lordships.
Depleted uranium has not hitherto generally been considered to have played a major part in the investigation and problems arising or not arising from conditions in the Gulf War. It is unfair to accuse this Government or the last of negligence in their attempts to discover the reasons why so many servicemen have suffered after having served in the Gulf, or, as it would now appear, in the Balkans. I use the phrase, "suffered
1018
after having served" because it is by no means clear that there is a degree of causality. Further, there would seem to be no real evidence that British servicemen are suffering after having served in the Balkans.
Both in this country and in the United States controls have been set up to compare the health of those who have served in the Gulf and the Balkans with servicemen who have not so served. It is fair to say that everything has been taken into consideration: the "cocktail of injections", chemical agents, nerve agents, oil well fires and the general conditions, particularly in the Gulf.
However, the helpful Gulf Update, published by the Government last month, does not mention depleted uranium. While the publicity given to the problems arising out of the use of depleted uranium may—I emphasise the word "may"—be excessive, there can be no doubt that it is a new factor which will have to be taken into consideration. Depleted uranium would seem to have caused few problems with regard to radiation and in its pre-use form it is unlikely to have any toxic effects. It is of course what happens inside an armoured vehicle after penetration that matters. A DU missile vaporises once inside, filling the interior with tiny lethal particles. Statistically, the risk of irradiation is small but soldiers, and civilians living in the combat area, cannot be blamed for concluding that DU is responsible if they become ill.
For that reason the current scare cannot be ignored. My honourable friend in another place, the shadow Secretary of State, has said that it is necessary now for the Government to make a clear statement about the position of depleted uranium, given all the evidence which has been coming out in dribs and drabs. The Minister, Mr Spellar, made a Statement last Tuesday in another place which was helpful so far as it went.
We need to be reminded of the comment made by Lord Wilson of Rievaulx that seven days is a long time in politics because in the past six days things have gone much further. Is it still the case that there is no evidence of unusual ill health among British peacekeepers in the Balkans? An honourable Member in another place pointed out that as in the Balkans there were not the problems of immunisation and environmental pollution, it should be easier to ascertain whether there is a definite link between DU and ill health. While much more DU was used in the Gulf—300 tonnes to 12 tonnes in the Balkans—it should not be impossible to draw conclusions about the problems of DU in the Gulf if there were none in the Balkans.
During the debate on the Statement last week, the Minister replied that the Government were awaiting an independent study that the Royal Society was conducting. I should be interested to know whether that is the same study which the noble and gallant Lord said he had been informed of by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, know when the study will be completed? The current publicity on DU adds a new factor and it is difficult for the problems of the so-called "Gulf syndrome", which is almost certainly no such thing, finally to be solved until one major factor—that is, DU—can be eliminated or confirmed.

1019
The Government must do more than just consider offering independent screening to veterans who may have come into contact with DU dust and who are seeking reassurance. The Government must also clarify the status of the March 1997 report on the problems of DU, which is said to be flawed. What also is the status of the BBC report which stated that half the British war veterans tested had abnormally high levels of DU in their bodies?
DU is only one of the factors which may have affected Gulf veterans. The Royal British Legion has done an immense amount of work to help veterans and it is with the greatest sadness that I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about the recent death of Major Hilary Jones who was a member of the RBL committee for as long as I can remember. That is the latest of the deaths reported among Gulf veterans but it is of course nothing like the first. The Lancet figure up to July last was 395.
In an article last July, the Lancet concluded that the excess mortality rate of Gulf veterans was not statistically significant, a point which was questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It also stated that the excess, compared with the comparison group of those who were not deployed, related largely to accidents rather than to disease. Nevertheless, the RBL has not been prepared to leave the matter there and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and to Colonel Terry English of the Royal British Legion for all their work, most recently for a most valuable visit to the United States in October. Their report shows that the United States has had as many problems as Britain, including failures in record keeping.
I also pay tribute to Lord Effingham. My noble friend Lord Attlee regretted that there were few speakers in today's debate. Lord Effingham, who is no longer with us following the changes to your Lordships' House, played a most valuable part in all the work on problems arising out of the Gulf war.
It is clear that the various programmes carried out in the United States do not always produce a single recommended course of action. After 10 years, the chief concern is inevitably to manage the limitation of veterans' illnesses rather than to determine the causes, although of course that may well be the same thing.
The American Institute of Medicine report regarded DU with pyridostigmine bromide, sarin gas and vaccines as the most obvious causes of illness, but that is not totally accepted by the Department of Defense. Nothing is certain. It is clear from the report of the RBL committee, which was well received by medical and political experts at a high level, that in the United States there is as much concern and as little real knowledge about the causes of the problem as here.
There can be no doubt that HM Government take the matter extremely seriously, but many questions remain unanswered which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. How does one persuade those who served in the Gulf and who are ill to report the matter when that may damage their career prospects either in the services or outside? How does one make it easy for
1020
someone who wants help to gain easy access to an expert? How does one train GPs to detect the symptoms of the various problems and refer their patients to someone who can help? How does one reduce the costs faced by those who look for help and may have to travel long distances to obtain it? These are not the only "hows"; there are many more.
An important step has been taken to answer these "hows" with the introduction of the MoD website in 1998. Among other things, that is linked to the US Gulflink site. I hope that the Ministry will look at ways in which it can further enhance the information provided on the Gulf illnesses website, including facilitating contact between veterans. Perhaps that would breed harmony between the various associations which, as I believe the noble Countess would admit, is not perfect at the moment.
The Ministry may also find it advantageous to make greater use of the medical assessment programme and its data. It might be pie in the sky, but it would be immensely helpful if all veterans could be seen to determine whether the symptoms demonstrated by patients were representative of the whole. All these matters will increase veterans' confidence in what is being done for them.
I hope that the Ministry now accepts that it should thoroughly review the way in which it provides medical assistance to Gulf veterans and take full account of their views. The Ministry has an obligation so to do. In the meantime, I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to whom we owe this debate, Colonel English and all at RBL and Professor Malcolm Hooper and all those who have done so much to help. Above all, their work is a memorial to Major Jones and other Gulf veterans who now suffer or have suffered, if not because of their service, at least after it.
9.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester who once again has provided an opportunity to debate the Government's policy on Gulf veterans' illnesses. His interest in the subject is well known and respected. I believe that this evening we have had a valuable opportunity to take a broad, and in some senses deep, view about the problems which have arisen. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in tonight's debate. This debate is particularly timely in view of the Statement in another place last week by my colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces concerning depleted uranium, to which most noble Lords referred during their remarks this evening.
It is important not to overlook the vital work that continues into other aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses, as most noble Lords recognise. Since our previous debate on this issue on 26th January last year a great deal has been achieved, and the next 12 months should see a substantial amount of new research material for us to assess. I stress that research is vital if we are to

1021
understand what has happened, help those who have suffered and mitigate any risks in future. Last May a team from Guy's, King's and St Thomas' Medical School published a paper on the hypothesis that multiple immunisations were associated with later self-reported ill health in Gulf veterans. More publications are expected from the team this year, including the results of clinical examination of 400 Gulf and other veterans who took part in the questionnaire-based Phase 1 of the study.
The King's College proposals for Phase 3 of their study have recently been approved by the Medical Research Council. Phase 3 will involve a longitudinal follow-up study of UK Gulf veterans to determine whether their overall health has or has not improved as time has passed.
In July last year a team from Manchester University reported the results of an MoD-funded study into mortality rates among Gulf veterans. The study found that over an eight year period from 1st April 1991 to 31st March 1999 out of a total cohort of 53,462 the number of deaths and the causes of death in the comparison group who did not deploy to the Gulf were similar to those recorded among Gulf veterans; that is, 452 deaths among Gulf veterans as compared with 439 in the control group. The Gulf cohort has experienced fewer disease-related deaths than the control group—156 compared to 190—but more deaths due to external causes, particularly road traffic accidents, some 289, compared to 239. That is something which the MoD is researching further. I can give my noble friend Lord Morris the latest figures on the sad deaths which have occurred. As at 31st December 2000, 477 Gulf veterans have died, but so also have 466 of the control group who did not go to the Gulf.
Another MoD-funded study, under Dr Patricia Doyle at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is examining the reproductive health of Gulf veterans and their partners and the health of their children. Results from the study are expected to be available later this year.
The programme of research initiated by the MoD to investigate the possible adverse health effects that might result from the combined administration of the Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Set tablets and vaccines used during the Gulf conflict is also making progress. That is the research referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He will be disappointed when I tell him that the final results are not expected until 2003. But this is an enormously complicated study and in order to undertake it thoroughly that is the time needed by the medical experts.
In addition, the MoD has published three papers; the medical assessment programme passed the 3,000 patient mark; and over 2,500 GP information packs have now been sent out.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, we are keeping veterans up to date with developments. The first edition of the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit's newsletter came out just before Christmas and the website continues to be widely publicised and regularly updated.
1022
In May last year the House of Commons Defence Committee published its report on the progress that the Government are making on the issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses. The Government believe that the observations made by the committee were well balanced and acknowledged the complexity of the central scientific issues. The report's recommendations were in the Government's response published by the Select Committee on 3rd August 2000. That response is wide-ranging and I commend it to your Lordships.
All noble Lords who have spoken today have referred to the possible health effects of depleted uranium and, in particular, the suggested link between exposure to depleted uranium and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in March 1999 the Ministry of Defence published a paper entitled Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position. It explains that, although it is possible that small quantities of DU dust may have been inhaled or ingested by some UK troops taking part in the Gulf conflict, we believe that the health risks, both radiological and toxic, to be small.
On 19th December 2000, the US Department of Defense published a second interim environmental exposure report on depleted uranium in the Gulf. That report concluded that the available evidence does not support claims that DU caused or is causing the illnesses that some Gulf veterans are experiencing. Indeed, the updated estimates indicate that exposures of the kind UK troops might have encountered—for example, working in or around tanks struck by DU—were far below any applicable US safety guidelines.
Depleted uranium is a very dense heavy metal. It results from the uranium enrichment process, and because the majority of the more radioactive isotopes are removed in the process, depleted uranium is about 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we have long recognised that on the battlefield depleted uranium debris might present a hazard from chemical toxicity, in the same way as any heavy metal such as lead might do so, and a low-level radiological hazard. The risk from chemical toxicity would arise from ingestion of the soluble depleted uranium oxides, and the radiological risk primarily from inhalation of the insoluble depleted uranium oxides. These risks arise from the dustcreated when DU strikes a hard target such as an armoured vehicle. I am told that it would be necessary for a depleted uranium fragment to be in continuous direct contact with the skin for 250 hours before any statutory UK radiation dose limit for exposure of the skin of employees aged 18 years or over would be exceeded. Even in a tank fully loaded with DU ammunition—DU ammunition before it is fired—over 1,500 hours' exposure would be required before any crew would receive a radiation dose above the UK limit.

1023
Because of its density and metallurgic properties, depleted uranium is ideally suited as a kinetic energy penetrator for use in anti-armour munitions. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, rightly said that the munition provides a battle winning military capability. Alternative materials are not as effective at piercing the armour of main battle tanks. Therefore, depleted uranium will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because when this country commits our troops to conflict we fight to win. Our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that. To deny them that legitimate capability would be quite wrong.
The noble Baroness referred to reports in the weekend press about the UK and US withdrawing DU ammunition. It is not true that the ammunition is being withdrawn in that sense. It is true that it is being replaced by the Navy with tungsten ammunition. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that that is not because of concerns about safety. Rather it is because trials have shown that for this requirement—the Navy Vulcan Phalanx Close-In Weapons System—tungsten ammunition provides a longer range and a higher probability of bringing down its targets. The targets are missiles, not armour-plated vehicles. DU is needed and will still be needed to penetrate the armour of main battle tanks. When I saw those press reports, I, like the noble Baroness, thought that tungsten might be an answer about which someone had not fully briefed me. However, on being fully briefed, I am assured that it is being used for a quite different purpose from that which we are discussing here, which is the penetration of armour.
We have a two-pronged policy for testing Gulf veterans. We will test any veteran for body load of uranium if the need is clinically indicated. Of the 3,000 plus patients who have attended the MAP, only two patients have so far needed to be tested under these arrangements. Their results were normal. We have also offered to test independently for depleted uranium the 30 or so Gulf veterans whom we believe had tests performed in Canada. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, there have been arguments about how this should be carried forward. I am sorry to say that not all our approaches on this matter have been positively received by the Gulf veterans'organisations. But we remain open on the protocols that we have sent them and we hope that there will be a positive reaction to them.
Last week the Government announced a new initiative to help to reassure our service personnel who have served in the Balkans. The initiative involves, in consultation with appropriate national bodies, identifying an additional voluntary screening programme for our service personnel and of course for civilians who served in the Balkans.
Details of the most appropriate form for this programme will have to be worked out, but I can assure my noble friend Lord Morris that unless independent scientific advice—I stress, independent scientific advice—is to the contrary, this programme will be equally applicable to Gulf veterans. I hope that that assurance will be of some comfort to him.
1024
Furthermore, I can assure the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that the form of such a voluntary screening programme will be based on the best possible science and that we shall consult with the appropriate national bodies such as the United Kingdom National Screening Committee at the Department of Health and, of course, the Royal Society, which represents another valuable source of independent research on this issue. We hope to be able to complete those consultations by the end of March. I shall then be happy to discuss with any noble Lord who feels that important points need to be put forward on screening any point that he wishes to put forward on this subject. In specific response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, we hope that the Royal Society working group will report early in the summer.
I hope that, in the short time available to me, I have been able to provide some reassurance to noble Lords as regards the way forward. I do not believe that any noble Lord should underestimate the importance that the Ministry of Defence attaches to the health of all our servicemen and women and to the health of all our veterans, as well as the importance we attach to the announcement we made last week. It is our business to be as open as we can, but to base all our conclusions on real scientific advice and, wherever possible, sound and solidly based research.
I hope that all noble Lords will know from experience that I remain happy to discuss any of these issues. I shall be delighted to discuss any points noble Lords wish to bring forward on the way in which the screening programme announced last week can be taken forward.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, what is the current position as regards the attributable reservists scheme?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the answer to that point, which I have in my papers, is fairly lengthy. Perhaps the noble Baroness will indulge me. I shall write to her and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. I am also conscious of the fact that other detailed questions have been put to me, for example, the questions raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on issues such as those on Professor Lee and other matters which I have noted in detail. I shall write to all noble Lords where I have been unable to reply in detail on any specific points.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask briefly whether she will say that the symptoms of DU poisoning are expected from the Gulf veterans; in other words, what is expected to be reported. They need to know because there is presently panic in the community.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Countess knows that one of the most frustrating aspects of the illnesses reported by Gulf veterans is that there is no single stream of symptoms. I am sure that, were I by implication to exclude certain symptoms, the noble Countess would

1025
be the first to say that that was not right, fair or proper. The best thing that I can say to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is that if individuals feel unwell and if they believe that they are suffering from illnesses caused through their service in the Gulf, then that should be looked at sympathetically. I shall certainly discuss this further with her if she would find that helpful.

Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
That the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
That in the present Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.

Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that t hey have made the following orders:
That the promoters of the Medway Council Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
That in the present Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.
House adjourned at twelve minutes
before ten o'clock.

  Administrative Court
  Administrative Court
  "Patriotism Minister"
  "Patriotism Minister"
  Millennium Dome Site: Legacy plc Offer
  Millennium Dome Site: Legacy plc Offer
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland: Arms Finds
  Northern Ireland: Arms Finds
  Post Office: Industrial Disputes
  Post Office: Industrial Disputes
  Ofgem: Senior Staff
  Ofgem: Senior Staff
  Oftel: Senior Staff
  Oftel: Senior Staff
  DIAMOND Synchrotron
  DIAMOND Synchrotron
  Universal Banking Services
  Universal Banking Services
  Terrorism Act: Functions of Examining and Authorised Officers
  Terrorism Act: Functions of Examining and Authorised Officers
  Operation Trident
  Operation Trident
  Women Offenders: Home Office Report
  Women Offenders: Home Office Report
  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987: Charges
  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987: Charges
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Freedom of Information Act: Commencement
  Freedom of Information Act: Commencement
  National Asylum Support Service Scheme
  National Asylum Support Service Scheme
  Citizen's Arrests
  Citizen's Arrests
  Commonwealth Games: Air Rifles and Air Pistols
  Commonwealth Games: Air Rifles and Air Pistols
  Animals used in Licensed Experiments
  Animals used in Licensed Experiments
  Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder
  Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder
  Indecent and Obscene Material on the Internet
  Indecent and Obscene Material on the Internet
  Handguns: Use in Serious Crime
  Handguns: Use in Serious Crime
  Military Aircraft available for Operations
  Military Aircraft available for Operations
  Rail Transfer Equipment
  Rail Transfer Equipment
  EMU: Conditions for Participating in Stage 3
  EMU: Conditions for Participating in Stage 3
  Ofgem, Oftel, Ofwat and Orr: Staff Turnover
  Ofgem, Oftel, Ofwat and Orr: Staff Turnover
  Educational Projects in Museums and Galleries: DfEE Funding
  Educational Projects in Museums and Galleries: DfEE Funding
  Boarding and Tuition Fees Schemes
  Boarding and Tuition Fees Schemes
  Teachers: Stress-related Illness
  Teachers: Stress-related Illness
  Traditional Medicines: Proposed Directive
  Traditional Medicines: Proposed Directive
  Hospital Patients: Use of First Name
  Hospital Patients: Use of First Name
  Reproductive Cloning
  Reproductive Cloning
  Therapeutic Cloning
  Therapeutic Cloning
  Medical Toxicology Unit and Agrochemical Companies
  Medical Toxicology Unit and Agrochemical Companies
  Abattoirs
  Abattoirs
  Severn Railway Tunnel
  Severn Railway Tunnel
  Office of Water Services: Senior Staff
  Office of Water Services: Senior Staff
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Litter Collection on Motorway Network
  Litter Collection on Motorway Network
  Al2 Embankment at Witham: Cutting back of Planting
  Al2 Embankment at Witham: Cutting back of Planting
  Ice on Highways
  Ice on Highways
  Jubilee Line: Station Closures
  Jubilee Line: Station Closures
  Transport Council, 20 and 21 December
  Transport Council, 20 and 21 December
  Office of the Rail Regulator: Senior Staff
  Office of the Rail Regulator: Senior Staff
  BSE and Prion Proteins
  BSE and Prion Proteins
  European Fisheries Council Meetings
  European Fisheries Council Meetings
  Fish Species: Total Allowable Catch
  Fish Species: Total Allowable Catch
  BSE
  BSE
  Game Meat: Export from US
  Game Meat: Export from US
  BSE Testing
  BSE Testing