Sitting of 9 March 2001

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

  Railways
  9.33 am
  Mr. Tony Benn: I present a petition that has been signed by more than 20,000 rail workers and rail users throughout the United Kingdom. It supports early-day motion 69 on railway safety. It is supported by the General Secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the Assistant General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. It criticises the privatisation of British Rail, which despite large injections of taxpayers' money has led directly to the present continuing crisis suffered by rail workers and rail users. It regrets that many people are reverting to car use, which has an adverse impact on the environment and consequent increases in death and injury. The petition ends in the proper way.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Government to restore confidence in the rail network by returning Railtrack to public ownership and accountability with a clear onus to monitor track maintenance and renewal alongside a culture of safety and reliability as opposed to the present regime which places profitability before all else.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Points of Order
9.35 am
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which you have been given notice. It is my unpleasant duty to inform the House that, at the sitting of Standing Committee F yesterday evening, I drew attention to the presence of the right hon. Ann Widdecombe, the Member for Maidstone and the Weald, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, Mr. James Cran, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the hon. Member for Cotswold, not being members of the Committee, in the part of the Committee Room reserved for members of the Committee.
The right hon. and hon. Members having declined to withdraw, the Committee ordered:
That the Chairman do report Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. James Cran and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to the House.
The right hon. and hon. Members continued to decline to withdraw, so I adjourned the Committee for grave disorder, without putting any Question. The Committee therefore did not complete its consideration of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill yesterday, as it had been instructed to do by the order of the House on 29 January.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
I strongly deprecate any defiance of the Chair in a Standing Committee, whatever the alleged justification for such conduct. I am most grateful to the Chairman of the Committee for dealing so calmly with the deliberate disruption of the Committee, in what must have been a difficult situation.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the Committee in question is left in a rather odd position. You will know that the House, through the peculiar and, I think, increasingly unacceptable procedure of programme motions, required the Committee to complete its deliberations by 7 o'clock yesterday evening. We know, because the Chairman has been kind enough to tell us, that the Committee was unable so to do.
I think that the House needs your advice on where we go from here. We seem to be in limbo. The Committee has been unable to comply with the requirements of the House through its programme motion, the only motion of which I am aware to determine the Committee's proceedings. Therefore, the House needs your guidance on how we can best tackle the situation.
Perhaps I might ask a further question. If a further programme motion has to be introduced, will it be amendable? Will proper notice be given of it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to ask me a series of questions at this stage. He raised a point of order and asked where we go from here. The answer is that we will consider the Orders of the Day. This is a problem for the Government, and they

527
will sort it out. The Chairman has reported, the Government have heard him and, as I have said, they will sort things out.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the member of the Committee who, on the advice of the Chair, moved the motion that the right hon. and hon. Members in question should be reported to the House, I should be grateful if you would confirm that consideration on Report and on Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill will be able to proceed next week, and that procedures can be introduced for that. Will you also confirm that the principal effect of the action will be to ensure that debate on other matters important to the House is not held?
Will you, Mr. Speaker, say whether, when considering what action to take in relation to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her hon. Friends, you can take into account the fact that her action was deliberate and premeditated? As she stated in the Financial Times, it was a protest that was to have the effect that the Bill could not be reported and to delay
"the passage of the bill".
I ask you to take into account her statement to the Mirror that this
"was an 'official Opposition protest.'"
Does not that show that she and her colleagues are not fit even to be in opposition, let alone in government?
Mr. Speaker: The answer lies with the Government themselves. Unfortunately, the Chairman was unable to complete the business that the House gave the Committee, and the Chairman then did the proper thing. The Government will have to table a special motion before we can consider Third Reading and the other matters that the Minister raised.
I disapprove of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but it is for the House to make a decision on her conduct. That is the answer to that question.
Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I confirm that the Government will be tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated for the House to consider at that time.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers and the guardian of effective scrutiny of parliamentary legislation. We were confronted yesterday with a situation in which 56 clauses, six schedules, 42 Opposition amendments—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady refers to Back Benchers, but she is not a Back Bencher. What is her point of order? I do want to hear a rerun of what
528
happened in the Committee. Its Chairman has reported and told me all that I want to know. Does she have a proper point of order, because that was not one?
Miss Widdecombe: My point of order was that, as the guardian of parliamentary scrutiny, be it by Back Benchers or the official Opposition, is it your view that the situation such as one that arose yesterday—
Mr. Clarke: That is not a point of order.
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, it is. Fifty-six clauses, six schedules, 42 Opposition amendments and 10 Government amendments—some of which had huge implications for civil liberties—were all to be considered in a matter of hours. Is that a satisfactory situation?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. However, it is a matter for me to say to the right hon. Lady that she should not have been in that Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful if you could advise the House on the proper procedure to be followed, given that the disgraceful conduct of right hon. and hon. Members in the Committee last night appears not only to have been premeditated, but undertaken with the active support and preparation of members of the Committee—the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I would be grateful if you could advise the House whether it is in order for hon. Members to be party to a conspiracy to disrupt the proceedings of the Committee and to have prepared for and supported that disruption.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to hear a rerun of last night's proceedings. I say again: this is a matter for the House. If any right hon. or hon. Member is unhappy with the conduct of any other Members, it is up him or her to table a motion and it can be debated. The Chairman of the Committee did the correct thing and he has reported to me.
Mr. David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share the concerns of many Members about the progress of the Bill and the difficulties that lie behind it. Given the issues that arose last night, I examined "Erskine May" to determine what an ordinary Back Bencher like me would be able to do if he or she felt that massive civil liberties issues such as can be found in this Bill had not been properly debated. I can find nothing in "Erskine May" to tell me how an ordinary Back Bencher can amend the time allocated to a Bill. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give me guidance on how an ordinary Back Bencher can alter the procedures so as to ensure proper debate?
Mr. Speaker: We have business before us today, but these matters can be debated. The right hon. Gentleman will know that a programme motion is amendable. I am in the hands of the House on these matters. It is not for me to decide the programme motion; it is a matter for the House.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I served on the Committee to which the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred. May I seek clarification on two matters that follow the hon. Gentleman's report to you and to the House? First, am I right in thinking that any motion to deal with Members who came into the Committee and disrupted its proceedings will take precedence over all other business?
Secondly, will you clarify whether it is open to any Member to propose how we now proceed to deal with the Criminal Justice and Police Bill? Like many Members, I share the concern that a very severe guillotine was imposed on the Bill and, like many Members, I would like us to reconsider the remaining timetable for the Bill's progress. I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could tell us whether it is open to me and my colleagues and to Members of any party to table a motion on Monday, so that we can return to an orderly process for completing the Bill's scrutiny within a period that allows all matters to be given proper consideration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall answer the point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Any hon. Member or party spokesman can table a motion; that is perfectly in order. The Government have control over the priorities of the House, and Government business will take priority, but any hon. Member can table a motion.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise me, as a Back Bencher, how I can table a motion to draw to the attention of the House the appalling conduct of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in frustrating the will of the House as expressed in the resolutions passed by it and in setting, as the shadow Home Secretary, such an appalling example to the youth of this country when we are debating steps to deal with such behaviour?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Programming Sub-Committee of the Committee convened on a number of occasions to discuss whether it would be possible to have an extra day of Committee consideration. On each occasion, that suggestion was voted down by the Government. On another occasion, the Opposition sought to sit to all night to complete the Bill's consideration, and that suggestion was voted down. Is it possible to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee of Standing Committee F, so that we can discuss the matter again? It would help the House if the Government were prepared to be not so arrogant and would give us the time to consider important matters to do with police training, police organisation, the funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heald rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. The answer to his question is that it depends on the type of motion that is tabled and the type of motion that is agreed.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the House aware that, on five separate occasions, we extended the times of the Committee's sittings to meet the points made by the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for the clarification that you have provided about the facility that exists for any Member to table a motion of, in effect, censure. Given that part of the argument revolves around the adequacy or inadequacy of time for the consideration of the relevant matters, will you advise the House on whether any motion of censure would be automatically time limited or potentially subject to a guillotine?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have a view on what is part of the argument, but the argument as far as I am concerned is that a Chairman has reported to me that a Committee has been disrupted. The House will be entitled to debate that matter if the House so desires.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am getting a bit weary of points of order on this matter. I want to get on to the business of the House.
Mr. Forth: This is a genuine new point, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State has helpfully told the House that he will table a motion in the name of the Government to try to resolve this matter. I did not catch whether he said "on Monday" or "for Monday". You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an important distinction. If the Government were to table a motion at the very end of business today, it would give rise to the question of how far hon. Members would be able to consider it and to table amendments to it. If the Government tabled such a motion, would manuscript amendments therefore be sympathetically considered on Monday? The Government's indecent haste in trying to dig themselves out of this mess has created a difficulty and that may not allow Members the proper occasion, which you would want to protect, to consider and to seek to amend the motion. Your guidance would be very helpful on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The matters that the right hon. Gentleman raises are hypothetical; I cannot answer hypothetical questions.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for your ruling? What you have said is of great and permanent importance, namely, that the progress of business is a matter for the Government and any comments on the conduct of Members are a matter for the House. You have quite properly and importantly reminded the House that you are

531
not in the Chair to discipline Members as an individual Speaker or to progress Government business. If that point has been established by the exchanges today, I think that we have made real progress. I hope that your ruling is duly recorded in "Erskine May".
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Perhaps on that note we can move on to today's business.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I ceased to be a Deputy Speaker a long time ago.
Mr. Luff: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. We need some clarification. I believe that the Minister indicated that he would be tabling a motion today for debate on Monday.
Mr. Clarke indicated dissent.
Mr. Luff: So he is not saying that. I think that it would be helpful if you, Mr. Speaker, could encourage the Minister to say exactly what the Government intend to do.
Mr. Speaker: Quite frankly, in a sense I am not interested in what the Government want to do. It is up to them to decide how they act. We do not need clarification at this stage. All I need to do is to ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

  High Hedges Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.50 am
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In 18 years in the House, this is the first time that I have come high enough in the ballot to have the privilege of promoting a private Member's Bill. I believe that, in this Bill, I have the responsibility of gaining some redress for those people whose lives have been made miserable by the excessive hedges of their immediate neighbours.
  I reminded myself the other day that the first words attributed to God in the Bible are "Let there be light." There was light and God saw that it was good.
  Mr. Eric Forth: But his neighbours did not.
  Mr. Taylor: His neighbours at that time were unidentified.
  Soon after, he created man and woman, and some say that it has been downhill ever since.
  In one Roman poet's version of our negative impact on creation, it was a sorry sign of the times when:
  "The ground, formerly free to all
  As the air or sunlight,
  Was portioned by surveyors into patches,
  Between boundary markers, fences, ditches"
  and, one might say, hedges. We are comfortable with living on ground that has been portioned into patches by surveyors. We like to mark the boundaries of our ground with fences, if not ditches. There is nothing wrong with that. An Englishman's home is his castle, as the adage goes. The problem lies with some of the fences that we choose and how we manage them.
  I can find no specific biblical reference to link the creation of fast-growing conifer hedges with an act of God. However, we can be sure that such a thing has been created because a curious darkness has fallen across some of our suburbs. God saw the light and saw that it was good, but now countless householders peer into their gardens and cannot see much light at all, let alone appreciate just how good it is.
  The Bill offers a lifeline to thousands of people in England and Wales whose quality of life has been seriously hit simply because they cannot persuade their neighbours to keep their garden hedges to a reasonable height. Hon. Members will be all too familiar with the problem that I am trying to address today. We have read about it in the press, we have seen it on television programmes—one of which was called "Neighbours at War"—and we have received countless letters and sometimes facsimile communications from our constituents. I have the permission of Mr. and Mrs. Evans of Yoxhall road, Shirley and of Mr. M. J. Hawker of 44 Whitefields road, Solihull to mention their names in this context. I have also received representations from many others.
  Mr. John Bercow: The matter is of the greatest importance, although not one with which Burke,

  533
  Pitt, Fox, Gladstone, Salisbury or Disraeli would necessarily have preoccupied themselves. Will my hon. Friend, who is an exceptionally assiduous and diligent Member of the House, confirm that he has had discussions on the subject with, and received support from, the august members of Solihull borough council?
  Mr. Taylor: I believe that I have the support of that council. It is significant that, although the Bill places an obligation on local authorities, during the consultation procedure conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, a surprising 70 per cent. of local authorities said that they wanted to have the powers that the Bill would confer, despite the fact that it would probably saddle them with obligation and some cost.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Many hon. Members will have received representations on the problem and we congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising it in the House. However, as we are probably near the end of this Parliament, has he received assurances from the more disruptive of his colleagues that they will recognise the intense anger and frustration that is felt by so many people and will allow the Bill to make progress?
  Mr. Taylor: l have neither sought nor received any reassurances. I would not demean myself by doing so. The Bill's merits stand by themselves. I, meanwhile, stand here entirely vulnerable to whatever disruptive element there may be and I am effectively defenceless against that prospect. I throw myself entirely upon the mercy of the House and the good will of Conservative colleagues and, more particularly, of Labour Members, among whom I probably have more friends.
  Mr. Forth: Knowing that my hon. Friend is a student of parliamentary matters, he will have watched closely Friday proceedings on other private Member's Bills. He will know that the problem is not whether Members obstruct a Bill but whether 40 of the 660 Members of Parliament bother to turn up on a parliamentary day to express their view. That may turn out to be his main problem.
  Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend correctly analyses the problem that has been encountered on previous Fridays by other hon. Members. However, I should tell him that in the various reaches of the Palace, I have legions in my support.
  Mr. Forth: Probably disguised as hedges.
  Mr. Taylor: I hope that you will assist me in making progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am struggling in the face of a number of interventions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman whether he gives way.
  Mr. Taylor: I am probably suffering from my accommodating good nature
  Mr. Bercow: And generosity of spirit.
  Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for assisting me.
  534
  I remind the House that leyland cypress—a hybrid tree developed towards the end of the last century and, by culture, a forest tree commonly known as leylandii—has become increasingly popular as a hedging plant over the past 30 years or so. It is cheap, readily available and quickly provides a dense screen that grows well in a wide range of soil and weather conditions. It is widely used in residential locations along the boundaries of domestic gardens to provide privacy. It grows at a rate of 1 m a year. For maintenance purposes, it should be trimmed two or three times a year. If it is not, it can reach heights of more than 30 m. Other conifers such as Lawson cypress and western red cedar are also commonly used as hedges. Although they are not as fast growing as leylandii, they can also become too big if not maintained. Non-coniferous species such as laurel and privet are also used to form dense, evergreen hedges, which if left unchecked can grow to significant heights.
  I am sure that we can all appreciate the benefits of a good boundary hedge as a durable provider of shelter, privacy, amenity and security for people and of shelter and food for wildlife. However, hedges in residential areas require a commitment to regular maintenance. Without maintenance, they get out of hand and begin to affect the quality of life of those living on the other side of the fence. They block out light and interfere with views, their roots deprive other plants of water and nutrients and they intrude on garden space.
  It is well established that one can lawfully trim a neighbour's hedge back to the line of one's boundary, but there is no clearly defined right to reduce its height. At present, if one cannot persuade the neighbour to reduce the height, there is little that one can do. It seems that going to the civil court is simply not a practical option. The costs and uncertainty involved clearly deter people from that course of action, and they are left feeling pretty helpless.
  We should make no mistake: this is a problem faced by thousands of people who are desperate for the House to provide a practical remedy. The response to the consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was measured in thousands rather than hundreds, and included almost 3,000 from private individuals.
  My Bill, which I have chosen to call, in soundbite terms, "Height and Light", will provide the remedy that is overwhelmingly called for by the vast majority of people and organisations who responded to the consultation exercise. It will give people the opportunity, when all reasonable avenues of negotiation with their neighbours have been exhausted, to refer their high hedge disputes to the local authority. It will give local authorities the power to investigate disputes and, if necessary, to order the hedge to be cut back to a reasonable height.
  The Bill might run to 20 clauses, but the basic ideas behind it are simple. Clause 1 clarifies the type of complaint that we are dealing with, which is that made by the owner or occupier of a domestic property who believes that a high hedge on another person's land unreasonably obstructs light to the property, which affects reasonable enjoyment of it. The Bill can help that person if their efforts to persuade the owner of the hedge to cut it back have failed, because they will be able to complain to their local authority.

  535
  Hon. Members will have noted that the Bill is limited to complaints about obstruction of light. I have mentioned already that high hedges can be the focus of other problems, such as blocked views and worries about roots. At this stage, the Bill deliberately concentrates on the main problem, rather than trying to solve all the difficulties that people encounter.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has many friends in all parties, and especially in this one. When regaling us with his litany of horrors, will he bear it in mind that the difficulties of many of my constituents and, I am sure, of his, relate not only to light, privacy and outlook? I speak as a fellow suburbanite, and I think of my constituent, Mrs. Shaw, who bought a house and chopped down a leylandii only to find that the soil was so acidic as a result of the needle droppings that she was reduced to growing camellias and rhododendrons for three or four years. That problem often occurs, and the normal suburban gardener, with whom the hon. Gentleman and I are very familiar, is at a great disadvantage.
  Mr. Taylor: I accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem. In the 1983-87 Parliament, I served on the Environment Committee, which published a report on acid rain. One of its interesting conclusions was that trees are essentially alkaline and that as they grow, by contrast, they turn the ground in which they are rooted increasingly acidic. Of course, in nature, the tree eventually dies, falls to the ground and restores the alkalinity. In tree cropping, however, the alkalinity is removed when the tree is harvested and the environment becomes increasingly acidic. That is a serious problem.
  I must, in all honesty, point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not address that problem. Notwithstanding the scepticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Bill is conceptually simple and deals with height and light; it does not deal with roots, acidity or other blights caused by high hedges, which are, in fact, screens of trees.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend says that the Bill is conceptually simple. That may be true, but so that the House gets a full picture of the measure, I am sure that he will be telling us, perhaps only briefly, that it contains references to fees, remedial notices, appeals to the Secretary of State, regulations, enforcement, offences and many other items. My hon. Friend is an honest chap and he will want to ensure that the House, in judging his Bill, will not be carried away by its conceptual simplicity but will want to consider the underpinnings.
  Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill goes on to employ the method of remedial notices. In the name of fair play that, I trust, informs our society to this day, there will be an opportunity for the person complained of to appeal against the remedial notice. I would not wish it to be otherwise. The person who has grown the high hedge has some rights.
  Mr. Bercow: I am genuinely sorry to trouble my hon. Friend, but he will be aware that I, in common with many hon. Members, have received many letters on the subject
  536
  from constituents. I am having to consider the Bill carefully to decide what I should do. I am immensely impressed by the extent of my hon. Friend's ecological sophistication. Will he take it from me that it is probably of such a scale as to impress an arboricultural consultant, one of whom sits in the House and is currently in the Chair?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend flatters me. I do not wish to persuade the House by the merits of the arguments in my humble address. I believe that the arguments and merits of the Bill stand by themselves and commend themselves. As I said, my Bill is conceptually simple because it deals with height and light. I know that the Building Research Establishment, or BRE, in association with the Tree Advice Trust, has been asked by the DETR to develop an objective way of assessing obstruction of light by hedges. The aim is to come up with a test that will show whether a particular hedge is the cause of an unreasonable obstruction of light, and if so, how much it needs to be reduced to remedy the problem.
  At the end of the day, most people are looking for a mechanism that will lead to the height of the hedge being reduced because views might incidentally be restored and worries about roots allayed. If the Bill's obstruction of light criterion provides a remedy in a high proportion of cases, it might be possible to rely on that one measurement. If not, clause 16 will allow the Government to bring other grounds of complaint within the scope of the legislation. The Bill therefore provides flexibility to extend the complaints system if experience shows that that is either necessary or desirable.
  Clause 1 concentrates on complaints about high hedges that, it is claimed, obstruct light unreasonably. However, it is important to understand what is meant by high hedges, so clause 2 provides a definition: evergreen hedges more than 2 m in height. That covers leylandii and other coniferous hedges such as Lawson cypress and western red cedar, as well as non-coniferous evergreen species such as laurel and privet. The Bill is not intended to apply to individual trees; although they can be the focus of disputes between neighbours, I have not set out to remedy all perceived problems with trees, nor to discourage the planting of suitable trees in gardens. My Bill concentrates on the main problem: tall, dense screens of foliage.
  A complaint can be made to the local authority only if the hedge in question exceeds 2 m in height. That does not mean, nor should it be inferred, that hedges more than 2 m in height are necessarily problem hedges that should be trimmed. Whether or not such a hedge causes unreasonable obstruction of light will depend on the circumstances of the case, according to the objective tests being developed by the BRE. The effect of the Bill is to provide a starting point with some degree of certainty. One cannot put a complaint to the local authority unless the hedge exceeds the 2 m threshold. That approach is consistent with that adopted in respect of garden walls and fences under the town and country planning system: the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

  537
  Development) Order 1995 provides that one is free to erect fences up to 2 m in height without planning permission.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I assure my hon. Friend of my full support for his Bill, but one aspect of clause 2 requires further explanation. Subsection (1) states:
  "'high hedge' means two or more adjacent evergreens"
  and subsection (2)(b) states:
  "a line of trees of shrubs is to be regarded as forming a barrier, despite the existence of any gaps, if the gaps do not significantly affect its overall effect as a barrier."
  The key word is "adjacent". How large would a gap have to be to be regarded as having a significant effect? Will my hon. Friend leave that to the local authority's discretion when a complaint is made, or does he have in mind a clearer and less ambiguous definition?
  Mr. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just obtained from the Vote Office the Hammond report. Have you received any request or notification from the Government that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement at 11 o'clock this morning, or that the Government are making some provision to allow Members of Parliament to ask questions about the report? You will know that there has been widespread reporting in the media regarding the document's contents. Now that we have the report itself, I wondered whether you had had any hint, nod or wink from the Government indicating whether they intend to come clean about its contents.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is that I have had no such request.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I have already dealt adequately with the point of order.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: To respond to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who asked me whether the screen had to be continuous—whether, if there were gaps it could be treated as comprising separate items of shrubbery—and whether, in the final analysis, it would be a matter for the local authority's judgment. My view is that it would probably be for the local authority to judge, although the old adage about the elephant comes to mind—it is hard to define, but you recognise one when you see one. The same is true of an obstructive and oppressive high screen—you recognise one when you see one.
  Clause 3 defines the reference to domestic property in clause 1. It makes it clear that one can make a complaint under the Bill if one believes that the high hedge in question is causing an unreasonable obstruction of light to one's garden or home. One person might be concerned only about the effect of a hedge on the garden, whereas another might be concerned about lack of light in the living room. In both cases, a complaint could be made under the Bill.
  538
  Clause 4 sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints. A complaint goes to the local authority—that is, the district, borough or unitary council or their Welsh equivalents. The authority may charge a fee if it wishes to. The Bill provides for the Government to set a maximum fee and enables local authorities to refund fees in appropriate cases. The local authority is given a power to reject a complaint if it believes that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter without involving the authority, or if it considers that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious. If the local authority decides to reject a complaint, it must inform the complainant as soon as it can and explain the reasons for its decision.
  If the local authority proceeds with a complaint, it must decide two matters which are set out in clause 4(3). First, it must decide whether the hedge is causing an unreasonable obstruction of light to the complainant's property so as to affect the reasonable enjoyment of that property. I envisage the authority applying the objective tests now being developed by the Building Research Establishment. If the authority finds that the hedge is causing an unreasonable obstruction of light, it must then consider what action, if any, should be taken to remedy the problem and prevent it from recurring. The Bill requires the authority in making that decision to take into account all relevant factors, including the extent to which the hedge contributes to the amenity of the neighbourhood and affords privacy to its owner, as well as any legal obligations relating to the hedge.
  It is clearly desirable that local authorities handle complaints made under the Bill in an objective and broadly consistent manner. In addition to the BRE tests, I know that the Government propose to provide local authorities with guidance on the legislation. Many cases will boil down to a question of balance: the authority will find that a hedge is causing an unreasonable obstruction of light to the complainant's property; it will consider whether there are any relevant factors that might lead it to decide against requiring the owner to cut it back; then, if there are none and the authority decides that action should be taken, it will issue a remedial notice under clause 5.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous in giving way. Does he envisage that the Bill will be cost neutral to local authorities and that the fees that it allows local authorities to charge will cover the costs? If so, can he give us his ideas as to the general scope or scale of the fees, so that we can judge whether the Bill will provide people with an attainable remedy in terms of the fees that they might be asked to pay?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall not pretend that the measure will necessarily be cost neutral. There will be fees chargeable by the local authority to the complainant, probably of the order of £100 per complaint. Most local authorities are likely to require one full-time member of staff to supervise the activity. I suspect that there will be a net cost to local authorities, albeit not necessarily a large one; I do not intend to estimate how much it might be. None the less, I believe that a money resolution may be necessary and, if I am successful this morning, that money resolution will have to be laid before the House very soon.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman and to answer the question asked

  539
  by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Initially, there could be a cost, even after the fee is levied, but it would start to drop as the number of cases pending increased. In other words, there might be initial costs to local authorities, but, as I interpret clause 4, the scheme will ultimately become self-financing.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with his analysis. I do not pretend to the House that in the initial period of backlog, which might even last for three years, the Bill would be cost neutral. There would be a cost in the early stages.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: My constituent Mr. Michael Jones, who has campaigned for such legislation, spent more than £100,000 on legal costs in trying to deal with his problem. I expect that most people who are currently suffering from the problem will be very grateful that there may at last be a remedy that costs as little as £100.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have a constituent whom the exercise cost £24,000—not as much as it did Mr. Jones, admittedly—and whose opponent had the benefit of legal aid, so that even after a successful civil action, there was no possibility of obtaining costs from the other side, so I share the hon. Lady's sentiment.
  I am conscious of the fact that, according to the clock, I began to speak half an hour ago. Of course, my speech has been considerably extended by interventions, which I have been happy to take, but I shall shortly move to a conclusion.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will know that I am concerned, as many hon. Members are, that the House should get what it wants. He will be aware of my perhaps anorakish interest in the procedure by which the House hopes to get what it wants. In view of the provisions on orders and regulations in clause 13 and my uncertainty about subsections (2) and (3) of that clause, will my hon. Friend advise me as to whether any regulations subsequently introduced by the Secretary of State to give effect to the Bill would be subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure?
  Mr. Taylor: I am prepared to return to my hon. Friend on that matter, but as I understand it, the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. In fact, this is a moment for candour. I have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the affirmative and negative procedures, but I have satisfied myself that the higher hurdle will apply.
  The remedial notice would be drawn up by the local authority, setting out the action that had to be taken to remedy an obstruction of light caused by the hedge. In practice, we are talking about a specific requirement to reduce the height of the hedge and, possibly, an on-going requirement to maintain the hedge to prevent any further problem from arising in future. The local authority could not require the removal of the hedge or its reduction to below 2 m in height.
  Clause 5 sets out in detail what must be included in the remedial notice, as well as specifying the work that must be carried out on the hedge. Among others things, it must
  540
  state when the remedial work should be carried out and explain the consequences of a failure to comply with the notice. The remedial notice would be registered as a local land charge and be binding not only on whoever owned or occupied the land when it was issued but on his or her successors.
  Clause 7 provides rights of appeal against the local authority's decisions under the Bill. If, in dealing with a complaint, the authority issued a remedial notice requiring work on the hedge, an appeal could be made to the Secretary of State. Similarly, if the authority decided not to issue a remedial notice, the complainant could appeal. Those provisions are intended to ensure that the people affected by the Bill are guaranteed a fair and impartial hearing before the determination of their respective civil rights.
  Under clause 8, the Secretary of State would be allowed to set down in regulations the procedure for dealing with such appeals. He would be required to appoint "another person" to hear and determine appeals under the Bill. I believe that the intention is to delegate all appeals to the planning inspectorate.
  Clause 9 describes the Secretary of State's powers in determining appeals. He may allow or dismiss appeals, either in total or in part. He may quash or vary remedial notices. He may also issue such notices in cases where the local authority has decided not to do so. Under clause 10, failure to comply with the remedial notice would be an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £1,000. There is also provision for daily fines if the requisite work remains outstanding following a court order. People will not be prosecuted simply for growing hedges. Those provisions would come into play only if someone refused to comply with the local authority's remedial notice.
  Under clause 11, the local authority would have the power to go on to land and carry out the work specified in the remedial notice if the owner or occupier of the land failed to comply with its requirements. The authority could exercise those powers whether or not criminal proceedings were brought under clause 10. The costs of the work could then be recovered by the local authority from the owner or occupier of the land.
  Under clause 16, the Secretary of State would have the power to extend the scope of complaints covered by the Bill and to alter the definition of the term "high hedge" by regulations. That is necessary in case experience shows that the Bill does not cover particular high-hedge problems.
  I believe that we are addressing a genuine grievance that has brought misery to the lives of a number of our constituents. In conclusion, I should like to thank all those who have supported and encouraged me in introducing the Bill, not least my sponsors. I thank Clare Hinchliffe, the president of Hedgeline, for her help and encouragement, too. I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.27 am
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on using his discretion after being so fortunate in the ballot. The Bill is long overdue. On a number of occasions, I have tried to get a similar Bill through the House, although I take no credit away from the hon. Gentleman. I have appreciated the support of hon.

  541
  Members from all the political parties that compose the House on the occasions on which I have tried to get such a Bill through the House. I certainly appreciate and acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) has done in Birmingham. She has put in a tremendous effort in a number of ways, from tabling early-day motions to holding consultations with members of various groups and individuals who face the problem of high hedges.
  When the problem was first brought to my attention, I thought that someone was trying to set me up. I found it incredible that high hedges or high trees could create so many emotional—sometimes neighbour is set against neighbour—and practical problems. The more research I did, the more serious I found the problem to be. With the exception of one or two politicians, people had certainly not taken it particularly seriously before, and its dimensions had not been appreciated.
  When I consulted the public on my Bill, I was utterly amazed to be approached by people from the Japanese embassy who wanted copies of it because, as I discovered, Japan has problems similar to those we face here. I was equally amazed to be approached by people from Germany, where a similar problem exists. When Governments were opposing the introduction of a Bill such as this, we were told that everything on the continent was all right. We found out that is was not. The more I explored it, the more I realised the importance of the problem, about which I have had thousands of letters from all over the British isles.
  I certainly welcome those things in the Bill which safeguard individual freedoms; that is always the basis of things which sometimes do not seem important. There are adequate safeguards and, at any stage, the notice can be withdrawn. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a say in how it will be operated; at the end of the day, one can go to him. The Bill includes many safeguards and, in some ways, it is better than my Control of Hedgerows in Residential Areas Bill. However, there are certain similarities, such as the right of local authorities to implement the provisions, which was part of my Bill. The present Bill makes considerable effort to provide for conciliation between parties—also in my Bill. There are one or two indications that the draftsman has listened to different opinions on both sides of the House and has tried to cover various points of view. The hon. Member for Solihull touched on the big problem of the considerable costs incurred under the old planning regulations and the fact that one was never sure whether one would get justice. There have been some very expensive cases. I know of a group captain who had to mortgage his house but, at the end of the day, got no justice. He is in his 80s and has a considerable war record of which the country should be proud, yet he is going to spend the rest of his days in debt. That provides an indication of the Bill's social consequences, which, as I said, I welcome.
  In my view, local authorities are the only bodies adequate to police the Bill because they are publicly accountable. If there is any threat of injustice, it would be easy for constituents to go to their local councillor and have the matter raised in the council chamber.
  Mr. Forth: Surely the hon. Gentleman concedes that, although the initial stage of the proposed procedure is a matter for the local authority—one can argue that it carries the reassurance of local accountability—the
  542
  appeals mechanism envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in his Bill is dealt with by the Secretary of State? Is the hon. Gentleman uneasy about the fact that the decision on an appeal would therefore be far removed from local circumstances and that the initial reassurance of local authority accountability would disappear or be reversed by the second stage of the procedure?
  Mr. Cunningham: No, because the notice can be withdrawn at any point. All that is needed is for the local authority—the planning officer or the designated officer—to be satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Bill, he will find that there are adequate safeguards in the procedure. I do not have a major problem with that.
  On that point, I appreciate the fact that, for the first time, the Secretary of State is to appoint an impartial individual to adjudicate on the Bill. That does not happen at the moment.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is correct that the appellate jurisdiction rests with the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State will employ the planning inspectorate, which is represented at a relatively local level and conducts appeal procedures in the immediate locale. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with planning appeals that come before inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State in Coventry, as I am with those in Solihull.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I could not have put it better myself. As he is aware, if the Secretary of State were to consider an appeal, a planning officer or other officer would visit the site and take evidence from all concerned parties and even the public. So, to answer the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Bill's provisions on safeguards are pretty well drafted. Even the most cynical of people cannot help but be struck by the fact that there are adequate safeguards for both sides.
  On the question of cost, the Bill includes reassurance. Initially, there will be a fee and it has been said that that could be £100. In the initial stages, there will certainly be a cost to the local authority, but as the backlog is dealt with, in theory, we would get to the point where the process was self-financing.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to comment on this point? I would not be particularly fazed if a cost fell on a local authority, for two reasons: first, it has the right to return or refund the fee, which is at its discretion; secondly, the complainant has to pay the fee—unlike in the planning system, where the fee is paid by the person making the application, who obviously stands to benefit financially if the application gets through. Because the complainant—the person who, through no fault of his or her own, has been moved to make the complaint—pays the fee, the local authority should, as a matter of form, return the fee if the complaint is upheld.
  Mr. Cunningham: I agree. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a considerable planning background and is speaking from a position of experience.

  543
  It has been said that an additional officer or officers could be employed to police and enforce the Bill. Again regarding costs, such posts are probably already there in planning departments, in which case it is just a question of giving people additional responsibilities, so there may not be an additional cost.
  To conclude, may I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull and everyone who, over the years, has tried to a get a Bill on this subject through the House? Certainly local communities and individuals would certainly welcome such a measure. In Coventry, the Styvechale ratepayers association would certainly welcome it, as would the Fryern residents association and constituents who have written to me individually. Last but not least I would mention Hedgeline which has campaigned for years on the issue. The Bill will be most welcome throughout the country, as it addresses a problem in our society which can cause nervous breakdowns, set neighbour against neighbour and sometimes lead to violence. There are reports of cases in which individuals have gone to their neighbour's house with guns. There are considerable costs for those who want to bring a case against a neighbour causing a nuisance or whose property is threatened by the roots of those trees, so devaluing it. I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that many others do, too. Once more, I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull on introducing it.
  10.38 am
  Mr. Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on introducing an important Bill. At the same time, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Coventry, South, who has worked on the issue over many years. I, too, pay tribute to the organisations that have worked on the issue, especially Hedgeline, which recognised its importance many years ago and has worked to give the House this opportunity today.
  I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is in his place. I do not know whether his constituents, friends or family ever see him, but such is his diligence in the Chamber that, ever since his election, I cannot recall an occasion when I have spoken without his being present and intervening on me. I look forward with great anticipation to his intervention. He intervened earlier on his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and referred to the large number of former Prime Ministers who chose not to address the issue; he implied that he considered it trivial. That is simply not the case.
  As the extremely well prepared guidance notes provided by the Department, with the agreement of the hon. Member for Solihull, clearly demonstrate, there is a known backlog of more than 10,000 cases in the United Kingdom. That is probably just the tip of the iceberg, and represents only those members of the public who have chosen to raise the matter with the various authorities.
  Mr. Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman mused on why the first and second Bills on the Order Paper today are accompanied by explanatory notes kindly provided by Her Majesty's Government, but none of the other Bills have
  544
  explanatory notes provided by Her Majesty's Government? I invite the hon. Gentleman to speculate for a moment why that might be the case.
  Mr. Foster: I will indeed speculate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the House if we stuck to the Second Reading of the Bill before us.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In connection with the guidance notes provided for the Bill under discussion—lest I stray further and incur your ire—I believe that one of the reasons why the Government have helped in the drafting is that they are keen to see the Bill through as quickly as possible—
  Mr. Forth: Ah!
  Mr. Foster:—as are the vast majority of hon. Members of all parties represented in the House. They all recognise the importance of the issue. It is likely that at least 20,000 people are victims of the problem of high hedges—often, but not always, hedges of leyland cypress. As the law stands, if we do not take action today, where hedgerows cause a nuisance, victims can only take out a civil action against their neighbours. Such disputes tend to drag on for many years, causing great distress, and are, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South reminded us, likely to lead to serious illness in some cases, and even violent assaults.
  All hon. Members who are interested in the matter recognise the difficulty of obtaining satisfaction in the law courts, not least because of the extremely large sum that actions can cost complainants. Typical legal costs have ranged from £25,000 to £40,000 for each case. So severe is the problem that a number of insurance companies refuse to get involved in such cases.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Foster: I knew that at some point I would have the great privilege and pleasure of giving way to the hon. Member for Buckingham. I thought that that might come a little later in my contribution, but it has come now and I welcome it.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he was planning to traduce members of my family, but I assure him that they all have better things to do with their time than watch me on television. If he is suggesting that one of the consequences of the Bill would be less resort to litigation, and therefore decreased expenditure on legal costs, I think that he and other supporters of the Bill ought to make much of that, for I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for two things: first, for pointing out that his family joins the rest of the nation in having no desire to watch him on television, and secondly, for enabling me to say that I had intended to refer to the point that he has raised later in my remarks. One of the enormous benefits of the proposals in the Bill is that they will significantly reduce the need for

  545
  complainants to resort to the legal process, which involves such high costs; as I said, those are typically £25,000 to £40,000.
  The great advantage of not having to resort to that procedure is that for the many people who suffer the problem of high hedges in silence because they have chosen to take no action, there will be a relatively simple, swift and painless process by which they can end the dreadful blight of high hedges on their lives.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will bear in mind not only the legal costs, but the significant other costs associated with the problem of high hedges. Many examples have been brought to my attention of the building costs of repairing the damage caused by high hedges, such as repairs to walls that have fallen down and—much more costly—underpinning work on buildings that have been affected by such hedges.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. A moment ago he used the phrase "relatively simple, swift and painless". Does he believe that that is likely to be the case? The clause headings refer to procedure for dealing with complaints, remedial notices, variation or withdrawal of remedial notices, appeals, appeals procedure, withdrawal of appeals, offences, remedial action, orders and regulations, and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that in that jungle of well-meaning procedure, the term "swift and painless" can apply?
  Mr. Foster: I am certain that it can. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the report of his intervention, he will note that nearly all the procedures that he mentioned will come into play only on appeal, or following suggestions for variation of the legislation. In the vast majority of cases, the simple procedures set out in the first part of the Bill will pertain.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the planning officer visits the site, he will determine whether a complaint is frivolous or serious? That safeguard is provided.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. Having diligently read the Bill, he will have seen that there is provision for vexatious accusations to be dismissed early in the proceedings.
  I return to my response to the hon. Member for Buckingham, who mentioned legal costs. I pointed out that in addition to savings in legal costs, there may well be significant savings in building costs. There is a further financial benefit and a benefit to the nation as a whole. One of the issues that has not yet been touched on in our deliberations is the effect of hedges blocking out light. That affects people's homes in terms not only of appearance, but of heating.
  One study that I have seen shows that the reduction of passive solar heating results in people having to keep their heating systems on longer and to a higher temperature. That represents a significant additional cost, which may be comparable to the cost of adopting the procedure proposed in the Bill—£1 million to £2 million a year. There would thus be savings in legal, building and fuel costs.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with whom it is always a great pleasure to joust in this place.
  546
  He seeks to offer the House, and me, reassurance; to all intents and purposes, he says that the Bill is simple in conception, benign in principle and, in respect of its likely roll-out, seamless in practice. If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman further reassure me that I need not be unduly perturbed by clause 13(4)(b), which refers to making
  "different provision for different cases"?
  Why is it necessary for regulations to be rolled out subsequently in order to cater for those eventualities? Why can we not be told in the Bill exactly what it portends?
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Unfortunately, however, it suggests that I was slightly over-generous in referring to his diligence in the Chamber; had he been as diligent as I had assumed, he would have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull answer that point in his introductory remarks. The hon. Member for Solihull correctly pointed out that, in the early stages of his consideration of the measure and in the work previously carried out by other organisations and by other hon. Members, it was clear that the key issue was the fact that high hedges blocked out light from people's houses. That was what he wanted to address. However, he noted that subsequently, when complaints are made to local councils, other issues may need to be considered. The proposed legislation thus has the scope to take such problems on board if they become apparent at a later date. That is a sensible approach. It is clear that the key problem is the one identified by the Bill, and I am delighted that it is to be addressed.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Foster: I note that the hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene again, and although I shall be delighted to give way, I must point out that I am well aware that other hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did listen to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and I am slightly wounded by the gratuitous unkindness of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster); I am not oblivious to the Bill's potential to cover issues that have not yet been anticipated. My point is simple. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if matters have to be dealt with by regulation, they should be subject to full debate on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in obtaining the answer he seeks; he will see from my record both on the Floor of the House and in every Committee on which I have served that I have always argued that regulations must first be given the approval of both Houses of Parliament, after debate whenever possible. My record on that issue is clear—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he is much happier; I am glad about that and I hope that we will have his support if there is a Division.
  Urgency is important. I read with some interest the press release issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 10 August last year. The Minister for the Environment himself stated:
  "We recognise that over-grown garden hedges have caused distress to thousands of people and we take these problems very seriously. Our consultation has confirmed the overwhelming support

  547
  for tougher controls. And that is why we will work up new laws to give local authorities in England powers to intervene in neighbourhood hedge disputes. Legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time can be found."
  It has taken a little time and it has had to be based on a private Member's Bill, but I am glad none the less that in the meantime the Welsh Assembly has asked for similar measures to apply in Wales, and delighted that the DETR was prepared to help the hon. Member for Solihull in the preparation of the Bill, and by producing the extremely good guidance notes.
  The problem is extremely important; it deserves to be addressed as quickly as possible. That view is shared by many people throughout the country and, sadly, by far too many of my constituents. I have received numerous letters on the subject. As I bring my remarks to an end, I remind the House of what the problem is like for the individuals who suffer from it.
  A constituent living in Upper Weston, in Bath, refers to an 81-year-old widowed mother who suffers from the problem. My constituent states:
  "The trees are now approximately 40 feet high. They overhang the garage roof and garden by about 8 feet. They have drawn moisture from the ground beneath the garage and have caused its wall to subside close to the boundary. They are constantly dropping dead material which clogs the garage gutter, blows around the paths close to the house back door, clogs drains. Much of the back garden which once formed a useful vegetable plot and also gave innocent pleasure is now shaded and cannot be used for growing. The tree closest to the house and kitchen window has grown to about 15 feet. It is taking light from the kitchen and my mother has to arrange for it to be clipped back from her path (obviously, she cannot do this herself). She is constantly expressing her concern about the height of the trees as a danger to her property…As matters stand the only redress we have is to take the owner to court for loss of light and for root trespass for damage to the garage, this would possibly stop some of the nuisance but would involve costly litigation which an elderly widow does not wish to incur."
  Two of my constituents from Lower Swainswick wrote:
  "We would like to support all those people, who are in the same situation as ourselves, that require a change in the law, to control the height of leylandii trees.
  There are three 80 foot leylandii trees on boundary line in neighbours garden, which is trespassing and cutting out light from our house, putting it at risk and devaluing our property.
  We would welcome a law that would make people control these trees."
  Finally, a constituent from Combe Down wrote:
  "I am an unfortunate victim of the "Leylandi, Cypress scourge'. My neighbours persistently and gloatingly overgrow my garden. The biggest problem is the height of these monsters.
  The government has at last promised legislation, which is required now and not at some distant future—hopefully before the election…Swift action is required."
  Today, with the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Solihull, we have the opportunity to provide that legislation and to take the swift action that should have been taken many years ago. We should at least do that today; I hope that the House will support the Bill.
  10.58 am
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Member for Selly Oak had the good fortune to be successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I congratulate him not on that, but on having the good sense to use that opportunity to introduce the Bill.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I chide the hon. Lady not at all, but she has the good fortune to be the hon. Member for Selly Oak; I happen to be the hon. Member for Solihull.
  Dr. Jones: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—that was a grave error on my part. Our constituents will no doubt know who we are.
  I also congratulate my constituents, Michael Jones and Clare Hinchliffe, and their organisation Hedgeline, who have done so much to change the attitude of hon. Members towards the problem of high hedges. The Bill, if given a fair wind today, will end the battle against what the Daily Mail described as the "curse of the leylandii". My constituents and the people throughout the country who have been in touch with them have been instrumental in changing the attitudes of Members.
  When I first took up the issue shortly after being elected for Selly Oak, the response from Ministers in the then Department of the Environment suggested that they regarded it as a frivolous and unimportant matter, which did not warrant any special attention. I therefore pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who, during his tenure as Under-Secretary for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will have done much to ensure that officials apply themselves properly to the measures necessary to combat the nuisance that hon. Members have so ably described this morning.
  Indeed, my hon. Friend accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) and me in October 1997 as part of a delegation to the DETR. He subsequently sent a letter saying:
  "It was apparent to me then from the attitude of officials that this would be an uphill struggle."
  "This" referred to introducing legislation to tackle high hedges.
  The process has been slow, but we have arrived. A consultation paper was issued in November 1999, when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is in his place, attacked it as half-hearted. He said:
  "The people most affected will regard this as passing the buck. It will be another two years at least before there is any chance of any legislative solution."
  It has not quite been two years, but he was almost right.
  I tabled early-day motion 133 of the Session 1999-2000, which welcomed the publication of the consultation paper, but emphasised that only legislation would provide a solution to the complaints that hon. Members received throughout the land. I am pleased that it had the support not only of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who is currently shadow Secretary of State, but of the hon. Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who said:
  "I've had quite a lot of letters—many from Daily Mail readers—about this…I am not terribly fussed what solution we choose. But it cannot be beyond the wit of man or woman to devise a solution that would make people's lives better."

  549
  The Bill that the hon. Member for Solihull has promoted will deal effectively with the problem. I hope that if there is a Division, the hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells and for Mid—Worcestershire, who are in the House but not the Chamber, will support the Bill.
  The consultation paper gathered an unprecedented number of responses from members of the public. I do not believe that so many ordinary people have ever responded to a consultation paper. More than 2,700 people responded, and 93 per cent. of respondents supported legislation. There is a clamour for the introduction of the Bill. Given the cross-party support for the measure, I hope that it will pass on to a Committee stage, when it will receive detailed scrutiny. If that happens, many people throughout the country will breathe a sigh of relief at the prospect of a solution to the nuisance and distress that they have suffered because of oppressive high hedges.
  11.5 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: Recently, a Labour Member said that he supported a private Member's Bill because he was one of the promoter's oldest and dearest friends. I am in a difficult position. I freely confess my long-standing affection and admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). He and I go back further than perhaps either of us would care to remember, and we have undergone adventures and episodes together. I must struggle not to allow my affection for him to get in the way of my judgment about his Bill. That will be difficult because I face not a dilemma but—perhaps—a trilemma about the Bill, its provenance and its aim.
  It is clear from our debate that several people throughout the country have written to hon. Members about the subject of the Bill. So far, more have written from Solihull than from Bromley and Chislehurst, although I have received one or two letters on the matter—one this week. I therefore agree with hon. Members who have mentioned constituents' letters. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) read out a moving letter on the subject. The problem therefore exists, but should we feel obliged to legislate to deal with it?
  A recent tendency, which probably arises more in consideration of private Members' Bills than other measures, has emerged. However, it also arose on the Bill on the disqualification of clergy. In that case, an individual wanted to be a candidate for election to the House, and the Government felt moved to change the law of the land. I had difficulty with that. I do not agree that because several people have a problem, we must legislate in a hurry or even slowly. It is not a sufficient reason.
  My second difficulty is that the Bill is substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull described the Bill, in a typically elegant phrase, as "conceptually simple". The hon. Member for Bath said that the measure was straightforward and painless. I take issue with both descriptions. The Bill demonstrates the difficulty that arises when we try to find a simple solution to a simple problem. The Bill contains 20 clauses—a reasonably large measure by any standards. Of course, it is not the sort of mammoth Bill that the Government produce almost weekly and try to shove through Committee in an untimely manner. The House dealt with such a matter earlier; we shall have to return to it next week. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull would not disagree with the description of the Bill as "substantial".
  550
  My hon. Friend is trying to deal with an apparently simple matter: people feel upset and irritated or have their health affected by the actions of their neighbours. That is not new territory. Let us consider the phenomenon of suburbia. My hon. Friend's constituency is an elegant and outstanding example of that, as is Bromley and Chislehurst. They are similar. Suburbia, with its detached and semi-detached houses, can demonstrate the difficulty of neighbours living cheek by jowl, sharing party walls or boundaries and fences. The problem of hedges is a further example of that, albeit relatively recent and, it emerges, fairly extreme.
  In seeking to solve the problem, we must be careful to strike a balance—here I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is a solicitor of some eminence and great experience—between what we call, in layman's terms that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would probably understand, the traditional sanctity of private property and of the domestic dwelling, whereby the Englishman's home is his castle, and the reasonable behaviour of neighbours. That is what my hon. Friend's Bill seeks to do. I fear that, in seeking to do that, things might have become somewhat over-complicated.
  The Bill helpfully sets out to define high hedges.
  Mr. Bercow: The House has to decide whether the Bill satisfies the criterion of proportionality. That criterion must be satisfied for Parliament to judge it right to legislate. In that context—I make no valuation; I am simply asking the question—does my right hon. Friend agree that we would do well to bear in mind the words of Walter Lippman, who observed a long time ago that, in a free society, the state does not administer the affairs of men, but administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I wish that that were so. He and I share a longing to return to the age when such ideas prevailed. My fear is that we are now too readily moving—if we are not already there—into an era in which people expect and demand that their every problem should be dealt with by someone else: the local authority, the Government, or the European Union, God help us.
  We are losing, if we have not already lost, the idea of robust, responsible, free citizens, which we have striven to protect for centuries in our common law and in all our customs and traditions. People are no longer prepared robustly to look after their own interests, but look constantly to someone else to solve their problems
  Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes his case in a principled way, and I thank him for his earlier kind remarks about me. He prayed in aid the English common law as part of our robust framework of affairs. Does he accept from me, speaking as a lawyer, that one problem is that some parts of that common law are worse than others—and one of them is the law of nuisance? The aggrieved citizen, in circumstances such as those we are discussing, hardly dares go to court citing the English law of nuisance because it is so uncertain.
  Mr. Forth: Of course I defer to my hon. Friend on that matter. I acknowledge that, largely because of that, we are seeking a process of administrative redress, such as that

  551
  proposed by the Bill, in which we try to circumvent the courts. I do not want to digress into what would be an interesting—and, I might even claim, relevant—debate about the relative merits of remedy through the courts and what I would call administrative remedy. I do not wish to push my luck in that direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall stick to the thrust of the Bill, while acknowledging what my hon. Friend has said.
  We find ourselves, of necessity, having to define high hedges, which the Bill does. It would not be appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to raise too many questions about whether the definition is sufficiently sound—I am not an expert in the matter—but when one sets out, in a Bill such as this, adequately to define what one means by anything, never mind high hedges, there is always potential for getting into difficulty. I can envisage that, if the Bill becomes law, some people in the horticultural or arboricultural business might look at the definition and ask themselves whether they could circumvent the provisions. I wonder, therefore, whether the definition is adequate. However, I am on dangerous ground, so I shall say no more on that matter. I merely flag it up as a potential problem.
  The meat of the Bill lies in the succeeding clauses, one of which deals with
  "Procedure for dealing with complaints".
  Some hon. Members appear to envisage a halcyon era in which innocent victims of ghastly hedges will go, light-footed and light-hearted, through a rather easy complaints procedure. I think that they are being over-optimistic.
  First, the complainant must approach "the relevant authority", which will be the local authority. It has been helpfully pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) that the complaint will probably be dealt with by an expert officer. At the outset, the authority will have to decide whether to proceed with the complaint. That is an initial hurdle, at which the complaint's seriousness or frivolity will be judged by someone. I foresee, even at that stage, the possibility of the aggrieved citizen saying, "You are not taking my complaint sufficiently seriously." Right at the beginning, it will be possible for the citizen to feel that their case is not being properly dealt with by the authority.
  Clause 4(4) provides that the authority must take into consideration all kinds of interesting matters, for example:
  "the extent to which the high hedge in question is capable of affording (or, if reduced in height, would still be capable of affording) privacy to an occupier of the neighbouring land".
  Although my hon. Friend has said throughout that he was concentrating on the matter of light—height and light, as he put it—the matter of privacy is also written into his Bill as a relevant consideration. The hon. Member for Bath mentioned solar panels on roofs, but the matter is not as simple as that, because it is a requirement of the Bill that a judgment is made on whether privacy is a consideration—and, in my view, rightly so. Right at the beginning of the Bill, therefore, there are provisions for matters involving difficult judgments. It is not just a question of asking, "Are these hedges? How high are they and do they block someone's light?" No, the matter of privacy also has to be taken into consideration.
  552
  The Bill goes on to state that the authority must take into consideration
  "the extent to which the hedge contributes (or, if reduced in height, would still contribute) to the amenity of the neighbourhood".
  We are introducing an aesthetic element. Not only must someone go round with a light meter saying, "Let me see, does this hedge block the light?", but the authority must consider whether privacy is properly protected and make a judgment about the amenity of the neighbourhood.
  Finally, the clause contains a measure that I suspect my hon. Friend slipped in out of amusement—I will not say self-interest, because he no longer practises as a solicitor, which is a great loss to the legal profession. That provision states that the authority must take into consideration
  "any legal obligation…relating to that hedge."
  My hon. Friend is therefore admitting to the possibility that there could, in some circumstances, be legal obligations relating to the hedge, or its location, function or purpose.
  Mr. Pound: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Building Research Establishment is working on precisely such objective criteria—whether out of prescience or anticipation of his making these remarks, I do not know—in order to address that issue? Would not that go some way towards satisfying his tortured, anarchic soul?
  Mr. Forth: It may or may not. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to buy a pig in a poke, and I am not inclined to do so. Moreover, I will suspend my judgment on whether so-called experts at some institute or other—no matter how eminent—will be able to produce objective criteria to deal with matters such as privacy and amenity, to say nothing of light. The hon. Gentleman is obviously a more trusting soul than I am. We shall beat that out of him if he spends considerably more time in the House, as I hope he will. I simply flag up the point to show that the matter will not be as simple as hon. Members suggest.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Are not those issues regularly dealt with by planning officers when dealing with planning applications?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, and that is what I am afraid of. The hon. Lady says that such matters are already dealt with by planning officers so that is okay. I do not know how many constituency cases involving how planning officers handle such issues she deals with, but I deal with a lot. Although I always have a struggle with my conscience as to whether I should deal with them at all, I usually give in and try to help my constituents. To my mind, saying, "Don't worry folks, it will all be dealt with by these expert planning officers" is not a convincing argument.
  Perhaps the planning officers in the hon. Lady's constituency or in her local authority area are so expert that they are proof against complaint and dissatisfaction. Perhaps her postbag is devoid of letters about local planning matters. All I can say is that I suspect that in Solihull, Buckingham, Ashford and Bromley and Chislehurst, to say nothing of Bath, the odd letter about such matters pops up in the odd postbag.
  Dr. Jones: Of course I occasionally deal with such cases, but I deal more with complaints about nuisance

  553
  hedges. From the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, is he suggesting that we should have no planning procedure whatever and that people should be able to erect buildings whenever they like without involving planning regulations?
  Mr. Forth: In an ideal world, yes. I have in mind the image of an ideal world in which there are no planning officers, no local authorities, almost no government and a lot of responsible, happy, free citizens living together in responsible relationships, but we have not quite got there yet. My task is to judge whether I believe that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull moves us in that direction. Indeed, we all have to make such a judgment.
  I want briefly to refer to certain proceedings. I have said that I believe that the front end of the process is in no way as simple as hon. Members suggest. Variation or withdrawal of remedial notices would also be involved and any appeals against remedial notices would be very important. It has been pointed out that the Secretary of State would not personally be involved in appeals. I am rather grateful for that, given the current incumbent of the post, although my hon. Friend has told us that he believes that the Secretary of State would probably appoint experienced inspectors to undertake the appeals process on his behalf.
  The suggestion is helpful because it would bridge that gap, which worries me, between the localised initial stage of the process, which would ultimately be the responsibility of the local authority and its elected members, and the Secretary of State, who would be too remote to provide a degree of reassurance that the appeals process could be properly conducted. 1 accept my hon. Friend's assurance that the mechanism that he suggests would almost certainly fit the requirement, but we get back into difficulty in clause 8, which states:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to"
  examples of where regulations would be required. Let us not imagine that the matter would be free of bureaucracy. Everybody craves a simple, quick and easy solution from the Bill, but they may end up somewhat disappointed.
  I pass over determination or withdrawal of appeals. The enforcement of remedial notices of course raises another series of issues such as fines. Let us not imagine that the process would be pain free. If such matters sadly and regrettably became a point of bitter dispute between neighbours—one or two letters that I have received suggest that they can do so—the initial complaint, the likely appeal, the need for remedial notices and perhaps a degree of obstinacy that might not otherwise have been expected may all render the process a lot more difficult than might be imagined. We are being way over-optimistic if we are simply saying, "It is okay folks, we will put a new Act on the statute book and this will all be resolved fairly easily." I fear that the Bill may not produce the anticipated results.
  The hon. Member for Bath used a phrase that those of us who are in the Chamber every Friday have come to recognise. He said that the Bill has the support of a large number of Members of all parties and of all shapes, sizes and descriptions. Although he did not say so, I should not be surprised if it is supported by Members of all genders as well. The problem is that every time this Session
  554
  Members have claimed widespread support for a Bill among other Members of Parliament, they have usually cited an early-day motion, which is a piece of political wallpaper that pleases a lot of MPs because it enables them to sign a bit of paper and feel that they have done their job properly.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the real test is the attendance of Members of Parliament at the House of Commons. They must hold themselves ready to support a Bill by voting in the Lobby. Frankly, I am not otherwise impressed. I am not remotely impressed when I am told that so many Members have signed an early-day motion. I am not even impressed if I am told that all sorts of people have pledged their support. The pledge of support that matters in the legislative process is a Member of Parliament walking through the Lobby—showing support in the only way that counts.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend always and rightly poses an exacting test for his parliamentary colleagues. Does he agree, however, even if one were rather less rigorous in one's demands and expectations and did not insist or expect that a Member should attend the Chamber for a debate on a Bill before deciding whether to support it, that it would not be unreasonable to ask how many of those who supported a Bill on Second Reading had read it?
  Mr. Forth: That would be an exacting test. I suspect that the only person—not just present, but perhaps throughout the House of Commons—who would pass would be my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Pound: There are at least two.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that hon. Members are not volunteering to be put through a rigorous examination of their knowledge of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore rose—
  Mr. Forth: Except for the hon. Gentleman, to whom I give way.
  Mr. Dismore: If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall show that I have read the Bill, as I have detailed comments to make on some of the principles behind it.
  Mr. Forth: I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from my remarks.
  I want to make two final observations. First, the Bill might be in an interesting position regarding the passage of time and the possible calling of an election should it be given a Second Reading and be considered in Committee. Let us bear it in mind that this Parliament has another 14 months to run. The Leader of the House, no less, verified that for us yesterday at business questions; in fact, she boasted about it. So, should the Prime Minister cut and run, either because he is disappointed by the Chancellor's Budget or because he is in a panic about foot and mouth or any other matter, the premature calling of an election would bring the private Member's Bill procedure to an abrupt and unfortunate end, and we should all remember whose fault that would be.

  555
  Secondly, were the Bill to be given a Second Reading, it would require considerable scrutiny in Committee and on Report. I deliberately have not dwelled at any length on the detailed provisions. As you know, it is not my practice to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I have highlighted examples that might create difficulty and I have mentioned, just in passing, some issues that might require further attention. I go no further than that. Some Members have suggested that the Bill deals with a small, narrow matter, but I believe that it deals with an important one. I think that it has the potential to go much wider in its effects than focusing on a specific problem.
  With those brief comments, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull well. He has chosen an interesting subject, given that he came so high in the private Members' Bill ballot. He has made good and proper use of the time available to him, and has judged the Bill well and interestingly. He must some time give me a little tutorial on how to write explanatory notes.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on introducing the Bill, which I support. It covers important principles with which I strongly agree, and would help to avoid some of the neighbour disputes that every Member has to deal with from time to time.
  In Britain, we are often happy to allow people to do something, but are reluctant to legislate to prevent them from doing things. We are too slow in producing legislation to restrain people from infringing their neighbours' liberties. A big question of liberty underlies the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) touched on it. He is perhaps a spokesperson for the libertarian right, which would allow people to do what they like with as little intervention by the state as possible.
  I am drawn to some of the great writers on politics. Hobbes talked about life in the state of nature being "nasty, brutish and short". He said that imposition of a state and regulation of human life was important, and I agree with him.
  Mr. Pound: I thought Hobbs was a cricketer.
  Mr. Hopkins: It was another Hobbes.
  Other great writers on liberty have dealt with these subjects at length, such as John Stuart Mill and, more recently, Sir Isaiah Berlin, who spoke of liberties conflicting and said that the liberty of the pike does not mean liberty for the minnow. A pond with one pike has many unfree minnows.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hopkins: Yes.
  Mr. Pound: Speaking of minnows.
  Mr. Bercow: As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) observes entirely correctly, we are speaking of minnows, so I thought it appropriate to rise to my feet.
  556
  On first principles, will the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) explain the pertinence of Isaiah Berlin's conception of positive and negative liberty in so far as it applies to the Bill? It is important not to misrepresent anyone in these matters. Will he confirm that the key point about Mill's advocacy was the distinction between self-regarding and other regarding acts? The erection of a high hedge would probably be regarded—certainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—as an other regarding act.
  Mr. Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I should like to debate these points. J.S. Mill agonised about whether one could intervene to prevent someone from damaging himself, and it was Isaiah Berlin who referred to liberties conflicting. The point about positive freedom is that the state intervenes to promote the freedom of the weak against the strong. I believe that the state, by choice and by careful legislation such as we promote in the House, can protect the liberties of the weak against the strong. I entirely agree with that proposition, which is why I sit on this side of the House rather than on the other side.
  I have had some experience of neighbour disputes about arboreal matters. When I was young, I lived in a flat with an elderly landlady, who asked me to cut a branch of a neighbour's tree that was overhanging her garden. I made the rash assumption that she had consulted her neighbour and I got on my step-ladder with a saw. The neighbour came out of his house in a state of extreme agitation. He was very angry and tried to push me off the step-ladder. I was not a lawyer at the time, but I can think of several laws that could have been invoked. I felt that something had to be done to regulate relations between neighbours. Time and again, neighbours in my constituency have fallen into conflict with each other for various reasons, resulting in bitter disputes for which the law is often inadequate. Therefore, I support the principles underlying this important Bill.
  I should declare an interest, because I may be the only Member present who has a leylandii hedge next to his garden. My neighbour keeps it trimmed at a reasonable level. We are extremely good friends, and he has not caused any dispute. If he were to allow his hedge to grow to a height of 30 ft or 40 ft, or whatever height they can grow to, 1 am sure that it would cause difficulty between us. I may be able to afford a lawyer, such as the hon. Member for Solihull, to take my side, but if I were an old-age pensioner living on a state pension I would not be able to do so and would be in extreme difficulty. If people could call in the local authority to help, that would be a good use of a local authority. That is how it should be.
  Mr. Dismore: Presumably, if my hon. Friend were an impecunious pensioner, the community legal service would give him assistance. However, that would not be possible if the £0.5 billion package of cuts proposed by the Opposition were to go through.
  Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The community legal service is promoted by the Government.
  My neighbour's fence was attractive when it first grew, because the row of cypress trees reminded me of my holiday in Tuscany some years previously. Sadly, my back garden's likeness to Tuscany ended at that hedge,

  557
  and there is no other similarity. He chopped the tops off the trees, so they are now beheaded and less pretty. The hedge is an agreeable barrier between our gardens. I am not sure whether he is trying to keep my garden out of his garden, but it is agreeable because he keeps it trimmed at a reasonable level.
  My neighbour's hedge does not exclude light, as it points south-west and my garden gets the best of the sun in the afternoon, so it is not a problem. The Bill is rather more nebulous about how I could deal with the situation if it were much higher. I suggest that consideration be given in Committee to an absolute height limit of 3 m or 4 m—I think that 3 m is reasonable—to prevent, for instance, the obstruction of one's view of the neighbourhood.
  Mr. Pound: I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend in the generality of his comments, but does he agree that the noble cypress standing alone can present a wonderful picture? In my garden, with the advent of spring, fornicating frogs are frolicking in the pond in the shade of a noble Lebanon cedar. Were there a row of cedar, that would constitute a problem, but where one stands alone it can be a landscape feature. I urge my hon. Friend to row back from a height limit, because we should consider spatial location rather than crude geometry. Height can be all right, if the tree is in the right place.
  Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I shall leave judgment on these matters to the Committee. There is a difference between a noble cypress standing alone and a dense row of them blocking light or blocking the view. In my garden, the only view that the hedge blocks is that of the aircraft taking off from our local airport, and I am not worried about losing that view. However, in other cases a view of attractive hills may be hidden by a high fence that does not exclude light, but makes the view from the garden much less pleasant.
  I believe that there is a case for a height limit on hedges, perhaps at a higher level than the 2 m proposed in the Bill to avoid cutting out light. In Committee, I hope that consideration can be given to tightening up the Bill on overall height for other reasons besides blocking out light.
  I cannot claim to have a background in the promotion of the Bill, but I congratulate all who have. I have an interest, however, and I hope that what I have said will be of some benefit and assistance.
  11.40 am
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I think it is the fourth attempt to legislate after the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid—Kent (Mr. Rowe): there were two attempts by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who spoke earlier, and one in the other place by Lady Gardiner of Parks—an apposite name and title in this context. Regrettably, having heard what has been said today, I suspect that this Bill's prospects are limited.
  I want to cite some cases referred to me by constituents, which highlight not just the need for the Bill but one or two problems caused by its current drafting. Mr. Brazil, of Garrett road in Edgware, wrote to me at the end of last year to say:
  558
  "My neighbour has a 'hedge' consisting of Leylandii conifers. These trees are 40 feet high and will eventually—I am told—reach 100 feet. My neighbour—despite repeated requests—refuses to keep them under control in any way. The trees mean that our garden is constantly in shade and is spoilt both for pleasure and beauty. There is also a very adverse effect on the value of my property should I wish to sell."
  The Bill does not provide for that consideration, but I think that what Mr. Brazil tells me constitutes the fundamental reason why it is necessary.
  Mr. and Mrs. Cullinan, of Rushden gardens in Mill Hill, wrote to me on behalf of half a dozen constituents. They raised similar but slightly different problems, again related to leylandii trees planted as a hedge. They wrote that the London borough of Barnet—when it was under Conservative control, I hasten to add—planted the trees some 15 years ago,
  "when the property belonged to them; the responsibility for their maintenance is that of the present owner. The house has recently been sold and we think that it is being rented out. We have written to the owners asking for the trees to be removed or trimmed to a reasonable height and maintained.
  The trees have grown steadily over the years and are still growing. Their estimated height is now 30 ft.
  The previous owner was willing to trim the trees but not enough to make any difference to us.
  These trees have caused damage to the shed of no. 13. Blocks out sunlight from the majority of the gardens and prevents plants from growing. The roots must be huge to support trees of this size.
  As council taxpayers and voters we feel we are entitled to your support and at least somebody could even look at the trees.
  We will seek legal advice but do not see why we should bear the cost of this, as they are not our trees."
  The couple's problems relate to whether the local authority is responsible for the trees, the damage caused by tree roots and the issue of light, as well as the question of obtaining legal advice under the present system. I am happy to report that the property involved has a new owner who seems a little more sympathetic, but time will tell. Mr. and Mrs. Cullinan have had to put up with the problem for more than 10 years.
  Mr. Prendergast of Deansbrook road in Burnt Oak, whom I met when I was doing the doorsteps a few weeks ago, raises a slightly different problem. He has a very small garden, but there is a single large conifer on the next-door neighbour's property, which completely blocks out the light in his kitchen. Having seen the property, I can vouch for the problems that Mr. Prendergast is experiencing, and I think that they illustrate one of the drafting problems to which I referred. The House of Commons research paper on the Bill sets out the problem succinctly. It refers to the difficulties that trees and shrub hedges frequently cause, threatening roofs, gutterings and drains, depriving unwilling sufferers of light in their houses, and depriving them of the right to use their gardens in the way that they choose. The paper states:
  "Small gardens can be completely dominated by the high neglected hedge at the bottom of someone else's large garden."
  Keen gardeners may be prevented from growing the plants they wish to grow by untopped and unmaintained fast-growing hedges. The burden of that continuing hazard can fall on people who are prevented by law from intervening to reduce the height of hedges.
  I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to act. They have issued a consultation document, and have indicated that they would like to legislate when time

  559
  permits. I am also glad that the hon. Member for Solihull has been able to take on the Bill. However, we need to be aware of the scale of the problem.
  A 1999 survey of local authorities estimated that there could be as many as 17,000 existing problem hedge cases in England and Wales. The problem tends to occur when a hedge is not suitable for its location, and is not properly maintained. Once a well-maintained hedge is neglected and becomes overgrown, it too will create problems.
  Much of the debate has focused on leylandii cypresses, which tend to be singled out for blame because they can grow by 1 m a year and reach heights of more than 100 ft. It is not the only culprit, however. People considering what to plant in their gardens should bear in mind the fact that other trees can also have a serious deleterious effect on their neighbours' properties. The Lawson cypress can grow by 60 cm a year, to 20 m, the western red cedar can grow by 75 cm a year, to 25 m, and even the common-or-garden privet grows by 60 cm a year and can reach a height of 13 m. I found that staggering. The yew tree can grow by 20 cm a year, to 13 m, and even holly can grow by 30 cm a year, to 10 m.
  The 1993 report "Trees in Towns" found that the most common type of tree in urban areas, constituting 22 per cent. of the total, was the cypress type, such as leylandii. More important, cypress-type trees accounted for 50 per cent. of hedges that were higher than 2.5 m. People may assume that if they have a tree that is not a leylandii these arguments do not apply to them. They should understand that other types of tree can cause similar problems, and that what may be a dwarf now may become a giant triffid in a year or two.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has clearly done a great deal of research. Does he agree that the inappropriateness of some trees lies in the fact that their genetic make-up has made them forest trees whose survival requires them to drive for the canopy as fast as they can?
  Mr. Dismore: That is a valid point, although there is a right place for hedges consisting of such trees. Anyone who has visited a stately home on an afternoon off will have seen wonderful avenues of cypress trees or yew hedges—but that is the right place for them: they are not appropriate for people's back gardens, particularly in built-up urban areas where the trees may be striving for light. They are effectively competing with the houses for light, and, by definition, competing with the neighbours as well.
  The Bill is welcome because it demonstrates that existing procedures are not adequate. Of course, the best solution is co-operation with the neighbours. A hedge owner simply might not be aware of the effect that his hedge is having on his neighbours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) suggested, a polite request for the hedge to be kept properly trimmed and maintained might be all that is needed. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend has a good working relationship with his neighbour. Ultimately, that is obviously the best way in which to avoid disputes and prevent what is often a problem that can be solved relatively easily from escalating into one of the "neighbours from hell" wars that we see on television all the time.
  560
  The initial focus of the dispute can turn into a much greater problem involving many other issues.
  It is important to stress the need for mediation. It is regrettable that mediation services are not available more widely. If both parties are willing to reach an amicable solution but differ over what that solution should be, mediation by an independent third party could help them reach an acceptable solution. Even if the hedge is part of a wider dispute, mediation could get to the root cause of the dispute. Of course, mediation requires both parties to act in good faith. It requires their good will if it is to succeed. The House will understand that it is not a legal solution, but a situation in which two parties are trying to reach agreement. There are 150 mediation groups throughout the country, but they obviously do not provide a solution to the problem nationwide.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) referred to the civil courts. I am a solicitor, but as far as I am aware I have not done a tree case. I regret to say, as my hon. Friend said, that the civil courts do not provide a viable solution to these detailed problems. The cost and time and effort involved in mounting a legal challenge constitute an unattractive option for many private individuals who have limited resources, regardless of whether they have the backing of the community legal service. If that service were abolished—the Conservatives would abolish it if they came to office—that support would not be available to individuals.
  Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend is making the point strongly that we need a strong and simple law that can be invoked if necessary, but legislation that underpins mediation. If a neighbour knows that he is likely to go to court and is likely to lose, he will not grow his trees high in the first place.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Part of the problem, as I said when I was talking about the types of tree involved, is ignorance. Once someone has planted a tree, he or she often becomes territorial: it is an example of an Englishman's home being his castle. If someone thinks in advance about planting trees there may not be a dispute, but thereafter the issue can become the focus of real problems. With court cases, the lack of certainty of a successful outcome makes people unwilling to risk legal costs. Such cases can become extremely expensive, and really do not provide a viable solution to the problems.
  There is also the matter of easements. I studied the law of property nearly 30 years ago, although, not having practised in property law, I do not claim to be an expert. As I understand it from my legal research, easements of light do not extend to people's gardens. There can be a remedy only if the property itself is affected, and then only if the light in question has been enjoyed uninterrupted for at least 20 years. The common law right is not much help.
  It has been suggested that statutory nuisance provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 might provide a potential remedy for disputes over high hedges. Section 79(1)(a) states that keeping
  "Premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance"
  amounts to statutory nuisance. However, to bring a case under the Act, there must be a direct risk of disease or illness. The problems that we are discussing can cause all

  561
  sorts of stress, unpleasantness and unhappiness, but in many instances it would be difficult to show that there was a direct risk of disease or illness. It might be argued that people's mental health might be affected in certain extreme circumstances, but it would be difficult to show that there was a statutory nuisance within the terms of the 1990 Act. The existing remedies are not adequate to deal with a real and growing problem.
  I was pleased that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a guidance leaflet, with the assistance of the horticulture and landscapes industries, which sets out alternatives to fast-growing species. It was designed to help people when they come to plant in their gardens. Again, however, it does not seem to have solved the problem. That is why I am pleased that the Government conducted the consultation to which I referred. Given that there were more than 3,000 responses, it is clear that such consultation was not only long overdue but welcomed by the population. The results of the consultation showed that 94 per cent. of respondents believed that new laws were needed to control hedges. The Bill meets that demand. Also interesting is the fact that 77 per cent. of local authorities support new laws. Some 72 per cent. of respondents chose the option of allowing local authorities to deal with the problem, and 67 per cent. of local authorities shared that view, although they wanted mediation to be introduced alongside new laws.
  I shall flag up a problem that has been identified by the Local Government Association, which has welcomed the Government's proposals and, by extension, the Bill. There is a need for mediation that involves the disputing neighbours, and there is a potential cost. The LGA and all local authorities are anxious that the net result of the proposed legislation should not be to increase the burden on the local council tax payer or result in an impact on services. If legislation comes forward, they have a case in saying that they should be able to recover the costs that they incur in dealing with complaints. That prompts the question of who the costs should be recoverable from. If we do not deal with that, the local authorities will not thank us for giving them additional concerns without providing them with the necessary resources.
  I have concerns about various parts of the Bill. Clause 2 has already featured, but I wish to emphasise some other aspects. First, there is the requirement that a hedge should have two or more evergreens adjacent to it. I have mentioned one of my constituents, Mr. Prendergast, who has suffered as a result of an evergreen tree—and it is only one, because his garden is very small, as is his neighbour's. The impact of that one tree on his property is probably greater than the impact of an entire hedge on other properties. I hope that the hon. Member for Solihull will reconsider the definition to ascertain whether we can find a way in certain circumstances, at the very least, to provide for a situation where one tree is causing real distress. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider whether that one tree could be caught within the definition.
  I am concerned also about the 2 m above ground level provision and the height of the tree. That may seem petty, but there is a point to be made. I shall give an example. I have a small garden at the back of my Westminster flat. Behind my garden is a neighbouring garden, where the level of the ground is nearly 4 ft higher than that in my garden. Is the 2 m measured from the level of my garden
  562
  or from the level of the other person's garden, because a tree may be only 1 m high in my neighbour's garden, but it will be far more than 2 m high on my side of the fence? That issue needs to be addressed, because a tree may not cause any problem to the person who owns it.
  I wonder whether we should consider the problems caused by deciduous trees as well as those caused by evergreens. People like to use their gardens more in summer when deciduous trees are in leaf and block the light. In winter, they are less of the problem. There is a tall deciduous tree in my next-door neighbour's garden. In the winter, it does not cause a problem, but it blocks quite a lot of light in the summer. I have not been involved in a dispute about it, because it is a nice tree. However, we should consider what we could do about the faster-growing deciduous species. Instead of using the generic term "evergreen", perhaps a schedule could specify the species that are covered by the Bill. Will semi-evergreen trees be caught by its provisions? Certain fast-growing trees lose half their leaves in winter and are therefore classed as semi-evergreen.
  Clause 4 refers to complaints being made to the relevant local authority. What happens if the landowner causing the problem is the local authority? I highlight that point because, in the case to which I referred earlier, the trees in question had been planted by the local authority.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend will find the answer to that question in the explanatory notes, which show that the local authority could be liable.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I do not dispute that the local authority could be liable. My concern is that the local authority would be judge and jury in its own cause. That is potentially a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, to which I hope to refer shortly.
  Mr. Cunningham: Again, that point is taken care of in the explanatory notes. The Bill provides for an appeals procedure and an adjudication. My hon. Friend's point has already been answered.
  Mr. Dismore: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not convinced me that the point has been answered. By definition, an appeals process suggests that the decision should have been taken fairly in the first instance. An appeals process cannot correct in law a defect in the original procedure. That is trite law. There might be infringements of the Human Rights Act, and I shall expand on that point when I get to that part of my speech.
  Mr. Cunningham: I shall describe to my hon. Friend a situation that often arises in local government. A planning authority may give a planning permission that is objected to by a member of the public. The case goes to a planning appeal and, if necessary, if someone want to take it to extremes, to a public inquiry. That parallels the position under this Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: A judicial review is going through the courts at the moment. The whole process and, in particular, the involvement of the Secretary of State has been called into question under the human rights legislation. I shall refer to that point later, but I hope that the Bill would not add to the problem by giving a local

  563
  authority jurisdiction in its own cause. That point will have to be considered as the Bill progresses. It is not a hypothetical problem. As one of my constituency cases shows, it has arisen before. In that case, the land had been sold on but if it had been owned by the local authority at the time, budget pressures might have led the local authority to decide that it would not cut its trees. Where would that have left the people involved?
  Is the current provision for the complaints procedure fair? The Bill's phrasing suggests that, when a complaint is made and a local authority adjudicates on it, no provision will be made for a fair hearing for the owner of the trees in question. He can appeal and ask for a review, but that is not the same as being given a right of hearing before the decision is taken. Under clause 4, the authority will simply have to consider the complaint: it will not be required to consider any representations. Indeed, before the complaint is decided, it will not even be required to give notice of the complaint to the owners of the trees. That is a fundamental breach of natural justice, which I hope will be addressed if the Bill proceeds. I support the Bill, but certain problems may arise from it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) referred to the work done by the Building Research Establishment at the request of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The BRE is working with the Tree Advice Trust to come up with an objective test for light. I have problems with the definitions because the phrase "unreasonable obstruction of light" is a subjective test, yet we are also asking for objective criteria to be set. Perhaps that, too, could be dealt with more effectively in a schedule to the 1990 Act. Including concepts of reasonableness in the Bill will only create a field day for the profession of which the hon. Member for Solihull and I are members.
  On the issue of light, the height of the trees, how far they are from boundaries and the point of the compass at which they are situated in relation to the house are relevant considerations. The time of year should also be taken into account because shade varies according to the season.
  Page 3 lists a series of matters that the local authority must take into account, but the Bill does not specify how it should do that. There is no requirement for a site visit by local authorities or for them to consider photographs. If they are to get involved, they cannot merely take the complainant's word, which seems to be what is provided for in the Bill as drafted. They should at least pay a site visit—preferably when the sun is shining—so that they can see whether the problem is genuine.
  Whether the hedge is in an urban, countryside or suburban environment should also be considered. What is suitable in the countryside is not necessarily suitable in an urban environment, where avenues of cypress trees or yew hedges can cause problems.
  There is a difficulty in defining "neighbouring land." What if the land is not neighbouring? I mentioned a case that was referred to me by half a dozen constituents. The trees were not just a problem for the immediate neighbours. The shadows that they cast were so large that four or five other properties were also affected. Does the definition cover people who are further down the street?
  564
  Local authorities should consider whether tree preservation orders are attached to the trees, because there may be a good reason for some of them to be allowed to survive. There is no reference to the responsibility of local authorities in that regard.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Clause 4(4)(c) states that the local authority is obliged to take into account
  "any legal obligation (whether imposed by or under any enactment or otherwise) relating to that hedge."
  That would include tree preservation orders.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for that clarification. It is an important consideration, and I am happy with the definition if it covers it.
  On wildlife, I know from research that I have conducted that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds thinks that there is a problem with enforcement. It says that between October and April birds may well be nesting in the trees concerned. If we are going to issue orders for people to cut down trees or reduce their height, the Bill should ensure that the interests of wildlife are protected. What might be a valid order in the summer months may not be valid in the winter months if it has an impact on birds or other wildlife. I hope that we can incorporate some protection. I do not think that that would be a major change, but local authorities should bear that important consideration in mind.
  We also have to consider the health of the trees. Although I am not an arboriculturist, I know that there are times of the year when it is not sensible to prune a tree because it is not good for its health. Another time of the year might be far better. I do not know whether the seasons when it is necessary to protect wildlife and the season when it is necessary to protect trees coincide. No doubt the hon. Member for Solihull has the answer.
  Mr. Taylor: I do not have a pat answer, but as a long-standing parliamentary friend of the RSPB, I thoroughly accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  I turn now to the health of the trees. As I said, I am not an arboriculturist, so I am not sure whether the tree-cutting season coincides with the season when concerns about protecting birds are paramount. My point is that local authorities should take into account the protection of the health of trees and wildlife in deciding when their orders should take effect,
  The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): It is my understanding that the important point raised by my hon. Friend is covered in the Bill. He will know that there is a minimum period for the enforcement of remediation, but no maximum period, and discretion is given to the local authority. It can therefore take into account issues such as the health of the trees and of wildlife when insisting on enforcement.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. If the Bill becomes law, his comments can no doubt be taken into account in any proceedings under the Pepper v. Hart rule which may follow. It would be helpful if that protection were incorporated in the Bill.

  565
  We have all, from time to time, heard of officious local government officers who take the letter of the law to extremes, not necessarily because they have been told to do so by their political masters. Indeed, their actions are often entirely to the horror of their political masters, who do not know what is being done in their name.
  I turn now to the 28-day period before the operative date of a remedial notice. As my hon. Friend said, there is no maximum period—that is left open-ended. Perhaps there ought to be elasticity in the other direction as well, because if the nesting season were approaching or if pruning at a particular time would endanger the tree's health, the people involved in a case might have to wait six months or more before it could be cut back.
  I am also concerned about the problem of the continuing maintenance of trees. I am not sure whether any order made under the Bill could be continuous or whether it would be a one-off. No doubt the hon. Member for Solihull can clarify the point. The local authority could order a tree to be trimmed to a height of 2 m once, but the problem might recur the following year and in the years after that.
  Mr. Taylor: There would be a continuing obligation to cut down a tree and maintain it at the reduced height. Furthermore, the obligation is registrable as a local land charge and would therefore bind a successor in title as well.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for clarification on that important point.
  I also want to explore the relationship between the owner and the occupier of the land. There are potential problems where the occupier is a tenant or leaseholder who wants to comply with a neighbour's request, but the absentee freeholder, of the kind we find throughout the country, takes a different view. Such a freeholder does not have to get on with the neighbours, and if he feared that the value of his property would go down if trees were removed, he might object to the occupier taking action.
  That relationship needs to be explored further so that the person with the obligation—and, indeed, the power that overrides contractual relations between the tenant or leaseholder and the freeholder—acts in accordance with orders made under the Bill. It is all very well ordering occupiers to do something, but if they do not have the legal power to do it because of their contractual relationship with the freeholder, they may find themselves in a cleft stick. Should they comply with the order, which could result in the forfeiture of their lease, or should they do as the freeholder says, and thus run the risk of being fined? That aspect needs to be examined and corrected so that the tenant of the property has not only the obligation but the power to act, even if doing so is technically in breach of the lease.
  It strikes me that clauses 6 and 4 should be transposed, because clause 6 deals with the notice being varied or withdrawn after, for example, representations have been made by the owner of the land affected. That is the Bill's first reference to the owner of the land on which the trees are situated having a say. We should be doing things the other way around: the owner of the land should have the power to make representations first, before consideration is given to varying or withdrawing the remedial notice.
  Problems may arise from the 28-day notice rule. What happens if an application for a variation is made within the time limit, but the time limit expires before the
  566
  application is heard? The Bill contains no reference to preserving the status quo pending the outcome of an application for review or an appeal. As the Bill stands, a person ordered to cut back his trees could subsequently succeed in a hearing on his variation request or appeal, but it would be too late because the trees would already have been cut back.
  That is a potential breach of natural justice. The Bill should contain powers to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of a dispute, a review of a notice or an appeal. Otherwise, we risk being unfair to those on whose land the trees are situated—even though such people do not have my sympathy. It is part of normal planning procedure that the status quo prevails while an appeal is under way, pending its outcome. The same should apply under the Bill, subject to the appeal's proceeding.
  If an appeal is successful but the trees have already been cut down, there is a risk of an action for damages being brought against the local authority. Under planning law, local authorities have to meet some compensation claims if they take remedial action to force compliance with planning law but it is ultimately found that their action was unlawful. The local authority and thus local council tax payers end up having to foot the bill. We must address that problem.
  The points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) lead me to the subject of appeals. We appear to be creating a Clochemerle-type arrangement. Is it appropriate that the Secretary of State—whether or not he acts through his inspectors—should decide the height of a tree? I do not think so. That is a heavy-handed approach to problems that arise within local authority areas from time to time.
  Often, such problems could be dealt with through a separate appeals committee of the local authority, with members who were not involved in making the original decision hearing appeals. Alternatively, such decisions could be taken by council officers using delegated powers, with appeals permitted to elected members. It is better to keep decisions local and ensure that the people dealing with the problems are elected representatives and therefore accountable for their actions in a way that the more remote planning inspector is not. Alternatively, appeals could be made to the magistrates courts in the same way as licensing appeals against local authority decisions are currently permitted.
  We risk creating a superstructure around the Secretary of State that could create our first tree martyrs, who chain themselves to their leylandii when the Secretary of State's inspectors come to cart them off to the magistrates court. We must retain our sense of proportion and keep such issues within the scope of the local authority. A local authority appeal committee might well provide a better and more local means of dealing with the problem.
  I should like to deal with some of the Bill's human rights aspects. We seem frequently to deal with the Human Rights Act 1998 on Fridays, because much of the legislation that we debate has a human rights dimension—none more so than this Bill, which could involve three different articles in the schedule to the Act. I am afraid that we often find that the articles could be mutually in conflict.
  First, article 6, on the right to a fair trial, is involved in the procedures outlined in the Bill for the reasons that I have given. Under clause 4, the person who owns the trees

  567
  would not be given a hearing when the decision was being made and possibly further down the line as well. The Bill contradicts article 6, and we must keep a close eye on the progress of the case currently going through the courts involving the judicial review of the Secretary of State's involvement in the overall planning procedures. That will have an impact on the arrangements in clause 4 if the decision in that case stands and is not overturned by the Court of Appeal or House of Lords. Given the case law at first instance in that case, which was heard at the end of last year, the Bill would infringe article 6.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also referred to the need to respect privacy. That is dealt with in article 8, on the right to respect private and family life. There are conflicts on both sides because such hedges are usually grown to protect the privacy of the owner of the trees, but they may infringe the family life of those who live in the shadow of the trees and the way in which they conduct their affairs. So we need to consider article 8, and we have had a similar debate in relation to other private Members' Bills.
  Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about privacy, but surely that could be covered by achieving the right height—above the eyeline of most normal human beings.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but being overlooked from upstairs windows is also a problem. There are rights and wrongs on both sides of any neighbour dispute. Although my sympathies very much lie with those who suffer from the problem of living in the shadow of high trees, we must reflect on the rights to privacy of the owner of the trees.
  Mr. Forth: There is potential for a straightforward conflict, on one hand, between the right to light, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) referred, and on the other, the right to privacy of the owner of the trees. That introduces an element not only of conflict but of judgment. We are trying to judge which should have the greater weight—one person's light or another person's privacy. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with my suggestion that the matter is by no means straightforward.
  Mr. Dismore: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. My sympathies lie with those on the receiving end. Perhaps that goes back to the philosophical discussion between the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, but in the end, it is the job of the local authority either to mediate or to arbitrate on the issue. As with any planning decision, someone has to make a decision in the end. There are rights and wrongs on both sides, and the local authority should make a decision on them.
  Mr. Bercow: May I take this opportunity to inform the hon. Gentleman that about a week or two ago, my mother was talking about writing to him on the subject of trees? Has she yet done so?
  Mr. Dismore: So far as I am aware, she has not. However, her letter may have arrived at my constituency
  568
  office in the past day or two and, obviously, I have been at the House for the past few days. I shall certainly keep an eye out for her letter when I go to my constituency office tomorrow morning. I am always very interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman's mother.
  Mr. Miller: I hope that she is a good Labour voter.
  Mr. Dismore: I am afraid that she is not a Labour voter, but the hon. Gentleman has endorsed, on behalf of his mother, one or two of the things that I have been doing in my constituency.
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, my final point on human rights legislation concerns article 1 of the first protocol, which deals with the protection of property. It makes an overwhelming argument in support of those on the receiving end and deals with the right of everyone to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In these circumstances, that would include the right to a pleasant afternoon in the back garden.
  I shall draw my arguments on the Human Rights Act to a conclusion by asking the hon. Member for Solihull whether his Bill is compliant with it. We have had this debate in relation to private legislation, particularly the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, when there was vehement dispute about whether or not it was compliant. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can deal with that point when he responds to our debate.
  12.25 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: May I join those on both sides of the House who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on introducing the Bill? It involves serious practical issues and, as we have heard in our fascinating debate, important matters of principle, philosophy and religion. I was struck by the way in which my hon. Friend opened his speech with the biblical provenance of his endeavour. Where I agree that legislation is necessary, and where I slightly part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is in recognising that behind the Bill is the existence of original sin. We are all attracted to my right hon. Friend's ideal society of freeborn men and women interacting without any interference from the state—but sadly, that is made impossible by original sin and human behaviour.
  The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had interesting exchanges about which form of moral philosophy can provide a basis for the legislation. I was struck by their exchange about Berlin, Mill and the utilitarian philosophers. I trust that they both agree that if one accepts a moral philosophy based on deontological, Kantian principles, the Bill has a degree of validity. I therefore hope that the House can bring itself to support it.
  Moving from the philosophical to the practical plane, many hon. Members have pointed out the widespread nature of the problem. Clearly, it is serious; anything that embitters relations between neighbours must be deprecated by the House. Many hon. Members have numerous correspondents on this matter and the main pressure group, Hedgeline, has 3,500 members. Hedgeline

  569
  is probably right to say that tens of thousands of people are affected by the problem, so it is legitimate for the House to seek to act.
  Many Members have said that they have had letters on the subject. I shall quote from one which I received from Mrs. Lucy Smith, the Devon and Cornwall co-ordinator of Hedgeline. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments, as Mrs. Smith fears that
  "the DETR … appear to be out of touch with the feelings of the very ordinary people who ask nothing more than to be able to sit in their gardens and see sunlight during the all too short summer months."
  In many ways that is the nub of the problem which many of our constituents face and which the Bill seeks to address.
  Hedgeline was founded by a constituent of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), and I am extremely grateful to her for pointing out that some years ago, I said that it would be a long time before the Government took decisive action—if they ever did. It would have been immodest of me to point out that I had been exactly right in that prediction, but as the hon. Lady had the generosity to bring it up, may I say how much 1 endorse her analysis?
  It is worth examining the Government's record. This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box since he was appointed, but I am afraid that as the new boy in the team, he has been left with a difficult issue to handle. The Government's record is one of dithering and delaying. They seem to have adopted the principle of consult and ignore, as though they had said, "This is a big problem. We are very concerned, but we do not propose to do anything about it."
  I have done an audit trail of the Government's words and actions. Ministers accept that since they came to office in 1997, they have received many thousands of letters and representations. They apparently spent some time thinking about those representations and, after only two and a half years in office, they managed some action: they produced a press release, which no doubt gave much hope to those concerned about the matter.
  The press release, dated 12 November 1999 and headlined, "Meacher announces new initiatives to tackle nuisance hedges", begins:
  "Making garden hedge disputes between neighbours a thing of the past is the subject of an information initiative and consultation exercise launched by Environment Minister Michael Meacher today."
  I am sure that those who were concerned about the problem thought that all was well, but after the press release, nothing happened.
  Following a gestation period of nine months, another press release was issued—this time in the middle of August, always a time that arouses the suspicion of those of us who are naturally cynical about Government's intentions. The second press release is even more decisive. It is headed, "Nuisance hedges to get the chop—Meacher", and announces:
  "The scope for neighbourhood quarrels about overgrown garden hedges should be cut, following new measures proposed today to give local councils powers to intervene".
  Anyone reading that would have thought that, three years into their term, the Government were taking action. Sadly, the second paragraph rather gives the game away:
  570
  "The Government is to work up new laws to be introduced in England as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable. Specifically designed to tackle nuisance garden hedges …".
  I am sure that whoever wrote the press release was subsequently promoted for that creative use of the weasel words,
  "work up new laws to be introduced … as soon as there is space".
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has taken a long time to reach this stage. I hope that the next stages will be faster. Nevertheless, does he accept that the Government were at least prepared to put some effort into dealing with the problem, unlike their predecessors, who consistently refused to accept the existence of the problem and did nothing at all?
  Mr. Green: I do not accept that. The Government have not yet done anything. We are discussing a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull. The Government have done nothing to redeem their pledges to take action. The hon. Lady's constituent, Michael Jones, recognised that. After the decisive-sounding press release in August, by November last year Hedgeline was becoming suspicious.
  Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend is dealing with consultation, and in order to complete the equation, can he offer the House a synopsis of the views of the Association of District Councils and the Local Government Association?
  Mr. Green: Local authorities generally have welcomed the idea of legislation, but they have some reservations about the costs that local government will incur as a result. I shall deal with that shortly. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) read out the statistics of the response to the consultation exercise, which show not only that the overwhelming majority of local authorities welcome legislation, but that they regard it as urgently needed, as does Hedgeline.
  Last November, Hedgeline's newsletter stated:
  "It is possible that the new law may not appear before 2002, or later. This is too long a delay."
  Hedgeline wanted a guarantee from the Government—the article was written before the Queen's Speech last year—that legislation would be introduced before the election and would appear in the Queen's Speech. The organisation was disappointed again. After all its efforts, I am sure that its members are happy that they can rely on my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull to promote this measure, which has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House.
  In parenthesis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not unreasonable to point out that some of the parliamentary time since the Government's consultation exercise and the announcement of their determination to act has been spent on Bills that should not have detained the House—such as Bills on hunting, for which the Government have managed to find time during two Sessions of this Parliament. Furthermore, one of the differences between that measure and my hon. Friend's Bill is that Hedgeline does not have the resources to make a £1 million donation to the Labour party—as the anti-hunt lobby has done in its time.

  571
  In considering the Government's approach to the matter, I agree with The Times editorial which states:
  "Much less encouraging is his—
  the Minister for the Environment's—
  "failure to will the means. Now that sensible proposals are in place, swift action is needed. Yet he has promised legislation only when parliamentary time allows, and admitted that it might be left to a Private Member's Bill. It could be many years before nuisance hedges get the chop."
  That is right.
  Mr. Pound: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that leylandii planted in the spring of 1979 would have been more than 50 ft tall when the Conservatives left office in 1997? Is he not therefore being a little ungracious in criticising us for aiming to lop our humble four-metre-high growth when he ignored that vast tree during the 18 years of the previous Government?
  Mr. Green: I am not sure whether there were that many leylandii around in 1979. I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Selly Oak: throughout this Parliament, the Government have said that the issue was urgent and that they would do something about it, but they have miserably failed to do anything. They have produced consultation documents and press releases, but in the end they are relying on a private Member's Bill promoted by a Conservative Member. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) pointed out that he represents a slice of suburbia, where I dare say hedges are a big problem. The hon. Gentleman will have problems defending his Government's record on the matter.
  The broad approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull in his Bill tackles a difficult problem seriously. Various detailed difficulties have been described in speeches from both sides of House. I merely add a few comments and questions.
  It is right that the action to be taken will have a local authority basis. I suspect that anything more prescriptive nationally would prove inflexible. We need a balance between fairness—so that people know the rules—and flexibility. Those of us who have received letters on the subject realise that each case is different. To try to prescribe rules that are too detailed would lead to unfairness in individual cases.
  The issue of costs has been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The helpful guidance notes, prepared either by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull or by others—that distinction is not clear—state that the costs will be relatively low, and will fall quickly after the current backlog of 10,000 cases is cleared. It would be worth while if all those who engaged in further discussion of the Bill were to question that comfortable assumption. It is likely that as the Bill proceeds, and consciousness of its existence spreads, more complaints will be made. The comfortable idea of falling costs over time may not be right.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Costs may be difficult to quantify, but, as I said earlier, a good indicator exists. Most planning departments have an adequate number of staff to police the measure. There may be isolated cases of additional staff having to be taken on, but the major
  572
  local authorities have planning officers who are already constantly called out to examine such problems, but cannot do anything about them. The cost may be high initially because of the backlog of cases, but it will probably drop.
  Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is partly right, but the view that the number of cases will fall may be wrong. Even if, as he suggests, planning officers already go out to advise people, they will have more work when they also have to make a judgment, and perhaps carry out an enforcement procedure. It is unrealistic to expect the Bill not to create more work for them.
  Mr. Cunningham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I know that time is precious. Planning officers make a judgment now. They advise people to go through the civil courts, but they also tell people that they cannot do anything about the problem.
  Mr. Green: Precisely. If the Bill becomes law, they will not be able to say, "We can't do anything about it." They will be obliged to do something about it. That obligation will increase their work load. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government have made an overall estimate of the effect of the Bill on local government finance and whether there are any plans to compensate local government for the extra work.
  A similar problem may emerge for the planning inspectorate. Again, the various guidance notes for the Bill imply that the measure can be implemented with a minimal increase in numbers. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that, and state whether the Bill will necessitate more planning inspectors when the appeals process gets going. The sort of bitter neighbour disputes that precede legal action mean that legal differences tend to go to appeal. When people feel strongly enough to embark upon a legal process, they are likely to take it to the end, whoever is winning at various stages.
  I also draw the Minister's attention to the role of the Building Research Establishment. Other hon. Members have alluded to the confusion about whether the tests will be subjective or objective. The guidance notes suggest that, ideally, the BRE will be able to establish an objective test that can be applied by individuals, so that they can look at their hedge, or their neighbours' hedge, and tell that its height breaks the law.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be challenging for the no doubt excellent and expert people involved to devise objective tests or criteria for privacy, amenity of the neighbourhood and light? How confident is he about obtaining the validity, objectivity and utility that the Bill's supporters would like?
  Mr. Green: That is a genuine issue. I suspect that some areas are easier than others. I understand that the BRE will principally consider light; it may be able to establish some objective measures. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that is the aim, and if so, explain the way in which it can be achieved.
  My second question is about the timetable.
  Mr. Don Foster: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is making rather heavy weather of this issue?

  573
  Does he not accept that the officers working in planning departments have much more difficult and complex decisions to address in their normal planning application considerations? For example, they have to take into account highly subjective matters such as the aesthetic qualities of buildings. The question of how one measures beauty is clearly far more testing than the issues that the hon. Gentleman is discussing in relation to the Bill.
  Mr. Green: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. However, the provisions will place an additional burden on the inspectors. It is interesting that Labour Members think that nothing extra will be needed in terms either of expertise or of sheer numbers.
  A further point relating to how the Building Research Establishment's work will be completed is the timetable. I understand that the draft guidelines will be produced by Easter, and the final version by the summer. If this Parliament runs its course, no doubt that timetable will be satisfactory. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on whether the House will have the opportunity for full and proper investigation of the BRE guidelines when they are produced.
  The Government have provided support for the Bill. Will the Minister tell us why they think that this way of addressing the problem is better than using the planning law? I think that I agree with the analysis that we have heard, but I would like to hear what the Government have to say. Will he also tell us why this method was thought preferable to adding the problems caused by high hedges to the list of statutory nuisances, which was the approach adopted by the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham)?
  Those are legitimate questions that will need to be addressed as the Bill goes through its further stages, as I hope it will. Costs, the level of parliamentary scrutiny and the sheer practicality of the legislation must all be examined. Nevertheless, my underlying point is that high hedges are a continuing serious problem worthy of the attention of the House, and I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill can make further progress.
  12.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): He that plants trees loves others besides himself—or so says the proverb. If that were universally true, we should not be here today.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on introducing the High Hedges Bill, and am pleased to confirm that the Government welcome and support the measure. Unfortunately, some of the stories that we have heard today suggest that not everyone who plants trees has good intentions towards their neighbours. We have been told about the terrible conditions that have been inflicted on people by ill-advised planting or the lack of maintenance of boundary hedges. Leylandii have been mentioned frequently, but they are by no means the only culprits.
  The old saying that an Englishman's home is his castle aptly captures the jealousy with which we tend to defend our territory and privacy. Our castle walls are the panel fences that we put up or the hedges that we plant. To ensure that our green defences are immediate, the fastest
  574
  growing plants are selected. However, in putting up these barricades, we do not always think about the effects on those living on the other side of the hedge.
  The effects will vary from case to case, but the most frequently mentioned problems are reduction in light to homes and gardens; the blocking of cherished views, especially of the countryside or coast; the difficulty of growing plants near to the hedges; and worries that roots might lead to property damage through subsidence. All those factors can lead to a general sense of oppression and being hedged in, or to a feeling that enjoyment of one's home and garden has been spoiled. A quiet word with the owner to point out the harmful effects of the hedge may be all that is needed to resolve a problem, but if such an approach is rebuffed, there is little that the person affected by the hedge can do to force his neighbour to negotiate or to obtain any relief.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) said, the Government have responded to pressure from her and many other hon. Members. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), my constituency neighbour, on all the work that he did over a long period to organise consultation. The response was overwhelming, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions received more than 3,000 replies. To put that in context, the Department's consultation exercises usually generate hundreds rather than thousands of responses. As might have been expected, there was much public interest, and 91 per cent. of responses came from members of the public. A significant proportion of local authorities—about 40 per cent—took the time to let us know what they think.
  There are striking similarities between the views expressed by local councils and the public. The vast majority of respondents, including 95 per cent. of individual members of the public who responded and 77 per cent. of local authorities, believe that new laws are the answer to the high hedge problem. As to what form such laws should take, a new complaints system run by local authorities is the clear favourite; it is supported by 73 per cent. of the public and 67 per cent. of local authorities.
  The consultation shows enormous support for tougher controls on high hedges. The Government take such neighbourhood problems seriously, so last summer we announced that we would prepare legislation to give local authorities in England the power to determine complaints about problem garden hedges. The National Assembly for Wales decided that any new legislation should apply to Wales.
  On territorial coverage, I should add that the Bill deals with devolved matters, so it is for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether to take action with respect to problem hedges. Following a separate consultation, the Scottish Parliament announced on 31 January that it has decided in principle that a statutory remedy of last resort is required. That would involve complaints to local authorities and enforcement action in appropriate cases. No commitment has been given as to when legislation will be introduced. I understand that Northern Ireland has no plans to legislate.
  Mr. Bercow: Many people will enthuse about the principle, but, almost inevitably, the devil is in the detail.

  575
  Accordingly, and given that there has been constructive dialogue between the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), can the Minister offer the House information about the Government's basic thinking on the regulations that are intended to accompany the Bill? Specifically, I refer to clause 13, on which I made a few remarks.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman asks about regulations, which are a worry for hon. Members when they consider all sorts of Bills, not only this one. I can confirm that the regulations that would be made under clause 13 to extend powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Solihull said, the hon. Gentleman should have no worries in that regard.
  Unfortunately, despite the Government's commitment to introduce new laws to solve hedge problems in England and Wales, we could not find room for such a Bill in this Session's legislative programme. We are therefore pleased that the hon. Member for Solihull is pursuing the matter and that the Bill would apply to England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman has explained the contents, how the complaints system would work, how a local authority would be able to require an owner to cut back a hedge and what enforcement action would be available should he fail to comply. I do not want to cover the same ground, but I should like to outline a few reasons why the Government support the Bill.
  First, the Bill is targeted at the types of hedge that are the main cause of the problem. Our consultation suggested that the vast majority of concerns relate to evergreen hedges that form tall, dense screens of foliage. It also showed that obstruction of light is the most frequent cause of complaint, and that the effects are primarily felt in residential properties. All those points must be satisfied before the procedure in the Bill can be triggered.
  Another reason why we are attracted to the Bill is that it encourages people to resolve matters amicably. The best way to settle hedge problems is, without doubt, for neighbours to talk to each other and to agree a solution. The Bill proposes that local authorities need pursue complaints only after all other avenues have been explored. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as I have done many times before. He believes that there should be little or no government, and that that would make men free. That state existed a long time ago, when people had to carry spears and clubs, so such a state of affairs was not ideal then and I doubt that it would be now. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy.
  The Government will consider whether we can help people to achieve a negotiated outcome through advice and information on the new complaints system. One idea is for local authorities to have a pack to send out when anyone asks them for help with hedge problems. It could contain advice on steps that people could take to settle disputes between themselves, and could perhaps also include a sample letter for people to send to their neighbour asking them to reduce the size of their hedge, and a leaflet about any local mediation service.
  In addition, the intention is to have an objective system for assessing obstruction of light, comprising a few simple tests that householders could use without specialist input.
  576
  That is being developed for my Department by the Building Research Establishment, and would be incorporated in departmental guidance on the legislation. It may include facts such as the height of the hedge, its distance from windows or from the garden boundary, and whether the property faces north, south or east. We hope that that report will be available around Easter. If the Bill proceeds, as I hope it will, we will keep the House informed of developments on the report.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister has been helpful in telling us that he expects guidance on the obstruction of light, but the Bill also refers to privacy and neighbourhood amenity. Is he hoping to provide guidance on those matters, or will we leave them to people's judgment, bearing in mind the fact that there is an appeals process, which may complicate the issue further?
  Mr. Ainsworth: These are important issues, and the problems cannot be solved purely by objective tests. However, if we can get some objectivity into the tests—the obstruction of light may be a proxy for many of the other problems caused by these trees—we can give local authorities the same discretion as they have on planning matters. By and large, the proposed procedures are the same as those that local authorities already run through under the planning system. That is our intention. With a degree of common sense and discretion for local authorities, we are convinced that the overwhelming majority of these cases could be settled. The lobby groups and the hon. Members who have been raising this issue for a long time are also convinced of that.
  In this way, hedge owners will be able to take a view on the possible outcome of a complaint to a local authority. If the result was not in their favour, such information would provide powerful encouragement for them to talk to their neighbours and agree on a solution, rather than facing the prospect of having one imposed on them by the local authority. If all else fails, however, the Bill ensures that the hedge is cut back when circumstances justify such action, thus providing the relief that hedge sufferers have long sought. It also provides effective enforcement powers to make certain that that happens.
  The Government support the Bill because it could well alter general assumptions about what constitutes a reasonable hedge height. That might lead to a greater willingness to settle matters amicably. Owners might be more inclined to co-operate with their neighbours if they knew that the local authority could force them to cut back their hedges. People might also voluntarily reduce the size of their hedges. We hope that the Bill will help to prevent problems from arising in the first place, and that it will have a lasting effect.
  Many hon. Members have expressed worries about costs. We estimate— we have tried to make estimates, as far as practicable—that a fairly high proportion of cases will go to appeal. We believe that there will be costs to the Department—a money resolution will be needed to cover those—and that there will be costs over and above what local authorities can charge complainants. We will have to try to settle that in the usual way when drawing up the revenue support grant settlement.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been exceedingly generous.

  577
  I hope that the Minister agrees that the worst-case scenario today would be the House giving the nod to a Bill after inadequate consideration, or having missed something, only to be obliged to return to the matter later. Accordingly, although the Minister said that I should be reassured, may I ask for a further assurance on the subject of the regulations? Will he assure me that they will be subject to a consultation period of not less than three months, and that there will be proper notice of the requirement to give effect to whatever regulations subsequently flow?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I think he sought. Any regulations that flow from clause 13 will be subject to the normal affirmative procedure, involving a vote in the House, if that is called for by the hon. Gentleman or any other Member. I do not know how much further I can go. I would expect that to satisfy the hon. Gentleman; it satisfies most people in such circumstances.
  As for our being expected to rush the Bill through, this is a Second Reading debate, and there will be a Committee stage. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can talk to the Whips if he wishes to be a member of the Committee, where his company and input will be appreciated as much as they are here.
  The Bill represents a careful, measured and proportionate response to the problems caused by high hedges. It strikes a proper balance between the rights of hedge owners and those of their neighbours. Such issues of balance and proportion are central to any consideration of the human rights implications of the Bill. I am sure that Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), will wish to note that we have taken advice, and consider that the Bill will be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
  578
  We have had a full debate, in which many have taken part. That serves to show the concerns about the high-hedge problem, and to demonstrate that those concerns are widespread. The Bill is essential to bring relief to those who live in the shadow of high hedges, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
  I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who resolved the dilemma of his principles versus our friendship in favour of his principles.
  I warmly thank the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who is in his place, for constantly encouraging and supporting me. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) conducted an extended examination of the Bill. I think that he will be kind enough to concede that I was able to deal with some of his problems by way of interventions. He asked whether a neighbour of a neighbour could complain—in other words, if an even longer shadow could be cast. I am advised that such a person could also complain. The complainant does not have to be the actual next-door neighbour. He will have heard the Minister, with the authority of speaking from the Dispatch Box, deal with the point about compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.
  I do not think that there is anything more for me to say. I commend the Bill to the House. I am bound to say from a rather self-indulgent point of view that I have rather enjoyed the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
1.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I will not begin the debate with the same biblical quotations as the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) used in the previous debate. I suppose the only close connection between the Bill and the bible is to be found in the first chapter of the Old Testament. Only one person had copyright.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring the Bill before the House. I hope to be able to convince right hon. and hon. Members that it is worthy of support. It is about intellectual property crime—theft—which should concern us all. The Bill should be welcomed by industry and consumers alike. I believe that it deserves widespread support.
I am particularly grateful to the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy and to the Patent Office for their help in recent weeks. Both organisations have given me far better insight into the effects of intellectual property crime. The alliance is an umbrella group of many industry bodies concerned about the theft of their intellectual property, especially copyright and trademarks.
Last year, the alliance assessed annual losses to United Kingdom industry due to intellectual property crime and came up with the extraordinary figure of £8 billion.
Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attempt to explain where that figure comes from. I hope that I shall have the opportunity to expand on these matters, but it strikes me, having read the papers, that to conjure up a figure in this area of all areas is somewhat paradoxical, if not entirely unreliable.
Mr. Miller: I shall help the right hon. Gentleman by citing some examples that he will see in his constituency. Members of the public are being ripped off, and the scale of the operation is enormous. The figure alone is sufficient to justify a Bill that will help to tackle counterfeiting and piracy.
Not everyone is impressed by large figures. They argue that big business makes enough money to cover the losses, but that is not true. Many small businesses suffer the effects of intellectual property crime and some might not be able to survive as a result of it.
I have been contacted twice about the issue in the past couple of days. Trevor Bayliss is a well-known inventor and, like hon. Members on both sides of the House, he keenly supported the proposal to create the Academy of Invention. The idea was supported by Lord Hunt of Wirral, who used to represent the constituency neighbouring mine, and by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who serves on that body's board. Trevor Bayliss urged me to make it clear to the House that the Bill has his support as an inventor. For a long time, he has wrestled with the problems of copyright theft.
I also received a letter dated 4 March from Branko Babic. Colleagues will remember that he was, in his words, "ripped off' by an American group that stole his invention, which cost him a significant sum.
580
I know that some regular attenders of Friday debates take a different view about the role of private Members' business. I respect their views, and it is an issue that the House should debate seriously at the appropriate time, but I urge those who take a different view not to take this opportunity to block the Bill by using the procedural vehicles open to them. I hope that I shall provide solid evidence to convince them that the Bill deals with a crime that not only affects ordinary consumers, but funds terrorism and organised crime. Such crime could result in the death of children.
Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is doing the House a signal service in introducing this important measure. Nevertheless, I would like to be clear about its scope. It deals with counterfeiting and piracy, but will he explain for my benefit whether it also covers plagiarism?
Mr. Miller: Yes, it does. I shall give examples of DVDs and CDs that I hope will illustrate that point.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has made the plea that we should let this nice Bill go through because it is very important and many people want it. The House decided to devote much attention to the previous Bill, so we have but an hour and 20 minutes to consider what is by any measure a comprehensive and complex Bill. Does he believe that, regardless of the time available to us, a worthy Bill should necessarily be let through?
Mr. Miller: When I have completed my remarks and given the right hon. Gentleman and others the chance to speak, I hope that he will agree that the Bill should go through so that the matters of detail can be considered in Committee.
It is not a complex Bill. It merely proposes tougher action against criminals. Surely the House is in favour of tougher action being taken against crime. The problem reaches as far as organised crime and terrorists.
The £8 billion of losses covers a wide range of products. It includes clothing that is sold on market stalls, DVDs, CDs and videos. The scope of the scam extends to car components, which should concern the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) given the relevance of Ford to his constituency. There is a worldwide scam of car components manufactured in Taiwan and China, which get on to the market, damage the vehicle industry in this country and put drivers and pedestrians at risk.
There is a big market in bogus perfumes, but many other products are involved, including cosmetics and alcohol. The nature of the products is such that they create a chain with a high added value. As it is so simple to produce and package an item that looks like the real thing, the figure that I have mentioned can easily be reached.
Some products are of an extremely high standard and it is difficult to tell them apart from the genuine article. The people who produce them rip off patent holders, inventors and legitimate businesses. Other products are downright dangerous and threaten life. For example, a couple of years ago car brake pads were found to have been made from compressed grass. It is unbelievable that they found their way on to the market, placing not only

581
the driver who purchased them at risk—perhaps more fool him—but others too. We cannot allow such products to enter the market.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has to satisfy the House as to why such examples would not be caught by the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 as not being fit for purpose or by other provisions that are on the statute book. It strikes me that we might over-provide legislation when a proper enforcement of existing laws and regulations should do the trick. I should have thought that his example would be covered by that.
Mr. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but I want the punishment to fit the crime. I am concerned about crimes that lead to people's deaths. I do not believe that existing legislation is sufficiently strong. I demonstrated that last week at the Bill's press launch. Hon. Members may have seen the example that was shown on the BBC website. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Serjeant at Arms; I was not trying to be a latter-day Guy Fawkes when I set fire to a child's T-shirt in Canon row. The item was a sweatshirt with the character Kenny from Channel 4's "South Park". I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with that programme.
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Miller: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has been initiated in it. He will know that Kenny regularly gets killed and comes to a sticky end. Well, I killed Kenny last week. Although this may seem frivolous, the sweatshirt was bought for £5.95 and looked like the genuine article. It went up in a ball of flames and produced acrid smoke. It disappeared in 30 seconds. The toxic smoke would have killed and the melting plastic would have produced atrocious third-degree burns. We cannot allow such products to be in the marketplace. We have a duty to take every step to help purchasers understand that buying them puts their families at serious risk.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Opposition support, in principle, the Bill's objectives. Does the hon. Gentleman have a considerable number of examples of prosecutions that have occurred under existing legislation in which there has been a genuine feeling that the two-year sentence imposed was too short?
Mr. Miller: There have been cases of vehicle suspension units collapsing because fake wishbones supplied through what seemed to be a legitimate source then turned out to be counterfeit. The maximum penalty open to the court in those cases was two years' imprisonment. Given the risks not only to the individual driver but to the wider community, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that penalty was not adequate. The industry and trading standards officers are saying that the current legislation does not have sufficient teeth to do the job and to act as the deterrent that we would like.
Mr. Bercow: Although It is for the hon. Gentleman to develop his own argument, I am interested in what he has to say about the gateway to terrorist offences, which is an important point. Further to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr.Gibb)
582
raised, has the hon. Gentleman done any research into recidivism on the part of people who have received those rather modest sentences? Have they reoffended in similar ways?
Mr. Miller: I do not have those details, but when I develop my argument on the point that interests the hon. Gentleman, he will understand the need to have available to the court a wide range of penalties that separate the Rodney and Del Boy characters from organised criminals and terrorists.
Mr. Don Foster: I am broadly supportive of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do. Does he accept that while there is widespread revulsion at the crimes that he is describing, it is vital that we improve the detection rate for those crimes? Is he saying that increasing the penalties will have a deterrent effect that will successfully reduce the number of crimes? Is that the intention of the Bill?
Mr. Miller: Those in the field, especially some trading standards officers, have expressed the view that their job would be made easier if there were greater penalties.
Mr. Foster: I wonder.
Mr. Miller: Well, that is their view, and they are the professionals.
Mr. Foster: The job of trading standards officers is predominantly to detect those crimes, and they clearly would wish that there were fewer such crimes. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how those officers believe that their job would be made easier by the increased penalties that he proposes?
Mr. Miller: Simply because discussion in the House and in Committee will promote the tenets of the Bill and raise awareness of the scams that are operating, the risk that they pose to the public and the way in which they fund organised crime. The view in the industry and among the professionals who seek to enforce the legislation is that we can play a part, and that is what I hope we are doing.
Mr. Gibb: Returning to the case of the car suspension units, which sounds appalling, what sentence was handed down? Was it two years' imprisonment, and if so, has the culprit served the full sentence?
Mr. Miller: I think that the individual involved did not receive a prison sentence. That raises the question of Parliament's role in raising awareness of the problem. I am grateful to the Front-Bench spokesmen for the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for stating their broad support for the general principles of my Bill. The more the House collectively states that current standards are not good enough, the more public awareness will be raised.
On a more light-hearted note, the problem has involved perfume, including one case in which urine was used as a stabiliser; extremely low-quality video recordings, including pirated tapes made in the cinema ensuring that the viewer sees the back of the heads of the people in the rows in front, which might be regarded as making the

583
experience of watching more real. There have also been software with viruses attached and children's videos recorded over old porn tracks, with the result that, every now and then, children get a glimpse of things that I am sure Parliament would prefer they did not see. Many other products are affected.
One could say that Parliament should not legislate in an area in which the principle of caveat emptor should apply. One could say that my Bill represents an attack on Del Boy and Rodney and that it will damage entrepreneurship. One could say that some manufacturers have made enough money out of their products and are thus fair game for the copyists. Such views are misguided—one need only see who lies behind the copying to realise that. Sweatshops, organised criminals and the so-called Real IRA are among those involved.
On 3 December 2000, The Sunday Times did the country a favour by publishing an article following some research its journalists had carried out focusing on software associated with the new Sony PlayStation. It states:
"Outwardly, the garish design on the cover of the hit computer game Street Fighter would fool all but the most fanatical player. Open it up, however, and the amateurish scrawl in black in on the disk shows that it is a counterfeit. The disk is one of thousands that the police suspect are being produced to raise funds for the Real IRA, the terrorist organisation responsible for the Omagh bomb that killed 29 people two years ago. According to a republican source, the fake disks, designed for Sony's new PlayStation 2 consoles, are being created in a secret factory in south Armagh to cash in on the pre-Christmas demand that has followed the machine's launch last month."
It was launched in November last year.
"Selling on market stalls for £30 each—while supplies of the £45 originals run dry in the shops—they stand to make £20,000 a week for the Real IRA, according to the source. Disks obtained by The Sunday Times from a republican source have been passed to the RUC, which is investigating. At least two men involved in the counterfeiting—one a 42-year-old racketeer from Dundalk—have close links to the Real IRA leadership, police confirmed. In a fresh drive to raise funds, the Real IRA has also moved in on the IRA's tobacco-smuggling empire. Security sources say the Real IRA is making up to £500,000 per shipment, money that is supplemented by extortion, video and record piracy and dealing in drugs. Much of it eventually translates into guns and explosives."
Mr. Bercow: Before he concludes his remarks, will the hon. Gentleman say something about the way in which the Bill will strengthen search warrant provisions? That is an important matter which deserves detailed explanation.
Mr. Miller: Clause 6 deals with search warrants. As the hon. Gentleman will see, it covers all parts of the United Kingdom—hence the rather complicated wording. Reasonable grounds have to be provided, as is normal, but a justice of the peace
"may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises, using such reasonable force as is necessary."
The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had a not too dissimilar debate when considering the Vehicles (Crime) Bill in Committee a while ago. That is a tidying up operation involving section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Goods find their way to consumers by many routes. Some retailers are being taken in and are not aware that they are committing a crime, but many must know what
584
they are doing. However, if they do not, and they are offered goods at discounted prices, they should always ask, "What is the source? Can we be sure of the supply chain involved?"
On 15 November last year, the Daily Express cited several products that it had identified with well-known brand names, such as Calvin Klein, Nike and Timberland. Some retailers will have great difficulty knowing whether they have purchased the real article. I want to ensure that, through our role as Parliament and through supportive mechanisms, trading standards officers and the Department of Trade and Industry, retailers are given good, solid advice on suspect shipments. I do not want to penalise the person who is genuinely had, just as I do not want to penalise the consumer who is had. I want to go back up the chain and hit the cowboys.
In January last year, the Evening Standard went on a little shopping expedition. In an articled headed, "Welcome to rip-off retailers inc.", it listed the goods that it had acquired. It said:
"in the drinks line bottles of "Glencarnie' whisky and "Kermanoff vodka costing £5.50 each. The "Glencarnie' bottle was labelled "whiskey' on one side and "whisky' on the other"—
the difference will be well known to Scots people.
Mr. Forth: What idiots would buy it?
Mr. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman may ask that question, but the labelling on those products is more subtle than might be Imagined.
The article continued:
If it was computer games you were after, a copied version of the South Park Rally PlayStation Game, complete with a photocopied label, cost £10. An original would cost normally cost around £40".
Mr. Forth: At this point in the hon. Gentleman's argument, it is important for us to understand where those items were purchased. I am intrigued to know whether they were purchased in a legitimate retail outlet of repute, or from someone with a fold-up suitcase or a barrow on a pavement. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that if the average consumer buys a poorly labelled product from someone with a suitcase on the pavement, he can expect the same quality or consumer protection as he could if he bought it in a regular retail outlet.
Mr. Miller: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The particular example cited in the Evening Standard was bought at a car boot sale in Hackney Wick, London. My purpose in quoting that article, which lists products ranging from tobacco, whisky and vodka to CDs, is to invite Londoners to think about the events of last week. They may have thought they were simply purchasing cheap goods and that it was okay to buy them, but those purchases could be funding the terrorist atrocity that we saw in London. We must do more as a nation to raise awareness of that fact.
Mr. Richard Burden: The distinction between someone who sells goods from a suitcase and a reputable retailer is not always clear to the consumer. My hon. Friend will know that yesterday I observed a raid on several premises by trading standards officers and the police in south Birmingham. Court cases may follow, so it would not be appropriate for me to go

585
into detail. Suffice it to say that those raids were on a combination of private houses and shops. Clearly, in that case we were talking about shops, rather than suitcases. The end result of the raid was that counterfeit goods with a total value of about £67,000 were recovered. It is important to record the big business involved and the fact that, for the consumer, it is not always easy to distinguish between the reputable and the disreputable.
Mr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the fact that he has taken such an interest in my Bill. I wrote to all hon. Members and told them that, if they wished, the Alliance against Counterfeiting and Piracy would provide them with information about what was happening in their constituency. Several colleagues have written to me asking for that information.
The Bill has three main aims: to increase penalties for the crime of copyright theft; to strengthen search warrant provisions; and to give greater powers to allow rights owners to obtain forfeiture of infringing material. It amends the criminal provisions in intellectual property law and, more specifically, copyright law. It deals with rights on performances, fraudulent reception of conditional access transmission by the use of unauthorised decoders, and trademarks.
In general, intellectual property law provides private rights that can be enforced by rights owners using civil remedies. In addition, it is a criminal offence to make for sale or hire, or deal with, illegal material. That material includes pirate copies, which are copies of material protected by copyright, such as music, films and computer software which have been made without authorisation; copies of performances which have been made without the permission of the performer holding the recording rights—known as bootleg copies; and unauthorised decoders that allow people access to transmission such as cable and satellite television.
Mr. Bercow: Inevitably, because this is the hon. Gentleman's Bill, he knows more about it than anyone else in the House. For my benefit, will he explain in a sentence or two how search warrant procedures would be strengthened? I accept that they would be, but I am not clear how the Bill makes them stronger, and how it differs from existing arrangements.
Mr. Miller: I hope to come to that shortly.
To finish my list of examples, illegal material includes counterfeit material, which comprises goods, packaging and labels bearing a trademark that has been applied without the consent of the trademark owner. Those criminal provisions are altered by the Bill.
Clause 1 increases the maximum penalty for conviction on indictment for offences relating to making for sale or hire, or dealing in, material infringing copyright, illicit recordings infringing performers' rights, and unauthorised decoders. The new maximum penalty is an unlimited fine, and may include up to 10 years in prison to reflect the seriousness of those crimes and bring penalties into line with those for similar trademark offences.
Clause 2 allows the police to obtain warrants for all the offences that I outlined. Those provisions are additional to any powers available to the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and should ensure that there
586
are no impediments to a full investigation of offending behaviour in the indicated areas, which could remain if PACE alone applied.
As I explained earlier, clause 6 introduces further warrant arrangements and seizure provisions relating to counterfeit goods and articles for making them. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 introduce measures to allow the forfeiture of goods infringing copyright and articles designed or adapted for making such copies.
In view of the time, and as I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, let me pose a question: is the Bill a panacea? No, it is not. It is a start. The subject is incredibly complicated. There are other issues to be addressed, such as electronic transmission. Those who are on the mailing list for Teleworker, as I am, will see an interesting article by David Flint about copyright problems in cyberspace. That is a massively complicated problem, far too big to deal with in a private Member's Bill, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have indicated their desire to engage in the international discussions that may be necessary to develop law in that regard.
My Bill is a step in the right direction. By increasing penalties and improving definitions, I want the House to raise the profile of the crime and stamp out some of the activities that are going on. A partnership is needed between business and the consumer which, together with the courts, Customs and Excise and trading standards officers, can make a difference. Let us put aside party differences, and differences about private Members' Bills. Let us show the responsible side of Parliament, and demonstrate that the House is no friend to any criminal.
1.42 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Opposition do not oppose the Bill in principle. In a free society, the preservation and enforcement of property rights is vital to that freedom. It is the essence of the rule of law. The enforcement and protection of property is key to the success of a capitalist society.
In an article in The Sunday Times a few months ago headed "The importance of title", Luke Johnson, the entrepreneur behind the Pizza Express chain, stated:
"The issue of ownership and title to property is a major reason why the Western world has made economic progress and why developing countries struggle to get richer."
He went on:
"It is estimated that only 25 of the world's 207 nations have a contractual basis for property matters."
He observed that
"in countries where ownership is uncertain, assets cannot be used to raise debt. Lenders will not extend credit".
The consequence of that is that there is no investment, or insufficient investment, in those countries to bring about the wealth creation that is needed. He commented at the end of his article:
"All over the Third World, large proportions of the population are the equivalent of squatters: always at risk of eviction or having their property seized. In such shifting circumstances, long-term enterprise is impossible."
In defining property in that article, Luke Johnson did not confine it to real estate. He included intangible intellectual property, such as patents, licences, franchises and copyrights. Without the protection of intellectual

587
property rights, the incentive to innovate, design and discover is reduced, as the rewards for those endeavours are confiscated by others.
Mr. Miller: That is what attracted me to use the opportunity of private Member's legislation to develop the Bill. One of the ways in which we can help Britain's innovators and inventors is by closing some of the great gaps that the hon. Gentleman highlights. The House needs to take a strong lead.
Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is encouraging that the Bill has come from his side of the House—the left in politics, broadly speaking. Traditionally, the left has had a less "pro" attitude than supporters of the free market towards property. It is encouraging that a Labour MP is promoting the Bill.
Mr. Bercow: I agree with my hon. Friend about the welcome genesis of the Bill. However, does he agree that the reason is simple? It is entirely proper that where there is a choice between support for property or acceptance of piracy, most people would support property.
Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. Property is crucial to the functioning of a free society and to the rule of law. If people's property rights—especially in intellectual property—are not protected, the incentive to create such intellectual property is diminished through its confiscation by others who thus diminish its rewards. That disincentive applies whether such confiscation is carried out by Governments or by criminal individuals. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is right in principle to introduce measures that help to protect those rights.
The Opposition have some concerns about the drafting of the Bill. It would be more appropriate to discuss some of its more detailed proposals in Committee, but they are of sufficient importance to air during Second Reading. I shall do so as briefly as possible.
The Opposition bow to no one in the Labour party when it comes to understanding the importance of property rights in securing a free and prosperous society. However, we take great pains to ensure that we do not undermine either those rights or others, such as the right to privacy and the free enjoyment of property unhindered by excessive intervention by the state. Those rights—those civil liberties—are the prime responsibility of Members of the House. I make no apology for saying that the Bill as currently drafted needs careful scrutiny to ensure that it does not unnecessarily or hastily extend the rights of the state to intervene in the activities and property of innocent individuals and legitimate businesses.
Mr. Miller: I completely agree.
Mr. Gibb: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support; we seem to have a consensus on the issue in the House at present.
The principle and motivation behind the Bill are fine and good, but we need to consider the detail of its provisions. My first concern is that, as the Bill extends
588
the power of the state to obtain search warrants and gives greater powers of forfeiture, it should really be a Government Bill. I am sorry to say that, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, we all know that the measure is a hand-out Bill.
The explanatory notes were prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry, which also carried out the regulatory impact assessment. In view of the important powers given to the Government in the measure, it should have been introduced by them, so that Ministers were accountable for its drafting and its passage, and so that the Government could be held accountable by the public at an election, if the public felt that the Bill went too far—or, indeed, not far enough.
The Opposition share the concerns of the Bill's supporters about copyright protection and counterfeit goods, but we must be absolutely sure that existing legislation is inadequate. The explanatory notes summarise the Bill as follows:
"The Bill seeks to rationalise these criminal provisions by removing some of the differences between them.
The notes go on to state:
"There is considerable overlap between the offences relating to the different material indicated above (and other criminal offences such as those in trade descriptions law and law relating to fraud) in that offending behaviour invariably falls within the scope of more than one offence."
It seems that the drive behind the Bill—its whole purpose—is to rationalise and simplify.
The explanatory notes contain no discussion or elucidation of the way in which lack of rationalisation impedes the work of the authorities or the police. No careful analysis has been carried out of existing legal provisions and the way in which they hamper or hinder the police and the enforcement authorities.
There is no evidence of the courts handing out a series of two-year sentences in circumstances when higher sentences could be imposed if a 10-year maximum penalty existed. Earlier, I mentioned the case of the wishbone car suspension, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston gave as an example. I assumed that he was making the point that a two-year prison sentence had been imposed because of the inadequate state of the statute book. However, even in that case, no prison sentence was given.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making an important point, which was raised with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston during his opening contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to show at some stage during consideration of the Bill that the current length of sentence is effectively a charter for recidivism, or a catalyst for copycat behaviour? Neither proposition has yet been demonstrated.
Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. That is not a reason for refusing the Bill a hearing in Committee, but in Committee, we must establish that existing provisions are inadequate, and that the Bill increases them only to the extent necessary to reduce counterfeiting crime.
Putting longer sentences on the statute book does not always act as a deterrent; their mere existence does not deter. They act as a deterrent only if they are imposed. I am therefore worried about the Bill's provision for an increase in penalties from two years to 10 years.

589
I am also worried about the strengthening of the search warrant provisions and the greater powers involving forfeiture of people's property. Those new state powers are significant, but the only reason given for them in the explanatory notes is to rationalise the law. That is insufficient reason for increasing the powers available to the state authorities so significantly.
Mr. Miller: The Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy provided the following example:
"the court cannot grant a search warrant even in the face of evidence that a person is selling, letting for hire or offering for sale, in the course of a business, an article which infringes copyright. However, the court can grant a search warrant if that same person distributes the same infringing article in the course of the same business."
Such contradictions need tidying up.
Mr. Gibb: I hope that we can cover those detailed issues in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give examples of sentences that were given and served, but should have been much longer.
Paragraph 16 of the explanatory notes states:
"Additional enforcement effort by public sector enforcers is not expected to be the consequence of the provisions in the Bill".
That leads to the question of what constitutes the purpose of the Bill. After stating that there will be no additional enforcement effort, the paragraph continues:
"Cuts in manpower are not planned though, as the expectation is that any savings as a result of the Bill will be directed into additional enforcement effort."
The same paragraph states that there will be no additional enforcement effort, but that there will be such an effort as a result of saving people's time. There is a considerable degree of confusion in the Bill and the explanatory notes—and confusion, as hon. Members now know, is a sacking offence.
There is also confusion in paragraph 6 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states:
"The possibility of increased prison terms is unlikely to give rise to additional costs as in practice longer sentences for intellectual property crime are often already possible by prosecuting for another offence such as conspiracy to defraud (or trade mark offences) where at least seven years in prison is already possible".
We often delude ourselves that simply passing a law or introducing a whole raft of new regulations will solve any problem that we identify. The reality, in most cases, is that the policy, in the form of Government action and Government priorities, needs changing, rather than the law. In Britain, we have a rather amateurish unprofessional approach to the management of the state sector. We pile ever more unworkable burdensome regulations on to business, while education continues to decline, our hospitals are filthy and inadequate, crime is rising and clear-up rates are falling.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Come on, Nick.
Mr. Gibb: Well, that is what the public think about public services; it is certainly what I think of them.
Dr. Howells: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on the NHS in that way and to describe all our
590
hospitals as filthy. We have some brilliant hospitals, and he well knows it. I have heard of over-egging, but that was almost obscene.
Mr. Gibb: For a moment, I was being political. However, what I said reflects people's concern about the state sector services. The point that I was making was that all the problems in the state sector stem not from inadequate laws but from wrong priorities and wrong policy from Government, regardless of party. This is a "state versus the individual" issue.
It seems odd that we are discussing tough new 10-year sentences for copyright theft when 30,000 convicted criminals are being released from prison early, 1,300 of whom have been convicted of robbery and given sentences of only 26 months, but served only 11 months. There is also early release for people convicted of manslaughter, attempted murder, wounding, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, drug dealing, cruelty to children, sex offences and burglary. I am not making a party political point about the early release scheme, because even under the Conservative Government, the average sentence for burglary was usually much less than 18 months.
The courts are not passing tough sentences for real serious crime. My concern is that the House can introduce whatever maximum sentences we like—provision for long sentences for this kind of crime is already on the statute book—but the courts will simply not hand them down. Perhaps we ought to examine the priorities of the courts and the criminal justice system, rather than placing another string of laws on the statute book.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the gulf that exists between what statute law provides in relation to sentencing and what the judiciary, in its robust independence, decides to do. Will he comment along similar lines about whether he believes that sufficient constables will be available to discharge the duties placed on them by the Bill? I refer to the important new powers in new section 297B(4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which is added by clause 2(4).
In Bromley, there are 50 fewer policemen than there were four years ago. It was suggested earlier that Bromley was a hotbed of counterfeit products. How on earth are the police going to protect the people of Bromley if fewer police are to be given more responsibilities under the Bill?
Mr. Gibb: My right hon. Friend has made a point that I was about to raise. We must assess our priorities in tackling crime. In Littlehampton, in my constituency, a 13-year-old boy received 24 stab wounds one night a few months ago. We do not have enough police to patrol the promenade in Littlehampton during the night. Yet here we are piling more duties on to the police, such as collecting fraudulent "Star Wars" videos. We need to reassess our priorities, and we must consider that issue in detail in Committee.
Here we are proposing a 10-year sentence for copyright theft, but no one would receive such a sentence for counterfeiting a Louis Vuitton handbag, in which case the statute would have zero deterrent effect. Worse, the disrepute and contempt in which our criminal law is held by the law-abiding public would be deepened, as would

591
their cynicism about this country's law and order system, and politicians and politics in general. Alternatively, 10-year sentences would be passed, which seems disproportionate given the light sentences being delivered for much more serious offences such as mugging and burglary that directly affect people's quality of life.
Mr. Bercow: I have thought through that precise point, which is an important consideration, but in fairness to the promoter, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), does not my hon. Friend accept that—unless he proposes to truncate the independence of the judiciary by introducing mandatory sentences—the hon. Gentleman is at least entitled to argue for his Bill in Committee and to show to Members' satisfaction that it is likely to improve matters without a requirement for mandatory sentences?
Mr. Gibb: That point needs to be raised, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will raise it in Committee.
We must think about the timing of the Bill. For every 100,000 members of the public, 10,111 criminal offences are committed every year. There were 129,000 recorded incidents of violent crime in 1979. The figure is 703,000 today. The British crime survey records 2.1 million instances of violent crime in 1981 and 3.2 million today. Clearly, crime is increasing hugely, so we need to ask ourselves whether it is right to divert scarce resources to deal with such property crimes.
Recorded crime clear-up rates are also down to less than 25 per cent.—only one in four crimes is cleared up. We need to consider the priorities carefully. Should we, as a nation, put ever more resources into tackling motoring offences, when we have some of the safest roads in Europe? Such a question needs to be addressed when we propose adding to the list of offences and penalties. Yes, we need to protect intellectual property, but last weekend, in Bersted in my constituency, an elderly lady of 82 was tied up for five hours by young thugs and £60,000 worth of her antique furniture was stolen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but he should now return to the Bill. His examples are straying further and further afield.
Mr. Gibb: I shall obey your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the point that I was making goes to the root of my concerns about some of the provisions. People are not protected against such crimes. Stealing £60,000 worth of furniture is a property crime, and the lady was tied up for five hours. That should not happen. We should protect such people before we protect Louis Vuitton.
I hope that such issues will be considered in Committee. I also hope that the Committee will examine the proposed new powers of entry for the enforcement authorities. The concept that a man's home is his castle is an ancient one that goes to the very heart of our legal system. William Pitt said:
"the poorest man in his cottage bid defiance to the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
592
We in the House should tread warily before extending even further the exemptions from and exceptions to that ancient rule.
All hon. Members are concerned about the protection of intellectual property rights. We are perhaps a little less concerned about protection against false "Star Wars" videos or false Chanel perfume—both of which were referred to in the explanatory notes—than about protecting people against fake goods that cause injury to children. We are more concerned to protect patents for important, expensively developed drugs than to protect the income of Paul McCartney and producers of overpriced CDs. None the less, private property rights should be protected by the law, just as we give protection to people in their own homes.
Dr. Howells: I have rarely heard such nonsense. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the famous people and brands that he has mentioned are not worthy of protection? They offer employment to tens of thousands of people in this country, and are involved in a global trade in which this country should play a great part. In his diatribe against the Bill and all it stands for, is he saying that that does not matter? The Bill is about intellectual property rights, but I suspect that he does not understand that issue.
Mr. Gibb: No, it is a matter of priorities. We have extensive laws that protect intellectual property, which are correct and should be strengthened. We live in a society in which violent crime is out of control and people are scared in their homes at night. Is it more important to protect the income of Paul McCartney and manufacturers of overpriced CDs than to protect elderly ladies in my constituency who are alone at night?
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the example that I gave of the Real IRA, and similar examples involving Russian organised crime?
Mr. Gibb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the only way to deal with terrorism in this country is to have a huge army of trading standards officers looking out for all the sources of income used by terrorists—or should we clamp down on the terrorists themselves? The Government are releasing terrorists, so they should consider their policy on terrorism and not use consumer protection legislation to deal with the problem.
The Conservatives support the principle and thrust of the Bill. We want to protect all intellectual property rights, which go to the heart of a free capitalist society. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading so that we can debate these issues at greater length in Committee.
2.7 pm
Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was coruscating in his critique of the Bill. His manner was a little more acerbic than I had expected. He is a good personal friend outside the House, but I am bound to say to him that he was a little uncharitable towards the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
I have crossed swords with the hon. Gentleman a number of times, not least during the passage of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. I irritated him, and he irritated me. I think that there is a powerful rationale for the Bill, and

593
I respect his good intentions. I think that there would be widespread, if not universal, agreement about the importance of counteracting counterfeiting and piracy. Probably the only people who would dissent from the principle that we should do something about it are those who are engaged in that practice and are deriving enormous profits in the process.
One can argue the toss about the rigour, detail, exactitude and scope of copyright and patent law. There is genuine room for disagreement about how extensive it should be, and an argument about the balance between the protection of the creator or originator and the legitimate entitlements of others who seek to enter a market. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I would disagree about the scope for a discussion on that subject.
However, the central purpose of the Bill, which is to counteract a widespread and apparently growing phenomenon, is cogent. I was taken aback by the figure of £8 billion a year that the hon. Gentleman gave.
Mr. Miller: So was I.
Mr. Bercow: Moreover, we must bear in mind the £1 billion annual loss to the Exchequer in revenues forgone. These are not trifling matters, and they ought to be weighed carefully when we consider whether to give the Bill a Committee stage.
I have several concerns. The first relates to the scope of the Bill. When I asked the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about plagiarism, he said he thought it was broadly covered. I am not criticising him, but I fear that the Bill does not cover what many would regard as the offence, or the injustice, of plagiarism. A few moments ago, with characteristic thoughtfulness, the Under-Secretary of State showed me a note—presumably provided by those whom we are not entitled to identify in the House, still less to name, but who are employed in his service—informing me that plagiarism itself was not covered. However—this is important—if someone copies another person's work with a view to commercial distribution, that offence will be covered.
The worry in relation to plagiarism is that, if the provisions were too widely drawn the Bill might cover someone copying another's work in a school, further education college or higher education institution. That is certainly not the intention, and, as I have said, I do not criticise the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston; but I think it important to understand what the Bill does and does not cover. What it does cover is very significant.
I have a couple of concerns which, although they certainly should not prevent the Bill's progress today, will need to be properly scrutinised in Committee. One relates to clause 2(4). Not for the first time and probably not for the last, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton somewhat anticipated me on this point, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). My thunder was slightly, although not entirely, stolen.
Subsection (4) refers to the execution of a warrant issued under subsection (1). Subsection (4) of the proposed new section states that
"a constable may seize an article if he reasonably believes that it is evidence that any offence under section 297A(1) has been or is about to be committed."
594
I think it important that, in conferring powers on the police, we do so confident in the knowledge that they will have the wherewithal—in terms not merely of resources but of intelligence and know-how—to practise those powers effectively.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I do not mean to cast aspersions on the police in any way. Nevertheless, these matters involve considerable detail and, as far as the criminal is concerned, no little sophistication. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that his Bill, in essence, was not complicated: he said that it was conceptually simple, or words to that effect. That may be true, but the hon. Gentleman made the equally valid point that the overall challenge of counteracting counterfeiting and piracy was enormous, and that a great deal of complexity was involved.
I rather appreciated the hon. Gentleman's self-effacement and modesty. So often, a Member proposing a measure will give the impression that it is a panacea. The hon. Gentleman wisely played down expectations, and said that of course it was not a panacea; it was a first step, or a start, which would no doubt be built on in the future. It is important, however, for us to be sure that the police will know how to give effect to the powers conferred on them by the Bill.
My observation at this stage—it may be that the hon. Gentleman can reassure us in Committee—is that if there is considerable complexity involved, and if a criminal has made an extremely clever copy of an original work, such as a CD or a DVD, how can we be confident that a police officer, with the many and varied responsibilities that fall within his or her remit, will be competent to judge whether a particular article is evidence of the commission of an offence under the highly complicated and detailed Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988?
My understanding is that the Bill is designed to amend the 1988 Act, which was passed under the Conservative Government. I remember, partly because I had a modest commercial interest through a client at the time, that it was a formidable piece of legislation. I make the simple point—I do not want to dilate on it or to exaggerate its significance—that we need to know that it is reasonable for us to expect the police to grasp the detail sufficiently to exercise the warrant in a way that is prudent and in a fashion that does not do violence to the legitimate rights of those who have not at that stage been convicted of any offence. I would not go beyond that today, but I think that it is a legitimate point. I hope that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will respond to the concern in Committee. That is my first main anxiety about the likely effectiveness of the Bill as unamended.
Secondly, I shall pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about sentencing, about which I have a little anxiety. I am no wet, do-gooding, hand-wringing, feeble liberal. It will be well understood in the House that I am not an enthusiast for such an approach. Many a time and oft, I have excoriated the Government for their institutionalised wimpishness in countering crime. I am not soft on sentences. However, it is important for the integrity of the House, which I would like to see restored and enhanced, that we do not place upon the statute book provision for sentences willy-nilly and without proper regard to their likely impact.

595
On that point, I was a little less satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman had to say. That is no reason why we should not get on, as I hope and expect we will, to consider the Bill in Committee. I think that the hon. Gentleman owes it to himself, to the industry, to the House and to potential victims of the commission of such crime to let us know exactly what he expects from the penalties that he envisages.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting penalties of 10-year custodial sentences. That is a significant sentence.
Mr. Miller: A range of sentences.
Mr. Bercow:
Indeed.
There is a precedent—I accept that the figure has not been plucked out of thin air—because a number of offences that come within patent law already attract such sentences. In a sense, what the hon. Gentleman is proposing is by way of co-ordination of sentencing policy or—dare I use the term?—perhaps he has in mind harmonisation.
We must know whether the imposition of such sentences would be likely to deter the recidivism that might now be apparent, or would act as a disincentive and deterrent to commit copycat offences. I am not sure. I do not want to be in the business of knee-jerk sentencing policy, or the passage knee-jerk legislation with what might be described as provision for symbolic penalties, which it is not seriously envisaged will be implemented in practice. We need to know more about these matters than we know now.
There is a related concern, and here I fear that some people, including the hon. Gentleman, will think that I am being somewhat feeble, but I hope that I am not. In terms of justice and equity, we must have a sense of proportion about penalties for these offences and how they relate to those applied for the commission of other arguably more serious and certainly more violent offences.
Even if the 10-year penalty were not applied under the terms of clause 2 but a substantial penalty exceeding four years' imprisonment were applied, it would necessarily follow that the culprits would not be eligible for early release under the Government's home detention curfew scheme. I admit that that causes me a flutter of anxiety about the Bill.
I would feel more comfortable about the Bill if the hon. Gentleman can reassure me that the proposed sentencing policy is open to change. However, I am concerned by the idea that someone committing such an offence could be banged up for a lengthy period with no opportunity for remission. After all, members of the Labour party—possibly including the hon. Gentleman himself—have regularly complained about overcrowding in our prisons. This country has a very large prison population by comparison with the rest of Europe, so we should take great care not to add gratuitously to it.
Mr. Miller: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I welcome the thrust of his remarks. I assure him that I am prepared to countenance debate and amendments in Committee if the Bill meets with the approval of the House.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
596
My final point relates to the summary of the regulatory appraisal. The hon. Gentleman knows that many of us are unhappy about regulatory impact assessments and the Government's attitude to them. Paragraph 17 of the explanatory notes refers to possible additional costs, but it is gloriously vague and unspecific. Frankly, that is not good enough. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman can do and will do a lot better, but paragraph 17 states:
"Additional costs to the public sector are not expected except with respect to consumer awareness where some expenditure has already been committed."
I am sorry, but that is not very reassuring. What is the "some expenditure" that "has already been committed"? What is the strength of the expectation that additional costs will not be incurred?
Sometimes the Government go much further than that and say that there will be no increase in costs at all. We all know that it is a case of "What are those pigs I see flying in front of my very eyes?", and that, in due course, the costs will increase as surely as the passage of the seasons. When we consider the Bill's detail rather more thoroughly in Committee in the way that the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of it warrants, I hope that we shall receive more satisfactory answers.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the introduction of the Bill. A serious evil is apparently growing, it imposes enormous costs, it needs to be tackled and he was right to draw it to the attention of the House. I hope that we shall have a thorough debate about the detailed manner in which we give effect to the laudable principles that he has articulated.
2.23 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I am pleased to speak about the Bill and confirm that the Government support it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on introducing it.
I welcome the interesting and useful debate that has taken place. It has highlighted very well the need for the Bill and exposed the inadequacies of the arguments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who clearly has no conception of the importance of intellectual property rights and the part that they play in any advanced economy. He gave a disgraceful performance when he attempted to pooh-pooh some of the best products that are made in this country. In doing so, he attempted to trivialise my hon. Friend's argument that the crime should be treated seriously.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his penny's worth.
The Bill is aimed at giving enforcers better tools to allow them to tackle a crime that should concern us all, even if it does not worry the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Intellectual property crime may not mean much to many people—as we have seen—but most people have heard of counterfeiting and piracy. I prefer to use the term IP crime because other terms often lead people to believe that it is a Robin Hood crime, which is how the hon. Gentleman described it. He thinks that the offence does not matter because the products are overpriced and the criminals, even if they are terrorists,

597
should be allowed to get on with selling their products. We believe that counterfeited goods and piracy are a disgrace.
We are all victims of IP crime. We have heard a good deal about that today.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Howells: I hope that my hon. Friend will permit me to continue.
Legitimate business may, and does, lose money because of IP crime. Consumers are also seriously affected by it. I have been involved in various initiatives over the past couple of years to highlight the consumer angle, because it is not widely understood. Consumers often think that they are getting a bargain when they buy a fake, but the bargain could have cost jobs in their local area or helped to fund serious organised crime. In addition, it could do them much physical damage.
I am pleased that the Bill will close some of the loopholes in the law on IP crime. Intellectual property is a reserved matter and as such the Bill will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. In supporting it, the Government are mindful of the implications for human rights. I have taken advice and consider it to be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The Bill is a harmonising measure. It reaches across the criminal provisions in different aspects of intellectual property law which relate to offences of making for sale or hire, or dealing in, illegal material. It copies the best provisions and transfers them to existing legislation, so it contains nothing new. It builds on existing best provision and is a worthwhile measure.
It is entirely appropriate that the penalties for offences relating to certain copyright cases are increased so that the maximum matches those that are available for trademark offences. Although there is much overlap between copyright and trademark offences, it is right that even when there is no trademark offence, an unlimited fine or
598
up to 10 years imprisonment is available for the most serious offending behaviour. My hon. Friend made that clear. The copyright offences that the Bill covers can be as serious as trademark offences.
I am in a generous mood and I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wants to speak, so I shall finish by commending the Bill to the House.
2.27 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me the time between now and 2.30 pm to explain my view on the Bill. I shall do my best to get started on my remarks.
I have identified several problems. The first concerns the relationship between genuine and copy or fake products, which lies at the heart of the Bill. It is not clear whether we are dealing with consumer protection, safety, or profit and investment. There has been some confusion if we are talking about all three. There has also been a lack of validity in the size or scale of the problem. We have been given figures, but very little—if anything—to support them.
The explanatory notes give rise to several issues. On the first page, there is a reference to maximum penalties, police search and seizure powers and forfeiture of illegal material. Those are serious and grave matters. Any Bill that attempts to tackle such issues would require the most thorough examination on Second Reading, in Committee and beyond.
We also have the options that are helpfully laid out in the regulatory impact assessment. Although one could never tell from this debate, there was a process for considering different options for approaching the problem that everybody has so far agreed is very serious. However, we have not received an explanation for the rejection of some of those other options by the promoter of the Bill and, by implication, the Government—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 March.

  EXORCISM OF CHILDREN (PROHIBITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 April.

  VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 March.

  DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 March.

  OUTWORKING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members:
  Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 March.

  CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members:
  Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 March.

  ADOPTION OF SEWERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],
  That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118
  600
  (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved—[Mr. Sutcliffe].
  Hon. Members: Object.

  LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
  Line 31, at end add—
  "( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
  ( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
  ( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

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

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

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

Foreign Language Teaching
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
2.32 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I am grateful for the chance to discuss the Nuffield report on the teaching of foreign languages in our schools. I think that it was Bismarck, who spoke many languages, including French, Italian, Russian and English, who said that speaking many tongues was something that head waiters should do. Charles V, the 16th-century emperor, said that he spoke Spanish to God, Latin to his confessor, Italian to his mistress, French to his men and German to his horse. I shall make a plea for a more modest aim: that we in Britain seek to improve our knowledge of foreign languages so that more of us can speak at least another language.
A monolingual Britain will not survive in the global economy. For the first time in our nation's existence, we have given up insisting that an effort should be made to speak other languages. England has lost an empire but still believes in the imperialism of English. That is a huge mistake because already more than half those accessing the internet are no longer doing so in English. In the United States, Spanish-speaking Hispanic citizens are poised to overtake African-Americans as the country's biggest minority group. Of course, as we know, President Bush campaigns in good Spanish.
There are more than 100 million German-speakers in Europe. As language follows money, the growing economic dominance in central and eastern Europe of Germany, Austria and Switzerland means that more and more German is spoken in that region. We know how far French reaches in Africa and Canada, and Spanish and Portuguese dominate in Latin America. In Asia, Chinese is increasingly becoming a second language.
English is the world's most popular choice for a second language, but as the rest of the world is now learning English or another second language, why are we so foolish and arrogant as to believe that we do not need to speak other tongues? It was not always thus. Throughout our history, our kings, queens and Prime Ministers have spoken and written European languages. Until recently, it would have been unthinkable for in "educated" man or woman not to have some knowledge of other languages.
That was not merely a question of elites; skilled workers would often finish an apprenticeship by working abroad, although, as we know, apprenticeships have gone. Young men would go off to become police inspectors in Hong Kong and learn fluent Cantonese. Army sergeants and corporals would give orders in different tongues to local troops in far-flung parts of the old British empire. Administrators and business people working in different parts of the world would master other languages.
It is a huge error to assume that English will suffice in 21st-century business. On every page of yesterday's "Appointments" supplement to The Times, in which executive jobs are advertised, appeared calls for "fluency in French, German or Spanish", "fluency in at least one foreign language essential" or "language skills—a plus". I cannot stand the awful term "UK plc" but our economic future as a nation will not be secured until we can speak in more than our own tongue.
602
As a Kipling fan, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will recall that he wrote:
"what should they know of England who only England know?"
We will better understand our own nation, its needs, what it can offer and what it can do if we know other languages and cultures. Britain, despite the xenophobia of the current Leader of the Opposition, will not become a "foreign land", but we shall become less and less British and less and less able to contribute to the shaping of the modern world while we wallow in the pretence that we do not need to understand other languages.
We have a monarch and a Prime Minister who can make a speech in fluent French, but our great multinational nation is turning its back on the source of speaking a foreign language—namely, the teaching of languages in our schools. In 1992, 31,261 school students sat A-level French; last year, only 18,221 did so—a drop of more than one third. The number of A-level German students was 11,338 in 1992, but 8,692 last year. There has been a modest increase—500 or so—in the number of A-level Spanish students, but overall during the 1990s the picture was clear: we were turning our backs on learning the great languages of Europe.
Currently, nine out of 10 children stop learning languages at the age of 16, and more than 95 per cent. of all A-level students do not study a language at all: That, in turn, affects our universities and teacher training institutions. Today, there are barely 10 dozen men training as language teachers and sitting the education certificate in our teacher training colleges. In every university there is concern about the teaching of foreign languages, because students are not coming up from schools. I know that the Government want to improve language teaching in schools, but there are simply not enough teachers with the necessarily specialist training and knowledge.
Last year, the Nuffield report into the teaching of foreign languages was published; it provides a damning indictment of the indifference in Britain to the provision of adequate language teaching in our schools. Sir Trevor McDonald and Sir John Boyd and their team produced an excellent report, to which I want the Government to respond in a far more positive way than they have so far.
This year is the European year of languages. Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment—I pay tribute to Lady Blackstone—and at the Foreign Office, notably our excellent Minister for Europe, have gone out of their way to stress the new importance that the Government attach to foreign language training. I can reveal that Ministers have been told that they must learn a foreign language if they are to carry out work for the Government in Europe. Thanks to diligent homework, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary now speaks remarkably good French, and I understand that Linguaphone is ready to offer its excellent cassettes to enable Members of Parliament to learn a foreign language as we drive home to our constituencies. I believe that no official should be promoted to high office in the civil service without some experience of work overseas and proficiency in another language.
However, until we grasp the nettle of building language teaching into our core school curriculum, we shall continue to lag behind our competitors and partners. That must begin at primary school, when children are not as self-conscious as they are in secondary school. In our country, the road to successful language teaching begins—or should begin—before the age of 11.

603
We have some interesting initiatives. In my constituency, the year 6 pupils—the 10 and 11-year-olds—at Coleridge primary school are taught Spanish for an hour a week by a teacher from Clifton comprehensive school, thanks to the special provisions of the mini education action zones that the Government have introduced. The head teacher, Mrs. Hall, tells me that her year 6 pupils enjoy their Spanish lessons, especially as the project is linked to a school visit to Spain later this year.
There are many other such language clubs in primary schools throughout the country. I understand from the Government that there is some language teaching in about a quarter of all primary schools, but none of it is formally built into the core curriculum. I have discussed that with head teachers, and the problem is that limited time is available for another compulsory primary school subject, given the obligation—wholly necessary, in my view—to teach the literacy and numeracy hours. However, it is my hon. Friend the Minister's task to find an answer to that problem, not to claim that it cannot be solved—we are a Labour, not a Conservative Government.
At least two primary schools in each constituency should offer a consistent, taught, foreign language. That needs to be followed up by secondary schools teaching foreign languages, and they should do so in the full sense, providing a knowledge of grammar, literature, culture and history—not simply a Berlitz guide, useful for tourist conversation. I very much hope that the move to specialist schools recently announced by the Government will facilitate such a development.
I recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—alas, he is not in his seat today—that he hoped that Latin would return to the secondary school curriculum, and my hon. Friend recited, "Amo, amas, amat". That shows that our finest working class leaders had a grounding in Latin, to become effective socialists. So we need structure, grammar and precision, and Latin is not the worst way to prepare a 21st-century generation of young Britons for the programme of renewal that our nation needs.
Entrance to university should require some knowledge of a foreign language as a minimum requirement, as is common on mainland Europe, and business can play a leading part in that. In France, the quality of foreign language knowledge has increased enormously in the past 20 years, because the French Government mandated a training levy for all firms, and one of the best ways to spend that money was in teaching the languages in which French business earns more and more of its income.
Exhortation is not enough. A Minister from the Department for Education and Employment will reply in this debate, but action is required in other Departments to compel firms to provide adequate language training for their employees. The internet can help, but I should like the DFEE and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss with our European partners how education Ministries in France, Berlin, Rome or Madrid could provide e-mail or web tuition designed for individual students. The excellent French and German ambassadors in London, Mr. Bernard and Dr. von Ploetz, have formed a double act—a duet, speaking perfect English as they offer their countries' services to any institution in Britain that would like to improve French and German teaching.
604
Learning languages is a lifelong business, but it must start in schools, and at an early age. Many school trips are to mainland Europe, but I fear that the children act as a crowd, giggling together in English. I wonder how much real knowledge of a foreign language they ingest. I should like the Minister to take on board my suggestion that the schools that apply for specialist status to teach foreign languages should be given priority over other applicants for specialist school status.
I will not act as a Solomon, declaring which languages should be taught. We have an immense wealth of languages in our county. In south Yorkshire, there are 70 or more languages among the boys and girls arriving in our schools. Many of my Kashmiri constituents and their children have a knowledge of Urdu. That is truly impressive. Can we not build on that cultural linguistic wealth? We are members of the European Union, which is soon to be enlarged to take in the great nations and languages of central and eastern Europe, but I make a plea that the dominant languages of Europe—French, German and Spanish—should be the priority.
As Goethe put it,
"Whoever is not acquainted with foreign languages knows nothing of his own."
Shakespeare would never have been Shakespeare without his Latin and Italian. Gibbon could never have written "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" sitting in England and speaking only English. In a great speech just after the war, Winston Churchill said:
"Prenez garde, je vais vous parler en francais".
In doing so, he brought a message of Englishness that was all the more powerful because he paid his audience the compliment of delivering it in a foreign language.
If we want our country to grow again and attain the top ranks of nations—and remain there—we will have to speak more than English. I commend the recommendations of tie Nuffield report to the House and I hope that the Government will be able to advance its proposals.
2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): May I start by congratulating; my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on gaining the opportunity to discuss this important issue and, in his customary way, delivering his views entertainingly and convincingly? I, too, have taken up the language challenge as part of the European year of languages and have made a small start on learning Spanish. When I took my husband to Barcelona a couple of weeks ago, I made good use of that fieldwork opportunity.
I share my hon. Friend's view that modern foreign languages are key to our social and economic success and that they enable and encourage an understanding of other cultures and of our responsibilities as global citizens. My hon. Friend rightly identified the key issues, which are how to promote language learning in primary and secondary schools; how to ensure that we promote further study of languages; and the importance of lifelong language learning and links to business. I shall cover those areas in my response and talk about how we intend to take forward the Government's work in relation to the Nuffield report.

605
I know that teachers are enthusiastic about languages at primary level. They tell me that they are concerned to convey to young minds the importance of absorbing the culture of other nations. By doing that, children come to see that understanding a language means more than just learning words and phrases. We do not have a statutory curriculum for modern foreign languages at key stage 2, but languages in primary schools are popular with children and teachers as a voluntary option. That is so, not just outside the curriculum, but inside it, using classroom time. The Government are keen to support and enhance activities in primary schools on the practical and can-do basis that my hon. Gentleman urged.
On that basis, the Department for Education and Employment has supported the early language learning initiative and guidance for teachers at key stage 2 between seven and 11, and it has supported a new scheme of work produced by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for primary French and the development of further materials for primary German and Spanish. The QCA's materials have been very successful in the short time that they have been available and feedback from teachers has been positive and supportive. Five thousand copies of the scheme of work alone have been distributed since their introduction.
The early learning language project is a unique project within a subject area and a unique collaboration with the centre for information on language teaching and research. It started in September 1999 and has 18 pilots, covering about 150 schools. It has already enabled the development of an early years languages framework, which builds on the schemes of work and other curriculum support and guidance. It will develop high-quality curriculum materials for teachers; indeed, it has already done so. It will develop and disseminate models of good practice; establish a network of practitioners using information and communication technology; and review and co-ordinate training for teachers of modern foreign languages in primary schools.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is pleased that, last week, I announced a further £200,000 to extend the early learning good practice project, winch is managed by the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. We want to build on that and to develop beacon primary schools and teacher training initiatives with partners in France, Germany and Spain. We will also carry out an audit of language resources available to primary schools, and promote their use through the national grid for learning and other appropriate media.
We need to make sure that the language skills acquired in primary schools are not lost when pupils transfer to secondary schools. We must ensure that primary and secondary schools work together. That is why our key stage 3 strategy, covering all the foundation subjects and aimed at raising standards in the early years of secondary education, will play a crucial role in improving the teaching of modern foreign languages. This year, we will pilot a new programme of training and support for teachers in foundation subjects, including modern foreign languages. That support will be available in more than 200 schools. We will aim to extend that nationally from 2002-03.
As my hon. Friend said, all secondary schools have a role to play, but there is a special role, which he outlined, for specialist language colleges, both in links with primary schools and in raising standards in secondary schools. The
606
Government want the links between language colleges and primary schools to be strengthened. We have made that a key part of our response to the Nuffield inquiry. We want to strengthen links such as those made by Sir Bernard Lovell school, Gloucestershire, which has established a network of 30 primary schools in England, France and Italy.
Specialist language colleges are leading the way in performance improvements in language learning. The first language colleges became operational in 1995. Under the Government, their number has grown to 108 across 81 local education authorities. The colleges are tasked with raising standards of teaching and learning in modern foreign languages, fostering an international ethos and cultural awareness throughout the school, encouraging the active participation of business community sponsors in school life and—this is important to help us raise standards—encouraging the dissemination of good practice and the sharing of resources through closer contacts between language colleges, other schools and the wider community.
The results for GCSEs in language colleges have been particularly impressive, with the average percentage of pupils who gained at least 5 A to C grades showing an increase of 3 per cent. in one year alone. That is greater than the average improvement in specialist schools as a whole and in all schools nationally.
My hon. Friend knows that our recent Green Paper, entitled "Schools—Building on Success", proposes that we expand the number of specialist schools to 1,000 by 2003 and to 1,500 by 2006. We expect the number of language colleges to increase as part of the general growth in the number of specialist schools. We believe that there is a sound basis on which to raise standards in secondary education and build important links with primary schools. We are keen to create links between many more primary and secondary schools, to allow primary schools to develop their teaching of modern foreign languages.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned teacher recruitment. He will be pleased to hear that, as we announced this week, applications for post-graduate teacher training places are up 7 per cent. over last year for modern foreign languages—an encouraging sign and a result of the strong action taken by the Government to attract people into teaching. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, from September, we will be running a pilot to offer teacher training places in modern foreign languages for primary specialists as well.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about A-level entries. The new AS qualification introduced in September 2000 should encourage the take-up of modern foreign languages post-16. Students also have the opportunity to take language units as part of vocational A-levels and GNVQs. We are evaluating whether the reforms have encouraged more young people to continue to study a modern foreign language at advanced level.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, last year, the Nuffield report on modern foreign languages was produced, and the Government responded to it in January. However, our response did not end then. To underpin it, we are currently working on the national strategy for languages. That strategy will be inclusive and will explore especially how we can build on the good work in primary schools that I described; explore new ways of bringing languages into the classroom; and build on the language

607
elements of our key stage 3 strategy. We shall also develop a strategy that makes greater use of adult vocational learning to promote languages and that engages business, persuading it of the importance of languages within the work force.
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend knows that the distinguished permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, Sir Michael Bishard, has announced his retirement. Will she pass a message to the Secretary of State that Sir Michael's replacement should be someone who has some overseas experience and speaks at least one foreign language fluently? I do not ask my hon. Friend to respond, just to take the message.
Jacqui Smith: I will, of course, be a diligent messenger.
We need to develop a strategy for lifelong learning and for business involvement in language learning. We need to persuade business of the importance of languages in the work force, perhaps by increasing work placements abroad and by the appointment of regional language champions to work with senior business people and with educators to promote language learning to adults at work.
We need to maximise the use of information technology in language learning. We must use the European year of languages, of which my hon. Friend is
608
a vocal supporter, to raise the profile and importance of languages while putting in place mechanisms to guarantee sustainability. We must ensure that our achievements during the European year of languages can be developed.
I want to make sure that we involve key stakeholders in the shaping of the national strategy for modern foreign languages. As my hon. Friend made clear, the issue cannot be dealt with by a single Department or even by Government alone. There will be many views on what we should do and we will take on board as many of them as possible when formulating the strategy.
Last week, I announced our plans to establish a national steering group, which I will chair, to oversee the development and implementation of our plans. I expect the group to include members drawn from the organisations that I mentioned and from other Departments, which have a key stake in improving our national capability in modern foreign languages.
It is clear from today's debate that there is considerable support behind the work that we are doing to offer quality resources and support—especially in those all-important early years—to people who want to learn a language. We must continue to place a high profile on language learning—from the cradle to the grave.
That is the real language challenge that faces us nationally. I assure my hon. Friend that we accept the challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hammond Inquiry
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish Sir Antony Hammond's review into the circumstances surrounding the application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja. [152448]

  The Prime Minister
  I am publishing Sir Anthony Hammond's report today. I am most grateful to Sir Anthony Hammond for all his work.

  Sir Anthony Hammond is satisfied that nothing improper has occurred in relation to the application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja. Sir Anthony Hammond has found that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) behaved entirely properly throughout.

  Sir Anthony Hammond also recommends improvements to administrative practice which the Government will implement in full.

  I have placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints there have been of sexual harassment and abuse in Royal Mail sorting offices in each of the last five years. [152089]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am advised by the Post Office that it does not hold this information for the last five years. However, the Post Office has provided figures for the number of Employment Tribunal cases involving sexual discrimination and harassment for the last three years as set out in the table.

  Financial year

  Number of Employment Tribunal cases

  1998–99

  13

  1999–2000

  23

  2001–01 1

  25

  1 To December

  Medicines Act (South Africa)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what outcome of the legal action being pursued by GlaxoSmithKline over the South African Government's amended Medicines Act would accord with Government policy. [152268]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government do not speculate on the outcome of legal cases whether in the UK or overseas.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 141W, on HIV/AIDS, if he has supported the use of compulsory licensing and parallel importing of medicines by poor countries. [152267]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government support the existing flexibilities within the WTO TRIPS Agreement. This allows WTO members to implement domestic IPR regimes which take adequate account of their national circumstances. There is nothing in the TRIPS Agreement to prevent Governments from allowing the importation of goods from the cheapest legitimate international sources (parallel importing). This is a matter for the judgment of individual Governments. The TRIPS Agreement (Article 31) also allows Governments to authorise production without the consent of patent holders, subject to adequate compensation (compulsory licensing) in a range of circumstances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contact his Department has had with the South African Government regarding its Medicines Act. [152270]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department of Trade and Industry has had contacts with the South African Government concerning part of one article of its revised Medicines Act. We have made clear our support for South Africa's access to affordable medicines, consistent with national obligations under the TRIPs Agreement.

  Compulsory Licences
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the compulsory licences applied for to his Department in the last 10 years and the outcomes. [152136]

  Mr. Caborn
  Seven applications have been made for compulsory patent licences under Section 48 of the Patents Act 1977 in the last 10 years. Details are in the table.
  349W

  Date of application under Section 48

  Patent number

  Patentee

  Applicant for licence

  Outcome

  10 March 1995

  GB 2133069

  Therma-Tru Corp

  Cohmor Holdings Plc

  Application refused by decision dated 5 June 1996 1

  9 June 1995

  EP 0083360

  Baxter International Ltd.

  M. L. Laboratories

  Application withdrawn 26 June 1996

  9 November 1995

  GB 2065080

  Arnold Kastner

  Rizla Ltd.

  Application withdrawn 26 April 1996

  12 January 1996

  EP 0182442

  Biogen Inc

  Medeva Plc; Evans Medical Ltd.

  Application withdrawn 8 July 1997

  23 May 1996

  GB 2150431

  Janet Parker

  Merville Modular Ltd.

  Application withdrawn 10 April 1997

  25 July 1996

  EP 0163933

  R. L. Reynolds

  Emward Fastenings Ltd.

  Application refused by decision dated 29 December 1997

  27 January 1997

  GB 2133069

  Therma-Tru Corp

  Evergreen Door Ltd.

  Application withdrawn 4 March 1998

  1 Confirmed on appeal

  Source:

  Patent Office Annual Reports. 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Litigation (GlaxoSmithKline)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has been in contact with GlaxoSmithKline concerning its legal action against the South African Government; and if he will make a statement. [152269]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been in contact with GlaxoSmithKline on a range of matters, including the conditions for business in South Africa. The pursuit of legal action is a matter for GSK and the other companies concerned.

  Medicines (Costs)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries have issued compulsory licences to reduce the cost of medicines in the last 10 years. [152271]

  Mr. Caborn
  Compulsory licences are subject to national laws. The UK has not issued any compulsory licences in the last 10 years. The Government do not have information on compulsory licences issued by other countries.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries have used parallel importing to reduce the cost of medicines in the last 10 years. [152272]

  Mr. Caborn
  Parallel importing can and does occur between EU member states, but information as to its occurrence elsewhere is not available. We have no information on other countries introducing legislation on the international exhaustion of patents with the explicit aim of reducing the cost of medicines.

  Fixed Term Work Directive
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to implement the European Directive on fixed term work. [153492]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am today publishing a consultation paper setting out options for implementing this directive. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House. The consultation period will last for 12 weeks, until 31 May, and I look forward to receiving views from as many interested parties as possible by this date.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much certified timber has been purchased by her Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152117]

  Clare Short
  DFID will report data on all timber purchases to DETR for incorporation in the Green Ministers' annual report. Guidance on data collection is being prepared by DETR. In advance of agreed systems DFID could not currently collate this information without disproportionate cost. We encourage all our suppliers to procure goods from sustainable sources and to comply with international trade agreements.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152110]

  Clare Short
  DFID will report timber usage annually to DETR for publication in the Green Ministers' annual report.

  GATS
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on the world's poorest countries of the possible extension of GATS; and if she will make a statement. [153043]

  Clare Short
  It is up to developing countries to decide to what extent they want to open their markets further under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The Government believe that services are potentially a significant source of economic growth for developing countries. The development of services domestically, particularly in the finance and telecommunications sectors, is necessary to facilitate the growth in other parts of the economy to reduce poverty. Services liberalisation can act as a spur to domestic reform. It can provide access to new markets overseas and can encourage foreign investment.

  Medicines Act (South Africa)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the use
  351W
  by South Africa of compulsory licensing and parallel importing of medicines as TRIPS compliant measures. [152139]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him today, column 348W, on the use of compulsory licensing and parallel importing by poor countries.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the secretary of State for International Development what the European Commission's policy is on the relationship between South Africa's amended Medicines Act and its obligations under TRIPS. [152140]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the press release issued by the Delegation of the European Commission in South Africa on 6 March about this issue. I have arranged for copies of this press release to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policy is on surplus places in schools; and if he will publish the numbers and percentages of surplus places in each local education authority in England. [153208]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Raising education standards informs all our policies. Resources which are locked into maintaining surplus places in schools should wherever possible be freed up and directed towards improving standards. In planning school provision, local education authorities should look for opportunities for removing surplus capacity, with a view to bringing supply and demand for school places into better balance. Their initial

  Surplus places by local authority at January 2000

  Primary 1

  Secondary

  Actual Surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more 3

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more 3

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  1318

  8

  3

  6

  683

  6

  0

  0

  302 Barnet

  953

  4

  0

  0

  737

  4

  0

  0

  370 Barnsley

  1,863

  9

  5

  6

  982

  7

  1

  7

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  1,051

  8

  5

  7

  837

  7

  1

  8

  820 Bedfordshire

  3,832

  14

  23

  16

  4,157

  10

  10

  18

  303 Bexley

  831

  4

  2

  3

  1,032

  6

  0

  0

  330 Birmingham

  7,533

  7

  33

  10

  5,017

  7

  8

  10

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  869

  6

  2

  3

  586

  6

  0

  0

  890 Blackpool

  499

  4

  1

  3

  434

  6

  1

  13

  850 Bolton

  1,971

  8

  9

  9

  1,053

  6

  1

  6

  837 Bournemouth

  280

  3

  1

  4

  837

  8

  1

  10

  867 Bracknell Forest

  1,092

  11

  5

  15

  744

  11

  1

  17

  380 Bradford

  3,484

  8

  14

  9

  10,045

  21

  42

  51

  304 Brent

  1,649

  8

  5

  8

  1,212

  8

  1

  8

  846 Brighton and Hove

  2,191

  12

  7

  12

  1,227

  10

  2

  20

  801 Bristol, City of

  2,821

  9

  14

  12

  3,211

  16

  2

  9

  305 Bromley

  409

  2

  0

  0

  339

  2

  0

  0

  825 Buckinghamshire

  6,343

  14

  42

  22

  1,404

  4

  2

  6

  351 Bury

  887

  6

  3

  4

  219

  2

  1

  7

  381 Calderdale

  1,828

  9

  12

  13

  737

  5

  0

  0

  873 Cambridgeshire

  4,152

  9

  20

  10

  1,161

  4

  1

  3

  202 Camden

  845

  8

  4

  10

  868

  8

  1

  10

  875 Cheshire

  6,961

  11

  41

  14

  3,518

  7

  5

  11

  201 City of London

  6

  3

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  352W
  focus should be on those schools with 25 per cent. or more of their places unfilled, having particular regard to standards at those schools. The overall aim should be to maximise parental preference and to provide good quality education in the most cost-effective way. The Department's annual survey of surplus places allows us to monitor how local education authorities are meeting this challenge.

  The table is based on the returns made by local education authorities in respect of all maintained primary and secondary schools in their area. They set out the numbers of surplus places as at January 2000 for each local authority area, listing primary and secondary separately, together with the proportion that these represent of total capacity. They also highlight the numbers of schools which at that date had surplus of 25 per cent. or more, and at least 30 surplus places, together with the proportion that these represent of the total number of schools. The returns from local education authorities indicate that there were 709,989 surplus school places in January 2000, representing 9 per cent. of the total capacity of 7.8 million places. This is an overall reduction of 22,377 places on 1999 figures.

  The proportion of all schools with a quarter or more of their places unfilled remains the same at 11 per cent., although actual numbers have increased from 2,391 in 1999 to 2,406 in 2000. This is attributable to falling primary rolls, which also affect the figure for overall surplus capacity in that sector. The number of secondary schools with 25 per cent. or more surplus capacity continues to fall from 461 in 1999 (13 per cent.) to 393 in 2000 (11 per cent.).

  The returns also provide the Department with details of the action authorities propose to take on schools with 25 per cent. or more surplus. The returns indicate that in many cases action is being taken, or is planned. Where planning strategies are unclear in areas with particularly high levels of surplus, the Department will be following up with the authorities concerned.
  353W

  Surplus places by local authority area at January 2000

  Primary 1

  Secondary

  Actual Surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more 3

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent, or more 3

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  908 Cornwall

  3,221

  8

  20

  8

  238

  1

  0

  0

  331 Coventry

  2,415

  8

  11

  12

  1,979

  9

  2

  11

  306 Croydon

  1,542

  5

  4

  4

  1,621

  9

  1

  5

  909 Cumbria

  5,700

  12

  38

  13

  4,233

  12

  9

  21

  841 Darlington

  739

  8

  6

  16

  376

  6

  0

  0

  831 Derby

  1,541

  7

  3

  4

  2,362

  14

  4

  29

  830 Derbyshire

  5,859

  9

  43

  12

  4,545

  9

  8

  17

  878 Devon

  5,284

  9

  23

  7

  1,328

  3

  0

  0

  371 Doncaster

  5,015

  16

  23

  20

  1,175

  5

  0

  0

  835 Dorset

  2,325

  9

  14

  10

  2,162

  7

  2

  5

  332 Dudley

  3,072

  10

  12

  15

  970

  5

  1

  5

  840 Durham

  6,354

  13

  53

  21

  2,702

  8

  4

  11

  307 Ealing

  2,600

  10

  7

  11

  218

  2

  0

  0

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  3,011

  11

  14

  10

  935

  4

  1

  6

  845 East Sussex

  2,540

  7

  10

  6

  1,113

  4

  1

  4

  308 Enfield

  865

  4

  3

  5

  1,378

  7

  0

  0

  881 Essex

  10,236

  9

  41

  8

  7,719

  9

  9

  11

  390 Gateshead

  1,771

  10

  8

  11

  557

  5

  0

  0

  916 Gloucestershire

  4,911

  10

  21

  8

  2,138

  6

  2

  5

  203 Greenwich

  2,498

  12

  8

  12

  1,477

  10

  2

  14

  204 Hackney

  2,035

  12

  6

  10

  928

  11

  1

  11

  876 Halton

  3,422

  23

  20

  36

  1,034

  11

  2

  22

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  906

  10

  5

  14

  557

  8

  0

  0

  850 Hampshire

  10,135

  9

  36

  8

  5,393

  7

  6

  8

  309 Haringey

  1,131

  6

  2

  3

  780

  7

  0

  0

  310 Harrow

  1,314

  7

  1

  2

  819

  9

  0

  0

  805 Hartlepool

  701

  7

  2

  7

  573

  8

  0

  0

  311 Havering

  2,152

  10

  6

  9

  1,317

  8

  2

  11

  884 Herefordshire

  1,926

  12

  10

  12

  1,201

  12

  3

  21

  919 Hertfordshire

  8,549

  9

  42

  10

  9,448

  11

  12

  14

  312 Hillingdon

  1,340

  6

  1

  1

  1,131

  7

  2

  12

  313 Hounslow

  1,701

  9

  4

  6

  410

  3

  0

  0

  921 Isle of Wight

  419

  6

  1

  2

  584

  5

  0

  0

  420 Isles of Scilly

  92

  38

  1

  25

  52

  33

  1

  100

  206 Islington

  1,747

  11

  6

  12

  902

  11

  1

  11

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  1,020

  14

  6

  23

  662

  16

  1

  25

  886 Kent

  6,063

  5

  23

  5

  8,383

  9

  10

  9

  810 Kingston upon Hull, City of

  4,965

  17

  16

  20

  2,087

  12

  3

  19

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  382

  4

  1

  3

  832

  9

  1

  10

  382 Kirklees

  3,101

  8

  14

  9

  2,220

  8

  3

  9

  340 Knowsley

  2,919

  16

  14

  23

  1,617

  14

  1

  9

  208 Lambeth

  2,463

  13

  8

  12

  1,728

  20

  2

  20

  888 Lancashire

  11,318

  10

  72

  14

  4,870

  6

  7

  8

  383 Leeds

  10,737

  15

  50

  20

  4,205

  8

  7

  16

  856 Leicester

  4,019

  14

  16

  18

  959

  5

  0

  0

  855 Leicestershire

  2,671

  5

  13

  6

  3,694

  8

  5

  9

  209 Lewisham

  1,116

  5

  2

  3

  1,934

  15

  2

  15

  925 Lincolnshire

  5,306

  9

  37

  13

  4,030

  9

  9

  14

  341 Liverpool

  7,155

  15

  31

  20

  3,550

  10

  2

  6

  821 Luton

  2,340

  11

  7

  11

  526

  4

  0

  0

  352 Manchester

  6,143

  14

  27

  18

  3,985

  15

  6

  24

  887 Medway

  1,748

  7

  8

  9

  2,143

  10

  2

  10

  315 Merton

  796

  6

  5

  10

  1,291

  15

  2

  18

  806 Middlesbrough

  1,594

  11

  5

  11

  673

  7

  1

  9

  826 Milton Keynes

  3,569

  14

  14

  16

  1,571

  12

  3

  27

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,698

  17

  23

  30

  2,128

  11

  4

  19

  316 Newham

  1,700

  6

  3

  5

  1,521

  8

  1

  7

  926 Norfolk

  5,056

  7

  21

  5

  3,533

  8

  5

  10

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  2,804

  16

  11

  18

  814

  7

  0

  0

  813 North Lincolnshire

  1,586

  10

  8

  12

  1,174

  10

  3

  21

  802 North Somerset

  771

  5

  1

  2

  781

  6

  0

  0

  392 North Tyneside

  2,508

  15

  13

  23

  2,486

  15

  6

  26

  815 North Yorkshire

  5,540

  11

  37

  11

  2,126

  5

  2

  4

  928 Northamptonshire

  5,266

  9

  27

  10

  4,569

  9

  9

  15

  929 Northumberland

  3,388

  15

  24

  17

  4,146

  12

  14

  23

  892 Nottingham

  2,961

  11

  16

  16

  4,977

  27

  8

  38

  891 Nottinghamshire

  6,256

  9

  29

  9

  8,489

  14

  12

  21

  353 Oldham

  1,838

  8

  4

  4

  1,241

  7

  2

  13

  931 Oxfordshire

  4,776

  10

  25

  11

  5,124

  12

  5

  11

  874 Peterborough

  1,843

  11

  9

  16

  1,172

  8

  3

  23

  879 Plymouth

  4,387

  18

  21

  26

  1,858

  9

  3

  17

  836 Poole

  674

  6

  2

  7

  482

  6

  0

  0

  851 Portsmouth

  1,268

  8

  3

  6

  133

  1

  0

  0

  870 Reading

  476

  5

  1

  3

  1,001

  14

  2

  25

  354W 355W

  Surplus places by local authority area at January 2000

  Primary 1

  Secondary

  Actual Surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more 3

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25 per cent. or more 3

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  317 Redbridge

  831

  4

  2

  4

  853

  5

  0

  0

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  1,438

  10

  6

  11

  1,427

  12

  2

  15

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  309

  3

  0

  0

  626

  8

  1

  13

  354 Rochdale

  1,671

  8

  7

  9

  1,528

  10

  2

  14

  372 Rotherham

  2,318

  9

  7

  6

  1,494

  7

  1

  6

  857 Rutland

  710

  22

  5

  28

  237

  10

  1

  33

  355 Salford

  4,661

  19

  29

  34

  2,614

  18

  5

  29

  333 Sandwell

  2,037

  7

  8

  8

  2,488

  12

  3

  15

  343 Sefton

  3,069

  11

  14

  15

  1,492

  7

  2

  9

  373 Sheffield

  4,255

  9

  17

  11

  1,718

  6

  0

  0

  893 Shropshire

  2,694

  11

  19

  13

  1,056

  6

  1

  5

  871 Slough

  800

  7

  2

  6

  368

  5

  1

  9

  334 Solihull

  1,477

  7

  5

  7

  540

  3

  0

  0

  933 Somerset

  2,802

  7

  11

  5

  3,428

  10

  6

  15

  803 South Gloucestershire

  1,757

  7

  7

  7

  1,173

  7

  1

  7

  393 South Tyneside

  1,642

  11

  8

  14

  1,112

  10

  1

  9

  852 Southampton

  2,354

  12

  11

  16

  893

  7

  0

  0

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  913

  6

  1

  2

  829

  7

  1

  8

  210 Southwark

  1,927

  8

  6

  8

  589

  6

  0

  0

  342 St. Helens

  1,986

  11

  9

  15

  1,008

  8

  0

  0

  860 Staffordshire

  6,868

  9

  35

  11

  999

  2

  1

  1

  356 Stockport

  2,885

  11

  11

  11

  1,392

  8

  0

  0

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  1,239

  7

  2

  3

  1,249

  9

  2

  15

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  4,308

  17

  22

  25

  1,406

  9

  2

  12

  935 Suffolk

  5,684

  11

  28

  11

  4,962

  9

  4

  5

  394 Sunderland

  4,328

  14

  24

  25

  1,304

  6

  2

  12

  936 Surrey

  10,306

  12

  54

  17

  4,222

  7

  4

  8

  319 Sutton

  561

  4

  1

  2

  396

  3

  0

  0

  866 Swindon

  2,330

  12

  11

  16

  1,139

  9

  1

  9

  357 Tameside

  1,121

  5

  4

  5

  1,044

  7

  2

  11

  894 Telford and the Wrekin

  1,327

  8

  3

  5

  937

  9

  3

  23

  883 Thurrock

  1,466

  10

  3

  6

  1,040

  12

  1

  10

  880 Torbay

  478

  5

  3

  9

  163

  2

  0

  0

  211 Tower Hamlets

  2,715

  12

  10

  14

  1,167

  8

  1

  7

  358 Trafford

  1,44

  8

  7

  9

  1,018

  6

  1

  6

  384 Wakefield

  2,974

  9

  14

  11

  1,126

  5

  2

  11

  335 Walsall

  2,395

  9

  5

  5

  1,285

  6

  1

  5

  320 Waltham Forest

  1,565

  7

  5

  8

  979

  7

  1

  6

  212 Wandsworth

  1,627

  10

  7

  12

  526

  5

  1

  11

  877 Warrington

  2,673

  13

  16

  21

  609

  4

  0

  0

  937 Warwickshire

  4,845

  11

  22

  11

  2,843

  8

  5

  14

  869 West Berkshire

  1,564

  12

  7

  10

  405

  4

  0

  0

  938 West Sussex

  6,93

  10

  27

  11

  4,788

  10

  5

  13

  213 Westminster

  397

  4

  1

  3

  758

  9

  0

  0

  359 Wigan

  2,217

  8

  10

  9

  942

  5

  2

  10

  865 Wiltshire

  4,312

  11

  33

  15

  2,167

  7

  4

  12

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  451

  5

  3

  7

  891

  8

  2

  14

  344 Wirral

  4,373

  14

  20

  20

  2,144

  8

  2

  9

  872 Wokingham

  494

  4

  2

  4

  103

  1

  0

  0

  336 Wolverhampton

  3,176

  13

  18

  20

  1,428

  8

  2

  11

  885 Worcestershire

  4,470

  10

  18

  9

  4,227

  10

  10

  16

  816 York

  1,855

  12

  10

  17

  1,097

  10

  1

  8

  Total

  431,650

  10

  2,013

  11

  278,339

  8

  393

  11

  1 Primary figures show surplus after taking account of any summer entry

  2 Actual surplus is defined as the difference between capacity and number on roll for all schools where capacity exceeds number on roll

  3 Schools with less than 30 surplus places are not included

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Farm Allowance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if farmers who previously received hill livestock compensatory allowance but now do not qualify for hill farm allowance will receive transitional support this year. [151743]

  Ms Quin
  No. However, such farmers are eligible to apply for schemes under the England Rural Development Programme.
  356W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers previously eligible for hill livestock compensatory allowance he estimates will not qualify for hill farm allowance. [151741]

  Ms Quin
  Preliminary estimates indicate that across the country 1,200 to 1,300 farmers who received HLCA in 2000 will not receive HFA because they have less than 10 hectares of eligible forage area in the less favoured areas. Officials recently wrote to 3,400 producers, asking for additional information in order to ensure that all those who qualify receive payment.
  357W
  Those who are ineligible for HFA will be eligible to apply for schemes under the England Rural Development Programme.

  Livestock Diseases
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the outbreaks of(a) foot and mouth, (b) swine fever and (c) anthrax disease which have occurred in the United Kingdom since 1966, specifying in each case the species and number of animals slaughtered, the premises affected, the length of the outbreak and the number of abattoirs in operation at the time. [151644]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The information requested is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Industrial Fishing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what species the Anglo-Danish scientific study of the impact of industrial fishing is to be based; [152837]

  (2) what are (a) the objectives of the Anglo-Danish study on the impact of industrial fishing and (b) the criteria to be used. [152838]

  Mr. Morley
  I reached agreement in the margins of the Fisheries Council on 14–15 December on initiating bilateral discussions with Denmark on the sandeels fishery with a view to reducing the Total Allowable Catch for sandeels, re-examining bycatch arrangements and considering related issues. A first meeting was held in Edinburgh on 26 February, focusing principally on sandeels. This reviewed existing scientific effort in the UK and Denmark on estimating local sandeel abundance, examining predator-prey relationships and evaluating the impact of the closure of the sandeel fishery off the north-east coast. The meeting also examined bycatch arrangements in relation to ICES forecasts of haddock and whiting catches in the industrial fishery; EU technical conservation rules on permissible bycatches in the sandeel and other small mesh fisheries; and in Danish sampling and control arrangements for estimating bycatches in industrial fisheries.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  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. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium has been a component of munitions used on(a) Salisbury Plain training area, (b) Porton Down, (c) Lulworth ranges and (b) Shoeburyness. [145945]
  358W
  Mr. Hoon
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 2001, c. 42W]: While the previous answer was believed to be correct at the time on the basis of the information available, additional information has now come to light which suggests that AWE firings may have continued until 1986. This information is contained in 1980's notebooks held at DERA Fort Halstead which logged the movement of experimental DU munitions from that site to the then AWE site at Foulness. There were no matching records at DERA shoeburyness since in the 1980s the AWE site at Foulness was a separate establishment.

  Balkan Casualties
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK troops have been injured in(a) Bosnia and (b) Kosovo in the last two years; how many have been removed from the country where they were serving owing to the serious nature of their wounds; how many have been killed; and if he will make a statement. [152598]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period of 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2000 eight service personnel have died in Bosnia as the result of injuries sustained, and four in Kosovo. During the same period, 203 casualty evacuations of service personnel took place from Bosnia, and 308 from Kosovo.

  A complete record of service personnel who have sustained injuries in the respective theatres is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Accidents (Balkans)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many road accidents there have been in moving UK troops in(a) Bosnia and (b) Kosovo in the last two years which resulted in major injury to UK military personnel; how many military personnel were killed in them; how many resulted in severe damage to vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [152597]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the two years up to the end of 2000, four UK service personnel serving with SFOR have been killed as the result of road traffic accidents, and one serving with KFOR. Road traffic accidents also resulted in reports of serious injury to 10 personnel serving with SFOR and 32 with KFOR, and to 10 and 11 vehicles respectively being damaged beyond economic repair.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the part-time section of the Royal Irish Regiment is; how many new recruits there were and how many part-time members resigned from the regiment in 2000; and if he will make a statement about recruitment into the part-time section of the Royal Irish Regiment. 1152152]

  Mr. Spellar
  The strength of the part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment at 31 January 2001 was 1,693. During the period 1 January to 31 December 2000, 124 members enlisted into the part-time element of the Regiment and 141 resigned.
  359W
  Part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment provide essential support to the police in a variety of roles. We have recently launched an advertising campaign to encourage individuals to apply to join the Regiment and take advantage of the career and employment opportunities which exist there.

  2 Parachute Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the damages awarded against his Department to Mr. Ian Bannister, a former member of the 2 Parachute Regiment. [153060]

  Mr. Spellar
  Claims for compensation are considered by my Department on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay damages. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so. In Mr. Bannister's case, a claim was brought for injuries he received as a result of a training accident. Liability was admitted following a the through investigation of the case and the claim settled on 18 February 1999. In view of the confidential nature of the level of damages paid to Mr. Bannister, it would be inappropriate to disclose the amount. I am therefore withholding the information under exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Strategic Sealift
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the provision of strategic sealift. [153493]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 26 October last year, I announced that AWSR Shipping Ltd. had been selected as the preferred bidder for the strategic sealift (RoRo) service. Since then negotiations have been under way to place the PFI contract with AWSR.

  The negotiations have reached an advanced stage. AWSR has placed sub-contracts with Flensburger of Germany for four ships and Harland and Wolff for two. However, progress has been slowed by difficulties over the detailed commercial arrangements. In view of these complexities, which could threaten the timely completion of the PFI negotiations and early delivery of the service to MOD, I have decided that the Ministry of Defence should take over the commercial shipbuilding contract with Harland and Wolff, as part of the overall PFI arrangements. The contract will be managed by AWSR. On delivery of the ships to them, AWSR will provide the full six ship strategic sealift service on PFI terms.

  As I announced on 26 October last year, I expect the full strategic sealift capability to be available by 2003.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the levels of pay for personnel on active service in the armed forces in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [153071]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the Thirtieth Report 2001 of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) (Cm4993), published on 9 February 2001, the recommendations of which have 360W
  been accepted by the Government and become effective from 1 April 2001. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  UK service personnel receive the same level of basic pay regardless of where they are serving. Levels of service pay are based on the recommendations of the AFPRB who work on the principle of broad comparability with the pay of civilian jobs of similar weight and responsibility (derived by job evaluation) against a number of factors. An additional element called "the X-factor" (currently 13 per cent. of basic pay) is then added to basic pay in order to reflect the differences between conditions of service experienced by members of the armed forces and conditions in civilian life which cannot be taken into account when assessing pay comparability. X-factor is paid to all ranks, except the most senior officers, regardless of unit or location and is also pensionable.

  It is recognised, however, that service personnel can only be compensated for a certain amount of separation from their base through the X-Factor. Therefore, service personnel who have served for more than three years and who are deployed, for example, to Bosnia, for over 10 consecutive days will also qualify for the Longer Separated Service Allowance (LSSA). LSSA is a taxable allowance, the level of which varies depending on the number of days spent away from home. Rates of LSSA effective from 1 April 2001 are also outlined in the AFPRB's 2001 Report.

  In addition to pay, there is also a package of measures to cover the welfare of troops deployed to Bosnia. These include the provision of publicly funded books, newspapers, telephone calls home, concessionary parcel rates, family travel and leave.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Clifton Marsh Tip
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Environment Agency on breaches of licence conditions at Clifton Marsh tip, Lancashire, by BNFL in connection with their disposal of any forms of radioactive waste. [146710]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Following concerns raised in an article published in The Guardian newspaper on 16 January 2001, the Environment Agency has carried out an initial investigation into claims that depleted uranium from BNFL's Springfields site is being deposited at Clifton Marsh landfill in a dangerous manner. As a result of preliminary investigations at both the Clifton Marsh site and the Springfields site, the agency has found nothing to suggest that radioactive materials have been deposited at the site above the limits permitted in the site's authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  The authorisation makes provision for the disposal of very low levels of solid radioactive waste at the landfill. This type of waste is subject to regular random checks by the site operators, Lancashire Waste Services, and the results of these checks are available to the agency for examination at any time. The agency is continuing to

  361W
  investigate the claims made in the recent news articles, and any further information will be made available at the earliest opportunity.

  British Railways Board Records Centre
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of arrangements for the closure of the British Railways Board Records Centre as regards access to documents required for the running of the railways; and if he will make a statement. [151666]

  Mr. Hill
  The great majority of the British Railways Board's (BRB's) responsibilities have been assumed by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) as a consequence of the Transport Act 2000. The management of the BRB records is, therefore, a matter for the SRA. With the ending of the BRB's operational responsibilities, a decision was made in 1997 to rationalise the archive and to retain only those documents necessary to meet the on-going requirements of the board to deal with its continuing legal liabilities. Under an appraisal process agreed by the Public Record Office (PRO) and the Railway Heritage Committee, records of historical importance are being deposited with the PRO or County Record Offices. Railtrack (and where appropriate any other successor body) are being advised of those records in which they may have an interest for the on-going running of the railway and can make appropriate arrangements for access.

  Cycling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compliance of London boroughs with measures proposed by his Department in design manuals to assist in achieving high standards of cycling safety in London. [152350]

  Mr. Hill
  None. The Secretary of State issues guidance on the design of facilities for cyclists mainly through Traffic Advisory Leaflets and Local Transport Notes. In London, the London Cycle Network (LCN) has its own design manual. The LCN also has its own audit arrangements governing the safety of schemes. Responsibility for the LCN has now transferred to the Mayor.

  Planning
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Government programmes which allow for the use of section 106 contributions as matching finance; and if he will make a statement. [152492]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by section 12 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, enables local authorities and developers to enter into a planning obligation. This can comprise both negotiated planning agreements and unilateral undertakings by a developer. Current Government policy on the use of planning obligations is set out in Circular 1/97. This sets out a tightly defined set of tests which apply to the use of planning obligations. Planning obligations should be necessary; relevant to planning: directly related to the 362W
  proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other respects.

  Planning obligations are not designed to be used as a means of securing matching finance for Government programmes. They are designed to remedy genuine planning problems and to enhance the quality of development. They should only be sought where they are necessary to make a planning proposal acceptable in land-use planning terms.

  We intend to issue shortly a consultation paper with proposals for improving the current arrangements for planning obligations.

  Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the criteria he will use to determine which housing authorities are banded as 'excellent' for the purpose of qualifying for arm's length housing companies. [152494]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The proposed required for an excellent rating is one of a number of criteria which authorities working to qualify for additional resources must achieve in addition to setting up arm's length management arrangements. The assessment of the quality of the services will be undertaken by the Audit Commission's Housing Inspectorate as part of their best value duties. I understand that the Commission will shortly consider issuing a consultation paper on a framework for excellence in housing management to assist authorities interested in this new approach.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the criteria to be used in assessing bids under the Neighbourhood Renewal Programmes Community Development Fund are. [152493]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the Community Empowerment Fund (CEF) which is being set up as part of the Government's New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal as announced on 15 January 2001.

  Detailed proposals for the administration of the Community Empowerment Fund are currently being developed by officials. Once they have been agreed, the details will be included in the Local Strategic Partnerships Guidance which is expected to be published shortly.

  Planning Officers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures he(a) proposes and (b) has in place to prevent planning officers from misleading elected representatives;. [152469]

  (2) what regulations are in place to require planning officers to present planning committees with objectors' and developers' views in the same manner. [152470]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the
  363W
  development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Reports to planning committees should provide all relevant information to enable the committee to reach a decision. Failure on the part of a planning committee to take account of all relevant considerations may constitute maladministration and the decision of the committee may be subject to challenge by judicial review.

  The Local Government Association's 'Probity in Planning' contains good practice guidelines for officer reports to planning committees. It advises that reports should be accurate and cover, among other things, the substance of objections and the views of those consulted. Relevant points will include: a clear exposition of the development plan, site or related history, and any other material considerations; a written recommendation of action; and a technical appraisal which clearly justifies the recommendation. If the report's recommendation is contrary to policies in the development plan, the material considerations which justify this must be clearly stated.

  Construction Skills Certification Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways the construction skills certification scheme is enforced; what impact it has had; and what penalties have been used for non-compliance. [152483]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the first instance, it is up to contractors to decide whether or not to require their managers, supervisors and operatives to be registered under the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) or similar scheme. However the Confederation of Construction Clients announced at the construction "safety summit" on 27 February that their members, and clients who are signatories to the Clients Charter, would require 100 per cent. of the work force on sites for which they are clients to be registered by end 2002. The Office of Government Commerce are discussing with central Government Departments and agencies procurement guidance which will suggest that they should make similar commitments to require the work force on construction contracts for which they are the client to be registered.

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Code of Practice for the Safety of Small Fishing Vessels; if he will deposit in the Library the draft Code; if he will list the consultees to the Code; what representations he has received on the draft Code; and if he will make a statement. [152093]

  Mr. Hill
  The Code of Practice for the Safety of Small Fishing Vessels will be formally published later this month as an integral part of a Merchant Shipping Notice reference MSN 1756 (F). The Merchant Shipping Notice will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be available on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) website.

  The MCA is sending a copy of the Merchant Shipping Notice including the Code to every owner of under 12 metre fishing vessels to advise them of the effect of the code.
  364W
  The list of consultees has been placed in the Libraries of the House. As part of the consultation process the MCA received various representations on the Code.

  Construction Industry (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with representatives of the construction industry concerning health and safety issues in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [152604]

  Mr. Meacher
  I met with major industry employers and trade union representatives at the construction summit on 27 February, jointly organised by the Health and Safety Commission and my Department. DETR Ministers also met with employers and unions in the run up to the summit. The summit set targets and a number of action plans to improve health and safety standards in the industry which we intend to ensure are carried forward as soon as practicable.

  Transport Schemes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public consultation will be required on the appraisal summary tables for major road schemes included in full local transport plans where(a) they were given provisional approval and (b) more work was considered necessary before the Government make a decision on whether to fund them. [152642]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no requirement for the public to be consulted on appraisal summary tables. However, local transport plans are themselves subject to public consultation and there is also an opportunity for the public to comment on major road schemes as they go through the statutory approval process.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the appraisal summary tables for major schemes in full local transport plans included an assessment for traffic generation. [152643]

  Mr. Hill
  Advice on assessment for traffic generation was issued by the former Department of Transport in 1994 following publication of the report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic" by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and is contained in Volume 12 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Assessment for traffic generation should be an integral part of the traffic modelling for major schemes. The expected level of generated traffic should be assessed and taken into account in the traffic forecasts that underlie the impacts set out in the appraisal summary tables. There is no requirement for the assessment of traffic generation to be recorded on the appraisal summary tables for major schemes.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will issue new guidelines to planning authorities on the health risks associated with mobile phone masts. [152831]
  365W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to Council Leaders in June 2000 to explain the action the Government had in hand to take forward the planning recommendations of the Stewart report ("Mobile Phones and Health") published in May 2000. The letter said that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. It is the Government's view that if a proposed development meets the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) on limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields, it should not be necessary for an authority, in processing an application, to consider health effects further.

  This was repeated in the draft of Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (PPG8) issued for consultation on 31 July 2000. The consultation exercise, which also sought views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts, ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently considering the responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as practically possible.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) to what extent his Department's headquarters building in London uses hydrofluorocarbons for(a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased by his Department in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out his Department's (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons; [153048]

  (2) what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of (a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other energy needs of buildings and premises (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department; and if he will made a statement. [153047]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) Two of DETR's London headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons as refrigerants in their air-conditioning systems.

  (b) The amount of hydrofluorocarbons purchased in each year since 1995 is:

  Year

  Kg

  1995–961

  —

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  1,095

  2001

  1,054

  1 Buildings not occupied

  Our policy is to switch, where possible, from hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorobutane and sulphur hexafluoride to environmentally preferable substitutes and to ensure that we do not buy any products which contain
  366W
  chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 111 trichloroethane, or hydrochlorofluorocarbons where suitable alternatives exist.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the buildings and premises(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department which use (i) chlorofluorocarbons and (ii) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other energy needs; and if he will give details of such use and the reasons for it. [153046]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Property management is delegated to the Department's local property centres and such details are not recorded centrally. Of the three London headquarters buildings only Great Minster House has an HCFC refrigerant (R22). We are evaluating the options for replacing this. My Department's policy is to ensure that we do not purchase any products which use chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons where there are suitable alternatives.

  IMO Building, Albert Embankment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received relating to the International Maritime Organisation building at 4 Albert Embankment; and if he will make a statement. [153022]

  Mr. Hill
  No recent representations relating to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) building have been made to Ministers. However, officials in the Department maintain a regular dialogue with the IMO. Discussions cover a range of issues including those connected with the building itself. The Department owns the building, and leases it to the IMO, and has responsibilities under the terms of the lease for its maintenance and upkeep.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the total budget for regional development agencies in 2001–02 and how it is to be allocated between the nine agencies. [153474]

  Ms Armstrong
  The table sets out the total budget for 2001–02 showing the distribution between Regional Development Agencies. The total figure represents in effect an increase of 15 per cent. on the 2000–01 budget.

  Except for ring fenced administration and rural funding, RDAs will also have the flexibility to transfer up to 20 per cent. of budgets to other programmes, which together with the facility to create a strategic programme to progress initiatives which do not fall conveniently within existing programme rules, offers significant improvements for RDA financial management.

  The considerable extra funding, and these additional flexibilities for 2001–02 (the transitional year before the single budget) will help RDAs to deliver their regional priorities and targets for the year.
  367W

  £000

  Programme

  One North East

  North West DA

  Yorkshire Forward

  East Midlands DA

  Advantage West Midlands

  East of England DA

  South East of England DA

  South West RDA

  London DA

  Total

  Administration

  10,103

  14,44

  9,989

  7,488

  8,793

  5,836

  6,643

  9,099

  9,470

  81,465

  Land and Property

  45,700

  85,000

  43,700

  30,900

  41,100

  18,200

  23,600

  34,900

  48,100

  371,200

  Single Regeneration Budget

  100,169

  159,915

  147,425

  38,398

  92,446

  22,127

  58,237

  28,156

  225,955

  872,828

  Rural Development

  3,578

  1,991

  4,237

  4,588

  2,625

  4,018

  2,477

  9,388

  0

  32,902

  Skills Development Fund

  2,746

  6,448

  4,792

  4,195

  5,664

  5,053

  6,531

  4,275

  7,246

  46,950

  Skills Administration

  207

  326

  268

  238

  285

  259

  323

  259

  335

  2,500

  Inward Investment

  1,765

  1,493

  1,515

  1,124

  1,454

  1,165

  1,165

  1,604

  1,145

  12,430

  Regional Innovation Fund

  8,900

  7,400

  10,000

  4,300

  6,300

  3,500

  3,200

  4,700

  5,800

  54,100

  Grand Total 1

  173,168

  276,617

  221,926

  91,231

  158,667

  60,158

  102,176

  92,381

  298,051

  1,474,375

  Land and Property Capital

  -11,610

  -10,230

  -4,660

  -7,360

  -8,730

  -2,280

  -6,100

  -20,520

  -20,270

  -91,760

  Rural Development

  -236

  -270

  -453

  -590

  -183

  -145

  -142

  -575

  0

  -2,594

  Land and Property

  -11,667

  -9,400

  -4,650

  -1,900

  -880

  -486

  -98

  -3,175

  -639

  -32,895

  Current Total Receipts

  -23,513

  -19,900

  -9,763

  -9,850

  -9,793

  -2,911

  -6,340

  -24,270

  -20,909

  -127,249

  Net Total 1

  149,655

  256,17

  212,163

  81,381

  148,874

  57,247

  95,836

  68,111

  277,142

  1,347,126

  1 This does not include the budget for notional resource items

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to ensure that the regional chambers have sufficient resources to meet their duty to monitor the work of the Regional Development Agencies. [153491]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am today announcing proposals to establish a new fund for supporting the regional chambers, worth £5 million a year in total. This will enable the chambers to enhance their capacity to scrutinise the work of the Regional Development Agencies, as they progress towards their targets and delivery of their regional strategies, and to develop their role as a strategic focal point for their regions. Details of my proposals are contained in a consultation paper inviting views from the chambers and other interested parties, copies of which have been place in the House Library.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set the Regional Development Agencies for the single budget from 2002–03. [153512]

  Ms Armstrong
  Challenging high level objectives and outcome targets will be set for each Regional Development Agency (RDA), as part of the framework of targets for the single budget from 1 April 2002. These are set out in the table. We expect these targets to be delivered by the RDAs in exchange for the greater flexibility they will have under the single budget. Additional flexibilities for the RDAs for the 2001–02 transitional year are being set out in the 2001–02 allocations announcement today.

  The objectives will provide the overall context for all activity undertaken by the RDAs. The high level outcome targets add measurability to these objectives, and will be used to measure the direct impact of RDA activity on the regions. Each RDA will be expected to contribute to the high level targets. In due course, detailed output targets will also be negotiated separately with each RDA.

  Objectives—applying throughout urban and rural areas

  Outcome targets (by 2004–05 unless otherwise stated)

  To promote economic development and regionally balanced growth.

  1. Provide the strategic framework to improve the sustainable economic performance in each region measured by the trend in growth of GDP per capita, while also

  368W

  Objectives—applying throughout urban and rural areas

  Outcome targets (by 2004–05 unless otherwise stated)

  contributing to the broader quality of life in the region.

  To promote social cohesion and sustainable development through integrated local regeneration programmes.

  2. Regeneration: Work with local strategic partnerships (LSPs) to tackle poverty and social exclusion through promoting economic development in the most deprived areas by reducing deprivation by 10 per cent. in those wards that are currently in the bottom 20 per cent. of the region as identified by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

  3. Urban: Working with the LSPs, contribute to the renaissance of towns and cities so that negative current population trends in key urban areas are reversed and the numbers living and/or working there are increasing.

  4. Rural: In line with Rural White Paper objectives, regenerate Market Towns in or close to Rural Priority Areas, and achieve increases in employment, skills and new business formation levels in priority rural areas comparable with those being achieved elsewhere in the Region.

  5. Physical development: Work with partners to ensure that 60 per cent. of new housing is provided on previously developed land and through conversion of existing buildings by 2008. Ensure that brownfield land will be reclaimed at a rate of over 1,100 hectares per annum by 2004 (reclaiming 5 per cent. of current brownfield land by 2004 and 17 per cent, by 2010).

  To help those without a job into work by promoting employment and enhancing the development of skills relevant to employment.

  6. Employment: Work with Employment Service and Learning Skills Councils (LSCs) to increase employment over the economic cycle—by increasing the ILO employment rate by 2004.

  7. Skills: Work with LSCs to increase by 3 percentage points by 2004 the number of 19-year-olds achieving a qualification equivalent to NVQ level 2 compared to 2002. Improve the levels of qualifications

  369W

  Objectives—applying throughout urban and rural areas

  Outcome targets (by 2004–05 unless otherwise stated)

  of the work force in order to meet future learning targets.

  Promote enterprise, innovation, increased productivity and competitiveness

  8. Productivity: Work with regional partners to enable an increase in productivity measured by Gross Value Added (GVA) per hour worked in the region and in particular increase productivity.

  9. Enterprise: Work with Small Business Service to help build an enterprise society in which small firms of all kinds thrive and achieve their potential, with an increase in the number of people considering going into business, an improvement in the overall productivity of small firms, and more enterprise in disadvantaged communities.

  10. Investment: Make the region an attractive place for investment to maintain the UK as the prime location in the EU for foreign direct investment, particularly by providing effective co-ordination of inward investment activities of local partners and sub regional agencies.

  11. Innovation: Make the most of the UK's science, engineering and technology by increasing the level of exploitation of technological knowledge derived from the science and engineering base, as demonstrated by a significant rise in the proportion of innovating business citing such sources.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he proposes for funding the successor to the Single Regeneration Budget in 2001–02. [153475]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) will continue to be able to allocate funds from the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) expenditure line in 2001–02. Schemes approved up to the end of that year will continue to receive funding for the agreed period of the scheme, which may be up to seven years.

  In SR 2000, RDAs were given considerable additional funding and flexibilities to deliver their regional strategies, whose primary purpose is to enhance the region's competitiveness through sustainable economic development, regeneration and business growth. A key flexibility is the introduction of a single budget from April 2002, which will subsume all current RDA funding streams. There will not, therefore, be a national SRB bidding round for new schemes in 2001–02. We have invited those RDAs with sufficient resources, after commitments from earlier SRB rounds are taken into account, to put forward proposals for using funds from the SRB line in their corporate plans for 2001–02. Each RDA will be able to decide on its own approach, which will contribute to the development of the RDAs' regional strategies. The RDAs will be expected to meet their commitments to schemes from SRB Rounds 1 to 6 from their single budget.

HEALTH

  Imported Meat
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Government will make the import of over-30-months beef illegal; [144247]

  (2) if he will list categories of food product covered by the ban on the sale of imported over-30-months meat; [144330]

  (3) what investigation the Government have undertaken into the extent of the illegal sale of imported over-30-months meat in the United Kingdom; what conclusions have been reached; what measures the Government have taken to prevent such sales into the British food chain; and what representations he has received regarding such sales; [144249]

  (4) which categories of imported animal-derived products are covered by the ban on sales of over-30-months meat; [144311]

  (5) what advice the Government have given to retailers, caterers and consumers on the risks, identification and avoidance of imported over-30-months meat; [144248]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the illegal sale of imported over-30-months beef into the British food chain. [144255]

  Ms Stuart
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 prohibit the sale of any meat from cattle over 30 months of age for human consumption (the over-30-months, or OTM, rule). The only exceptions are meat from cattle registered in the beef assurance scheme (which can be sold up to 42 months of age so long as they have tested negative for BSE) and meat from a list of 14 countries, of which none are European Union member states. The OTM rule does not apply to processed or treated meat or products that contain meat.

  There is, however, no ban on the import of OTM beef—it would be against European Union rules on free movement of goods to introduce unilateral measures under article 30 of the European Commission treaty restricting intracommunity trade where, as in this case, the legislative field has been occupied by the Community.

  The Food Standards Agency is investigating allegations that companies are importing cow beef (which would be likely to be from OTM animals) for sale for human consumption. Allegations are always followed up, including with the authorities of EU member states, but no evidence of illegal activity has been found to date.

  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), which is an Executive agency of the Food Standards Agency, enforces the OTM rule in licensed plants. If an Official Veterinary Surgeon (OVS) suspects that meat is from an over-age animal he may ask to see evidence to satisfy him that the meat is from an animal which was not over 30 months of age at slaughter. Local authorities are generally responsible for enforcement in other premises, and the checks which they carry out are determined by the authorities involved. Last November, the Food Standards Agency instructed them and the MHS to step up checks of imported beef. High levels of compliance with the OTM rule have been found and a renewed awareness of

  371W
  its importance has been generated in the trade which resulted in some companies tightening their procurement practices.

  It should be born in mind that the over-30-months rule is only the first defence against BSE and that the most risky parts of the animal, the specified risk material (SRM), such as the brain and spinal cord, are removed at slaughter. This greatly reduces the amount of infective material from older cattle, including any that could be included in imported beef products.

  The EU requirement, from 1 January, that over-30-months-old cattle must test negative for BSE before being allowed into the food chain will provide some additional protection, though the tests are only likely to pick up infection close to the time when clinical signs of the disease appear.

  The agency's advice to those who may continue to feel concerned is that consumers should buy their beef and beef products from reputable sources and that they should ask their supplier for details of the origin and the source of the meat.

  Variant CJD
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vCJD sufferers received a red cell blood transfusion before they were diagnosed with the condition; and if he will make a statement. [150431]

  Mr. Denham
  Eight people with vCJD have been reported to the CJD Surveillance Unit as receiving blood components. After checking medical records, three of these have been confirmed as receiving a red cell blood transfusion. Of the remaining five, two reported transfusions occurred too long ago to allow checking against medical records, two have no history of transfusion and one report is still being investigated.

  There is no indication at present that the donors of the blood used in these cases have themselves developed vCJD.

  Mr. James Aldridge
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what threat to public health was posed by the Duckett's cheese in the possession of Mr. James Aldridge; [151312]

  (2) if he will publish the external legal opinions on which he bases Her Majesty's Government's appeal against the High Court decision that his Department has acted illegally against Mr. James Aldridge's cheese making business; and if he will make a statement on the public health reasons for that appeal; [151302]

  (3) what compensation was paid to Mr. James Aldridge for the destruction of Duckett's Caerphilly cheese under the 1990 Emergency Control Order placing a ban on cheese produced by Ducketts; and what steps he took to ascertain whether Aldridge's cheese came from the same batch of the banned cheese. [151307]

  Ms Stuart
  The threat to public health posed by Duckett's cheese in the possession of Mr. Aldridge was from the bacterium E coli E coli 0157 is known to cause severe illness and death in previously healthy people. Infection can occur from ingesting a very small
  372W
  number of bacteria. E coli 0157 was found in samples of Duckett's cheese produced using the same methods, under the same conditions and in the same place as Duckett's cheese in the possession of Mr. Aldridge.

  It is not usual to publish the advice available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the course of litigation. The Court of Appeal accepted the legal arguments put forward on the Secretary of State's behalf and they are set out in the published report, (1999) 3 C.M.L.R. 123. After the litigation the Specialist Cheese Makers Association questioned the Court of Appeal decision and so further legal advice was sought last year and given to them. If there had not been an appeal, the decision of the High Court would have left in doubt the circumstances in which future emergency control orders could have been made to protect the public from the risk of food related illnesses.

  No compensation was payable to Mr. Aldridge for the effects of the Emergency Control Order made in May 1998 in respect of Duckett's cheese. Investigations revealed several possible sources of contamination in the production plant. It was not therefore possible to determine when contamination started and if it had stopped. The safety of any batch could not have been demonstrated except by testing to destruction.

  Post Mortems
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many items retained after post mortem have been found at(a) Ashford Hospital, Middlesex and (b) St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey. [151565]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested. Reliable data at hospital level about the amount of organs and tissue retained following post mortem will not become available until all National Health Service trusts and medical schools' information systems have been validated under the supervision of the new Retained Organs Commission.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study to replicate the clinical studies carried out by Dr. Wakefield into autistic children with inflamed bowel disease and the possible link with the MMR vaccination. [152015]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have ensured that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis suggesting an association between measles, measles vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism has been thoroughly looked at. Rigorous scrutiny by the Department and a number of independent expert advisory groups has concluded that the evidence does not support any such association.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), an independent expert committee, set up a Working Party on MMR vaccine in 1998 to review the suggested link between MMR and MR (Measles/Rubella) vaccines and autism and inflammatory bowel disease. This Working Party conducted a detailed review of reports from parents of suspected side effects in children vaccinated with MMR or MR vaccine, received by the Medicines Control Agency via a firm of solicitors. The Working Party

  373W
  reported in June 1999 and concluded that, despite the difficulty of coming to absolute conclusions on the basis of the information they had,
  "The available information did riot support the suggested causal associations or give cause for concern about the safety of MMR or MR vaccines".

  Independent researchers have already tried to replicate or confirm Dr. Wakefield's findings regarding epidemiology, virology or links between MMR, autism and bowel disease, but they have been unable to do so.

  The Government's independent expert advisory committees—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the CSM—have reviewed the evidence as it has emerged. Their view remains that, on the scientific evidence available, there is no causal link between MMR vaccine and long-term health problems such as bowel disease or autism. This view is supported by the World Health Organisation which recognises MMR as being a
  "highly effective vaccine which has such an outstanding safety record".

  The Government will continue to ensure this subject is carefully reviewed by independent experts and any new evidence looked at. The evidence shows that MMR remains the safest way for parents to protect their children against these potentially very serious diseases.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist medical research charities in getting access to patients to ask them if they would like to participate in research studies; and if he will make a statement. [151915]

  Mr. Denham
  Medical research charities fund many research studies in the National Health Service, and it is for the clinical research investigators undertaking such studies to obtain informed consent from patients as potential research participants. On 1 March 2001 the Department published a "Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care". This sets out the standards expected in the relationship between participants, researchers, funders and sponsors of research including the medical research charities. Through the NHS research and development funding system, the Department provides an estimated £90 million a year, which underpins research funded by medical research charities in the NHS, and which—among other things—facilitates access to patients as potential research participants.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average cost of screening new-born babies for cystic fibrosis is; and what estimate he has made of the medical costs incurred by late diagnosis of cystic fibrosis;
  [152022]

  (2) what his policy is on the screening of new-born babies for cystic fibrosis. [152021]

  Mr. Denham
  At present, it is not national policy to screen new-born babies for cystic fibrosis. This decision was based on a review of the available evidence of benefit by the United Kingdom national screening committee and 374W
  supported by the findings of national experts. This decision is being actively reviewed in the light of new evidence of effectiveness, published in 2001.

  The authors of the Health Technology Assessment Report on Screening for Cystic Fibrosis estimated the cost to range from £4,400 per case detected to £6,400 per case (excluding those who would have been detected early without screening). There has been no recent assessment of the additional medical costs of late diagnosis.

  Consultants' Contract
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the representatives of the respective royal colleges to discuss the new consultants' contract; and if he will make a statement. [152589]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's proposals for a new consultant contract were published on 21 February and made widely available. The proposals will be the subject of negotiation with the British Medical Association. Ministers meet regularly with representatives of the medical royal colleges and we anticipate that this will allow opportunities to discuss the proposals.

  Radiographers
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are nationally for radiographers. [152498]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 8 March 2001,Official Report, columns 324–27W.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are registered as suffering from age-related macular degeneration; [152167]

  (2) what plans he has for promoting the treatment of, and research into, age-related macular degeneration. [152166]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not routinely collect statistics on individual conditions. However, hospital episode statistics show that there were 2,466 finished consultant episodes for macular degeneration and posterior pole at National Health Service hospitals in England in 1999–2000.

  We fund research into vision related conditions through the Medical Research Council. This includes a clinical trial at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast: Radiotherapy in the treatment of subfoveal neovascular membranes in age-related macular degeneration of the eye for which they provided a grant of £61,571. They have also provided a £ l .5 million grant to look at Genetic Susceptibility to Age Related Macular Degeneration, which is due to commence shortly.

  Physical Activity (Heart Disease)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to health authorities to help them develop policies for promoting physical activity as required by the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. [152529]
  375W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease and the NHS Plan require local action to tackle obesity and physical activity. The Department of Health commissioned the Health Development Agency to produce "Coronary Heart Disease: Guidance for implementing the preventive aspects of the National Health Service Framework" to help develop action plans. This document, published on 13 November 2000, provides evidence-based examples of effective interventions for dealing with all the primary risk factors for heart disease—smoking, poor nutrition, physical inactivity, overweight and obesity. Copies are available in the Library. It is also available at: http://www.hda-online.org.uk/publications.htm.

  Angiographers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many angiographies were performed by each health authority in descending order of(a) total number and (b) the number of angiographers per 10,000 population in the latest year for which figures are available. [152619]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of angiography procedures carried out by health authority in 1999–2000 is shown in the table.

  Angiographies are carried out under the direction of consultant cardiologists, assisted by cardiac technicians and nurses. The number of cardiologists is shown in the table.

  Date

  Number of cardiologists

  Percentage increase

  Total percentage increase over five years

  September 1996

  388

  —

  —

  September 1997

  405

  4.4

  —

  September 1998

  458

  13.1

  —

  September 1999

  467

  2.0

  —

  September 2000

  546

  16.9

  40.7

  Note:

  The figures for 2000 equivalent to 0.1 cardiologists 10,000 population in England.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where contrast radiology of heart is performed (operation code K63), by HA of residence, listed in descending order of FCEs and by number of FCE per 10,000 population

  NHS Hospital, England 1999–2000

  Health authority of residence

  FCEs

  Per 10,000 population

  QAM East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  2,527

  33.50

  QD9 Birmingham

  2,081

  20.54

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  2,021

  29.53

  QDH Leeds

  1,848

  25.43

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,837

  24.36

  QAF West Kent

  1,782

  18.22

  QCL Leicestershire

  1,777

  19.01

  QDP Tees

  1,696

  30.51

  QAX North Essex

  1,663

  18.37

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  1,635

  35.16

  QDW Dorset

  1,586

  22.90

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,580

  24.94

  QAN West Sussex

  1,578

  20.75

  376W

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where contrast radiology of heart is performed (operation code K63), by HA of residence, listed in descending order of FCEs and by number of FCE per 10,000 population

  NHS Hospital, England 1999–2000

  Health authority of residence

  FCEs

  Per 10,000 population

  QET Norfolk

  1,509

  18.95

  QD6 South and West Devon

  1,496

  25.27

  QAY South Essex

  1,464

  20.55

  QER Cambridge

  1,378

  19.01

  QAE East Kent

  1,333

  21.89

  QCY North West Lancashire

  1,332

  28.58

  QAW East London and The City

  1,320

  21.10

  QDR North Yorkshire

  1,263

  16.89

  QAL West Surrey

  1,257

  19.33

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1,212

  24.50

  QCE Oxfordshire

  1,185

  18.92

  QA7 Berkshire

  1,182

  14.76

  QEP East and North Hertfordshire

  1,182

  23.48

  QDE County Durham

  1,181

  19.46

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1,168

  21.37

  West Hertfordshire

  1,164

  21.57

  Avon

  1,158

  11.49

  Warwickshire

  1,150

  22.64

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1,123

  20.63

  East Riding

  1,094

  19.07

  North Staffordshire

  1,090

  23.23

  Liverpool

  1,072

  23.41

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1,058

  18.08

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1,049

  23.19

  Bexley and Greenwich

  1,047

  24.10

  Buckinghamshire

  1,044

  15.14

  Suffolk

  1,042

  15.45

  Coventry

  1,037

  34.12

  North and Mid Hampshire

  1,005

  17.89

  Wigan and Bolton

  940

  16.24

  Northamptonshire

  912

  14.68

  Manchester

  910

  21.11

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  908

  19.47

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  906

  22.06

  South Derbyshire

  880

  15.43

  QCM Lincolnshire

  868

  13.81

  Bedfordshire

  857

  15.24

  Enfield and Haringey

  848

  17.25

  North and East Devon

  844

  17.48

  South Cheshire

  822

  12.26

  Croydon

  808

  23.94

  Barnet

  795

  23.39

  Camden and Islington

  786

  21.12

  QC9 West Pennine

  786

  16.70

  East Surrey

  769

  17.98

  Bradford

  761

  15.73

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  749

  21.31

  Somerset

  739

  14.99

  Bury and Rochdale

  734

  18.72

  Wakefield

  733

  22.93

  Sheffield

  725

  13.66

  Salford and Trafford

  722

  16.22

  Worcestershire

  711

  13.17

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  702

  21.14

  South Staffordshire

  698

  11.80

  Bromley

  697

  23.14

  Wirral

  676

  20.70

  East Lancashire

  673

  13.23

  Barking and Havering

  667

  17.25

  North Cumbria

  659

  20.73

  Gloucestershire

  644

  11.46

  South Lancashire

  638

  20.43

  Sandwell

  628

  21.70

  Nottingham

  604

  9.43

  Kingston and Richmond

  587

  17.15

  Northumberland

  571

  18.41

  Hillingdon

  567

  22.35

  Shropshire

  564

  13.04

  Wiltshire

  543

  8.90

  South Humber

  534

  17.34

  377W

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where contrast radiology of heart is performed (operation code K63), by HA of residence, listed in descending order of FCEs and by number of FCE per 10,000 population

  NHS Hospital, England 1999–2000

  Health authority of residence

  FCEs

  Per 10,000 population

  Doncaster

  531

  18.32

  Sunderland

  521

  17.92

  Morecambe Bay

  516

  16.53

  North Cheshire

  510

  16.35

  North Nottinghamshire

  496

  12.65

  Walsall

  488

  18.65

  Stockport

  481

  16.48

  Solihull

  478

  23.25

  Dudley

  465

  14.91

  Sefton

  437

  15.23

  Wolverhampton

  421

  17.48

  North Derbyshire

  414

  11.15

  Rotherham

  393

  15.49

  Barnsley

  355

  15.56

  Herefordshire

  217

  12.89

  Isle of Wight

  35

  2.73

  England residents total

  95,129

  19.12

  Scotland

  53

  —

  Wales

  1,348

  —

  Not known

  807

  —

  Northern Ireland

  19

  —

  Total treated in UK

  97,356

  —

  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. Figures in this table are provisional (version 2) and have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Asthma
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department is giving to health authorities and primary care groups on their strategies and expenditure with regard to asthma alleviation. [152542]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: Management of asthma takes place mainly in primary care. In addition to the general health promotion, general practitioners offer their patients more targeted care which is also provided for specific conditions through chronic disease management programmes (CDMP's). The asthma CDMP, introduced in 1993, is designed to support GPs in setting up and overseeing organised programmes of care for patients with asthma.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial arrangements are being made in respect of(a) NHS trusts dissolved and (b) new NHS trusts and primary care trusts established in 2000–01. [153615]
  378W
  Mr. Milburn
  Pursuant to the dissolution of 26 National Health Service trusts on 1 April 2000 and 1 October 2000, and their reconfiguration through the establishment of 10 new NHS trusts, I propose to create originating capital for the new NHS trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trusts.

  A number of primary care trusts were also established during the year. Public Dividend Capital is not required for the establishment of new primary care trusts as they are subject to a different financial regime. Net assets transferred from dissolving NHS trusts to primary care trusts are reflected in the general fund of the primary care trust.

  These operations will involve no overall loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

  Capital Health Projects (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list capital health projects in Islington financed by his Department since 1 May 1997 . [153114]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is as follows:

  Whittington Hospital—Replace Waterlow Unit (Acute Mental Health Unit)

  City Road Health Centre relocation

  Goodinge Road Health Centre major upgrade

  Newington Green general practitioner surgery relocation

  Royal Northern Primary Care Centre development

  Margery Street GP surgery relocation

  Improvement grants provided to GP's for: Bains and Greenough Practice, Rahaman Practice, St. Johns Way Practice, Tibble Practice, Jacobs Practice and Flinders Practice.

  NHS Reporting System
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the delay in implementing the recommendation that the NHS should set up a mandatory reporting system for logging all failures, mistakes, errors and near misses in healthcare contained in the report "An Organisation with a Memory". [152896]

  Mr. Denham
  Work on setting up a mandatory reporting system is being very actively progressed. The original recommended timetable was reviewed as part of setting targets within the NHS Plan and a more realistic target of December 2001 was agreed and published as part of the plan in July 2000. The new system will be established by the end of 2001 and details of the implementation plan will be published in due course.

  Prescription Season Tickets
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to allow prepayment season tickets for prescriptions to be spread over the year. [152835]

  Ms Stuart
  In England, we have no plans to do so. However, we recognise that some people may have difficulty in finding the fee for an annual prepayment
  379W
  certificate (PPC) in one payment, which is why we have also made PPCs available for four-monthly periods. For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland these matters are for the devolved Administrations to consider.

  Low Frequency Radio Transmissions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations he has made into the effects on health of extremely low frequency radio transmissions; and if he will made a statement. [153044]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department obtains advice on potential health effects risks associated with extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). A report published on 6 March by the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation was a review of all available published work to date and provides an assessment of the potential risks of cancer from electromagnetic fields (Documents of the NRPB Volume 12, Number 1,2001). Copies are available in the Library. The board of the NRPB also published a response statement which can be found on the NRPB website: www.nrpb.org.uk.

  The report states that any possible risk of childhood leukaemia relates to those exposed at relatively high levels of domestic exposure but that these are not necessarily associated with proximity to pylons or overhead power transmission lines. The conclusions indicate that the question whether exposure to electromagnetic fields can influence the development of cancer cannot at present be completely resolved. The report made a number of specific research recommendations. The NRPB consider that the report provides no additional scientific evidence to require a change in the guidelines to limit exposure to extremely low frequency EMF.

  The Department will consider carefully the recommendations of the NRPB and commission appropriate research in the light of that which is already under way. Current research includes a number of Government-funded studies in this country and support for the multinational electromagnetic fields project set up and co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation.

  National Bidding Process
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional capital has be en allocated to the

  Table B: 2000–01 earmarked capital funding

  £000

  Revascularisation

  Coronary heart disease Rapid access chest pain clinics

  Equipment

  Total

  Ambulance response times

  Waiting lists/times

  Renal

  Accident and emergency

  Action on cateracts

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  —

  22

  —

  22

  —

  576

  —

  —

  —

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Services

  —

  175

  —

  175

  —

  176

  —

  —

  75

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  —

  —

  50

  50

  —

  541

  —

  —

  —

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospitals

  —

  —

  220

  220

  —

  354

  —

  —

  —

  380W
  Trent region as part of the national bidding process; and how much each NHS trust has obtained through that process for each national priority scheme in the current financial year. [149993]

  Mr. Denham
  Trent region has been allocated £23,446 million in 2000–01 from earmarked funds to support investment in Government priorities. The amount allocated to each National Health Service trust in the Trent region through the process is shown in Table A. Allocations were also made to health authorities and some primary care groups and primary care trusts.

  Details of the allocations for the individual priority areas are in table B.

  Table A

  NHS trust

  Total earmarked capital £000

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services

  0

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  755

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Services

  547

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare

  47

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  1,692

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  879

  Community Healthcare Services, North Derbyshire

  10

  Community Health Services, Southern Derbyshire

  397

  Community Health Sheffield

  0

  Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare

  0

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital

  1,104

  East Midlands Ambulance Service

  266

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  675

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare

  62

  Lincoln District Healthcare

  50

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Service

  41

  North East Lincolnshire

  534

  Northern General Hospital

  1,952

  Nottingham City Hospital

  1,487

  Nottingham Community Health

  0

  Nottingham Healthcare

  8

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital

  3,718

  Rotherham General Hospitals

  929

  Rotherham Priority Health Services

  0

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  448

  Sheffield Children's Hospital

  854

  South Lincolnshire Healthcare

  0

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  82

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals

  1,509

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health

  0

  University Hospitals of Leicester

  2,836

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals

  2,016

  381W

  Table B: 2000–01 earmarked capital funding

  £000

  Revascularisation

  Coronary heart disease Rapid access chest pain clinics

  Equipment

  Total

  Ambulance response times

  Waiting lists/times

  Renal

  Accident and emergency

  Action on cateracts

  Community Health Care Services, North Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Health Services, Southern Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  350

  —

  —

  —

  Community Health Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu

  —

  —

  215

  215

  —

  414

  —

  150

  156

  East Midlands Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  88

  88

  178

  —

  —

  —

  —

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  —

  224

  —

  224

  —

  177

  —

  —

  110

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincoln District Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Service

  —

  —

  —

  0

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  15

  15

  —

  405

  —

  —

  —

  Northern General Hospital

  —

  50

  604

  654

  —

  898

  335

  —

  —

  Nottingham City Hospital

  774

  74

  118

  966

  —

  252

  233

  —

  —

  Nottingham Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Queen's Medical Centre Nottingham University Hospital

  —

  74

  61

  135

  —

  969

  —

  —

  —

  Rotherham General Hospitals

  —

  40

  50

  90

  —

  450

  —

  104

  —

  Rotherham Priority Health Services

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  —

  —

  14

  14

  —

  179

  —

  —

  90

  Sheffield Childrens Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Lincolnshire Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service

  —

  —

  —

  0

  82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals

  —

  155

  —

  155

  —

  729

  183

  —

  220

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The University Hospitals of Leicester

  500

  80

  77

  657

  —

  1,440

  251

  —

  150

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals

  —

  77

  65

  142

  —

  974

  —

  —

  184

  Bassetlaw PCG

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Mansfield and District PCT

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  5

  —

  —

  10

  North East Linconlshire PCT

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley HA

  —

  —

  50

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster HA

  —

  —

  38

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire HA

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire HA

  —

  —

  55

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Derbyshire HA

  —

  —

  70

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  —

  —

  75

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham HA

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rotherham HA

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield HA

  —

  —

  19

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Derbyshire HA

  —

  —

  110

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Humber HA

  —

  —

  31

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trent RO total

  1,274

  971

  2,025

  4,270

  301

  9,022

  1,002

  254

  1,005

  National total

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  3,000

  90,000

  10,000

  19,859

  12,000

  382W 383W

  Action on:

  Pathology modernization

  Outpatient long waits

  National intensive care

  Cancer CT scanners

  Dermatology

  ENT

  T&O

  Cateracts

  Total earmarked capital

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  —

  12

  41

  —

  29

  25

  50

  —

  755

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Services

  —

  30

  16

  —

  15

  10

  50

  —

  547

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  15

  10

  22

  —

  47

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  —

  —

  91

  —

  40

  25

  —

  945

  1,692

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospitals

  —

  —

  58

  —

  29

  25

  50

  143

  879

  Community Health Care Services, North Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Community Health Services, Southern Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  10

  22

  —

  397

  Community Health Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu

  —

  —

  50

  —

  29

  25

  65

  —

  1,104

  East Midlands Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  266

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  —

  —

  45

  —

  29

  25

  65

  —

  675

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  25

  22

  —

  62

  Lincoln District Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  24

  —

  15

  25

  50

  —

  534

  Northern General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  1,952

  Nottingham City Hospital

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  1,487

  Nottingham Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Nottingham Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Queen's Medical Centre Nottingham University Hospital

  2,016

  366

  87

  —

  40

  40

  65

  —

  3,718

  Rotherham General Hospitals

  —

  —

  40

  —

  29

  25

  50

  141

  929

  Rotherham Priority Health Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  —

  36

  25

  —

  29

  25

  50

  —

  448

  Sheffield Childrens Hospital

  313

  —

  —

  494

  15

  10

  22

  —

  854

  South Lincolnshire Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  82

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals

  —

  —

  88

  —

  29

  40

  65

  —

  1,509

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  The University Hospitals of Leicester

  —

  58

  135

  —

  40

  40

  65

  —

  2,836

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals

  —

  —

  78

  493

  40

  40

  65

  —

  2,016

  Bassetlaw PCG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Mansfield and District PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  North East Linconlshire PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  Barnsley HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  Doncaster HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  Leicestershire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Lincolnshire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  North Derbyshire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  384W 385W

  Action on:

  Pathology modernization

  Outpatient long waits

  National intensive care

  Cancer CT scanners

  Dermatology

  ENT

  T&O

  Cateracts

  Total earmarked capital

  Nottingham HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Rotherham HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sheffield HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  South Derbyshire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110

  South Humber HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  Trent RO total

  2,329

  502

  792

  987

  453

  435

  865

  1,229

  23,446

  National total

  15,000

  11,031

  6,500

  30,000

  4,762

  4,755

  9,511

  10,253

  246,671

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum (Iraqi Nationals)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Iraq(a) applied for asylum in the UK, (b) had applications refused, (c) had applications allowed on appeal, (d) were given exceptional leave to remain, (e) were deported to Iraq and (f) were removed to a third country in each year since 1995; and what are the latest available figures for the current year. [153116]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest available information on principal applicants (that is, excluding dependants) for nationals of Iraq is given in the table.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  20001. 2

  Applications received

  930

  965

  1,075

  1,295

  1,800

  7,080

  Initial decisions3

  795

  665

  665

  1,100

  745

  4,865

  Of which:

  Grants of exceptional leave4

  175

  135

  295

  500

  325

  1,975

  Refused4

  50

  60

  110

  90

  105

  2,120

  Appeals determined by Immigration Appellate Authority adjudicators5

  20

  20

  15

  45

  7—

  7—

  Of which:

  Appeals allowed5

  0

  *

  10

  15

  7—

  7—

  Removals6

  15

  30

  40

  40

  840

  850

  1 Provisional figures

  2 Decision figures, by nationality, are not readily available for the period January to March 2000.

  3 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  4 Includes cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

  5 Figures are based on the cases for which information is recorded on the Refugee Index.

  6 Includes persons removed under on-entry and in-country procedures who had, at some stage, claimed asylum.

  7 Not available

  8 Estimated

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  Information is not held centrally on the specific countries to which persons are removed. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost through the examination of individual case files.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy of his Department is regarding the safety of nationals deported to Iraq having failed asylum applications in the United Kingdom. [153117]

  Mrs. Roche
  Applications for asylum are considered on their individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee 386W
  Convention. We would not normally contemplate returning failed asylum seekers to Government controlled Iraq. We also accept that there may be certain people from the Kurdish autonomous area in northern Iraq who are in need of international protection and cannot be returned there. But there are also those who, after detailed examination by trained asylum caseworkers, cannot establish a need for international protection and who can be safely returned to northern Iraq. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have also said that there are those who can safely remain in, or return to, northern Iraq. Other European countries take a similar approach regarding the safety of returning certain failed asylum applicants to northern Iraq.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure the investigation into the forensic evidence in the case of Hilda Murrell is being carried out with the devotion of reasonable resources. [152632]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am satisfied that the Forensic Science Service (FSS) is dedicating the appropriate resources to investigating the forensic evidence in the case of Hilda Murrell. The results obtained so far have provided no information about DNA from anyone other than the victim. The FSS is undertaking staged examinations of samples using the latest DNA techniques. As each of these examinations is completed, the next step in the priority order of tests is triggered. The analysis is being applied in order of priority so as to conserve as far as possible samples for future analysis if existing DNA tests are unsuccessful. Once the results of the tests have been assessed, the FSS will consider what further analysis could usefully be undertaken.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were serving in Greater Manchester in each year since 1990. [152808]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Greater Manchester police—police numbers 1990 to 2000

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Number of police officers

  1990

  6,992

  1991

  7,014

  1992

  7,061

  1993

  7,060

  1994

  6,967

  1995

  7,037

  1996

  6,938

  387W

  Greater Manchester police—police numbers 1990 to 2000

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Number of police officers

  1997

  6,922

  1998

  6,949

  1999

  6,810

  2000

  6,795

  2000 (30 September)

  6,767

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers serving in Greater Manchester have taken(a) early retirement and (b) retirement due to ill health in each year since 1990. [152810]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police officers are entitled to retire with an ordinary police pension on completion of 25 years' pensionable service, subject to certain conditions. However, most police officers choose to retire on completion of 30 years' pensionable service, as this is when maximum pension benefits are accrued.

  There are currently no provisions for early retirement from the police service with an actuarially reduced pension. However, officers may retire early on the ground that they are permanently disabled from performing the ordinary duties of a police officer and will receive an ill-health pension.

  The numbers of ill-health retirements from Greater Manchester police are set out in the table.

  Number of officers retiring on ill-health grounds from Greater Manchester police

  Number

  1990

  188

  1991

  165

  1992

  149

  1993

  162

  1994–95

  198

  1995–96

  168

  1996–97

  207

  1997–98

  199

  1998–99

  179

  1999–2000

  132

  Ill-health retirements in Greater Manchester police as a percentage of all retirements

  Percentage

  1990

  73

  1991

  68

  1992

  67

  1993

  60

  1994–95

  69

  1995–96

  49

  1996–97

  65

  1997–98

  61

  1998–99

  64

  1999–2000

  56

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the number of police officers serving in Greater Manchester in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [152813]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office Statistical bulletin 2/01 published on 16 January 2001 gave details of Greater Manchester police (GMP) strength on 30 September 2000.388W
  I understand from GMP that the force expects to have reached the strengths shown in the table by March 2001 and March 2002.

  Number

  (a) 30 September 20001

  6,767

  (b) 31 March 20012

  6,988

  (c) 31 March 20022

  7,242

  1 Full-time Equivalent numbers, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01.

  2 Number of individuals

  It is important to note that the projections for 2001 and 2002 are expressed as headcount whereas strength at September 2000 is expressed as Full-Time Equivalents (FTE). Headcount figures will be larger than FTE figures because officers working part-time count as one in headcount terms, but as a fraction of an officer in FTE terms.

  Greater Manchester police plan to reach the strength figures shown, but precise strength may be affected by the budget set for the force, by changes to projected wastage and by the success of the force's recruitment plans.

  Police (North-West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers undertook training in the North West Region but served as a police officer in another region in each year since 1990. [152811]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition to police officers undertaking training at the National Police Training schools, they also have training at their force's, and other forces' training establishments.

  Special Constables (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in West Sussex in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [152895]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Statistics of the strength of the Special Constabulary have been collected since 1995 by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. These figures are compiled at the end of March and September each year. Before 1995, figures were collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The figures for 1992 were compiled at the end of the calendar year.

  Both sets of figures are collected for Sussex police as a whole and not defined further. The Special Constabulary strength figures for Sussex police force for 1992, September 1997 and September 2000 (the latest figures available) are therefore as follows:

  Total

  December 1992

  549

  September 1997

  465

  September 2000

  317

  389W
  Home Office funded research was completed last year into the premature wastage of special constables. We are currently exploring the implications of this research with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities with a view to identifying the best way of addressing the decline in the number of special constables in England and Wales.

  Websites (Prisoners)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the establishment of the website www.jeremybamber.com with Prison Rules; and if he will make a statement; [152972]

  (2) what rules govern the setting up of websites by prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [152970]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prisoners are not normally permitted to have computers in their possession, and are not permitted internet connections. Prison Rules do not regulate a person outside a prison setting up a website on a prisoner's behalf.

  Paragraph 34 of Standing Order 5B, made under the Prison Rules, regulates the sending by prisoners of written material for intended or likely publication, and this would include material for posting on a website.

  The Standing Order prohibits receipt of payment for publication; the sending of material about a prisoner's own crime, except where it consists of serious representations about a conviction or sentence; and references to other prisoners or staff in such a way that they may be identified. I am satisfied that the material on this website does not fall within the prohibitions of Standing Order 5B.

  Mr. Jeremy Bamber
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Criminal Cases Review Commission to complete its consideration of the case of Mr. Jeremy Bamber; and if he will make a statement. [152971]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An application on behalf of Mr. Bamber, for review of his conviction, was made to the Home Office, but no decision had been made on it when the Home Secretary's powers to consider cases of alleged miscarriage of justice came to an end on 31 March 1997. Mr. Bamber's application was transferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in April 1997. The Commission commenced its review of Mr. Bamber's case in November 1997 and has been in regular contact with Mr. Bamber or his representatives. I understand that the Commission expects to make a decision on whether or not to refer Mr. Bamber's case to the Court of Appeal very shortly.

  Court Visits
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 on which he has observed proceedings in courts of criminal jurisdiction. [152135]
  390W
  Mr. Straw
  I have visited courts on the following occasions:

  3 September 1997, Aldershot

  16 September 1997, Swindon

  1 May 1998, Oxford

  16 September 1998, Bristol

  14 July 1999, Manchester.

  I have also observed a number of proceedings at courts in my constituency.

  I regularly receive reports of relevant court proceedings and read the judgments of the higher court relating to criminal law and procedures.

  General Abacha
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he has responded to the formal request from the Nigerian authorities in relation to General Abacha and his associates; and if he will make a statement. [152496]

  Mr. Straw
  A request has been received from the authorities in Nigeria with regard to the affairs of the late General Abacha and his family and associates. We are of course very keen to assist the Nigerians in this case, but we have to work within the framework of our own legislation. The request raised a number of issues which required clarification and amplification, and accordingly we wrote to those acting for the Nigerian Government in September last year asking for some additional information. Despite a number of reminders and follow up requests, we have not yet received a reply which is sufficient to enable us to proceed.

  Gaming and Lotteries Fees
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to amend the fees for gaming and lotteries. [153513]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have today laid before Parliament two Orders under the Gaming Act 1968 and one under each o f the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, and the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985.

  The Gaming Board and the Home Office review gaming fees and the fees for society and local authority lotteries every year. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have made recommendations about how these fees are set. They have called for the creation of a more reliable basis for determining the costs of the relevant licensing and police authorities and achieving their full recovery, and for the elimination of cross subsidies among and between the various gaming industry and lottery sectors.

  The Government have accepted these recommendations and acted upon them. The amended fees in the four Orders are based upon estimates by the Gaming Board for Great Britain of the cost of each service and demand for it during the financial year 2001–02.

  The four Orders will bring revised fees into effect from 1 April 2001. The table sets out the current and the new level of all the fees.
  391W

  £

  Fee

  Old fee

  New fee

  S 19 Employees Certificates

  100

  145

  S27 gaming machine licences

  New

  4,140

  5,623

  Renewal

  1,650

  3,753

  Casino licenses

  Grant

  35,670

  26,349

  Renewal

  7,325

  7,325

  Transfer

  7,900

  5,898

  Consent Application

  6,810

  6,810

  Consent transfer

  3,405

  3,405

  Bingo licences

  Grant

  2,940

  2,940

  Renewal

  920

  1,357

  Transfer

  1,030

  1,030

  Consent Application

  2,045

  3,260

  Consent transfer

  680

  2,630

  National Bingo Game

  New

  165,020

  150,168

  Renewal

  158,875

  144,576

  Lotteries

  Gaming Board fee per lottery raising:

  £200K or more

  635

  404

  £50K, less than £200K

  355

  263

  £20K, less than £50K

  180

  86

  £10K, less than £50K

  145

  86

  Less than £10K

  82

  82

  Registration fee

  710

  3,840

  Registration renewal fee

  75

  142

  Lottery manager

  2,735

  5,470

  Inspection Lottery Return

  5

  5

  Pt II Club Registration

  New

  210

  235

  Renew

  105

  118

  Pt III Club Registration

  New

  115

  115

  Renew

  69

  69

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2001,Official Reyort, column 751W, on legal aid, what estimate he has made of Government spending on (a) legal aid, (b) Legal Help and (c) Children Act 1989 cases in the most recent year for which figures are available. [152764]

  Mr. Lock
  Net expenditure in 1999–2000 on Civil Legal Aid was approximately £766 million. This includes approximately £201 million on what is now known as Legal Help. Expenditure on Child] en Act 1989 cases (included in the £766 million reterred to) is estimated at £218 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's answer Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2001,Official Report, column 751W, concerning financial awards from successful civil cases
  392W
  funded by legal aid, what damages were awarded or agreed in publicly funded cases by category for 1997–98; and if he will provide figures relating to payments by instalment. [152763]

  Mr. Lock
  During 1997–98 damages were awarded or agreed in publicly funded civil cases as follows:

  In Matrimonial and Family proceedings categorised as:

  (i) ancillary relief—£466,784,701;

  (ii) other divorce/judicial separation proceedings—£36,359,303;

  (iii) other proceedings involving children £9,922,001.

  In Non-Matrimonial civil proceedings categorised as:

  (i) personal injury—£644,142,212;

  (ii) other proceedings for negligence or tort—£86,699,293;

  (iii) business-related proceedings—£57,294,136;

  (iv) proceedings involving land or property—£45,340,029;

  (v) housing proceedings—£21,048,104;

  (vi) appeals and other miscellaneous proceedings—£2,859,565.

  The total awarded or agreed was therefore £1.37 billion.

  The Legal Aid Board did not collect information on the value of awards for periodic payments because under Regulation 94(c) of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 such payments were exempt from the Board's Statutory Charge.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nice Summit
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the total cost to the EU budget of the Nice summit. [151898]

  Mr. Vaz
  The costs of holding European Councils are met by the host Government and the EU budget. I suggest that my right hon. Friend contact the Secretariat of the Council of the European Union for information on the costs of the Nice Council specifically.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will include the texts of the treaties proposed to be amended by the treaty of Nice as they would be if that treaty came into force in the Command Paper in which the treaty of Nice is published. [152041]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Command Paper will contain the treaty of Nice which amends the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.

  The intergovernmental conference did not prepare a consolidated version, and therefore it will not be included in the Command Paper. But we expect the Office for Official Publications of the European Union to publish a version in due course. We will place this in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as it becomes available.

  Bonded Labourers (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received from the Indian organisation, Volunteers for Social Justice, regarding bonded labourers in Punjab State who have registered their cases in 1999 or before, but have not been released. [153121]

  Mr. Wilson
  We understand that, as of 19 August 2000, 698 bonded labourers had registered cases at the Punjab Human Rights Commission or the Punjab and Haryana Court. Of these cases almost all had been filed in 1999 or before. We share the concern of Volunteers for Social Justice over the situation of bonded labourers in India. We continue to monitor the issue closely.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding threats and attacks against human rights activists working to protect and release bonded labourers in India and Pakistan. [153120]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are aware of reports of harassment of the bonded labour activist and General Secretary of Volunteers for Social Justice, Jai Singh, in Punjab, India. Officials in our High Commission in New Delhi are looking into this incident. We are not aware of similar incidents in Pakistan. The Indian authorities are well aware of our commitment to human rights and the importance of investigating abuses. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been charged and prosecuted, and what sentences have been given, in India and Pakistan under their Bonded Labour Scheme (Abolition) Acts. [153119]

  Mr. Wilson
  It will take some time to collate the information requested by my hon. Friend I will write to him once it is available and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when voters resident in Gibraltar will be eligible to vote in European Parliament elections. [152836]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK unequivocally accepts its obligation to give effect to the Matthews judgment. We are fully committed to seeking enfranchisement for Gibraltar before the 2004 European Parliamentary elections.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has had with(a) President Chirac and (b) the European Development Commissioner regarding the situation in Zimbabwe. [152890]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's deep concern at recent events in Zimbabwe was conveyed to Commissioner Neilson and President Chirac before their meetings with President Mugabe.
  394W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments regarding the Chief Justice of the Zimbabwe High Court; and what plans he has to seek representations from other Commonwealth member states on the rule of law in Zimbabwe. [152893]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary issued a statement on 21 Fubruary expressing his concern at the pressure being applied to the judiciary by the Government of Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Commonwealth Secretary-General to reiterate his concern, and will discuss Zimbabwe with colleagues at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 19–20 March.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the specific objectives are of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting schedule for 19 March to discuss Zimbabwe. [152891]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting on 19–20 March will consider a full agenda of Commonwealth business. Zimbabwe will be discussed after Any Other Business.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives from the Movement for Democratic change in Zimbabwe; and when he next plans to do so. [152894]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary last met Morgan Tsvangirai on 6 November 2000. FCO Ministers and officials have regular meetings with representatives of the MDC, most recenty being on 5 March.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which Commonwealth member states he has discussed the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth; and what was the conclusion of these discussions. [152887]

  Mr. Wilson
  FCO Ministers regularly raise Zimbabwe with their Commonwealth counterparts. Zimbabwe will be discussed at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting on 19–20 March.

  Kosovo-Macedonia Border
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's call for the creation of a buffer zone on its border with Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [153112]

  Mr. Vaz
  We and our Allies and partners have been in close contact with the Government of Macedonia about the recent violent acts by ethnic Albanian extremists which led to the deaths of three Macedonian soldiers last weekend. Following discussions, KFOR has intensified its efforts to control the border between Kosovo and Macedonia with some success. KFOR continues to monitor the situation very closely. There are reports that the extremists may be withdrawing.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Macedonian counterpart regarding the situation relating to the border between Kosovo and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [153111]
  395W
  Mr. Vaz
  On 2 March, 1 telephoned the Macedonian Foreign Minister, Mr. Srgjan Kerim. I reassured Mr. Kerim that we share Macedonian concerns about the situation in the border area and that NATO and KFOR were doing everything within their power to control the border with Kosovo. I also welcomed the continuing restraint shown by the Macedonian Government.

  Dayton Peace Accords
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his(a) EU counterparts and (b) Yugoslav counterpart regarding the implementation of the Dayton Peace accords. [153102]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made no recent representations to either his EU counterparts or his Yugoslav counterpart specifically on the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement—but Her Majesty's Government are fully engaged with EU partners in supporting the High Representative in his efforts to achieve the full implementation of the agreement. The FRY authorities have made clear their support for the Dayton Agreement.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart regarding progress made in implementation of the Dayton Peace accords; and if he will make a statement. [153106]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Balkan issues with his US counterpart in Washington on 6 February.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in implementing the Dayton peace accords. [153100]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Peace Implementation Council ministerial meeting in Brussels in May last year concluded that much has been accomplished since the Dayton/Paris accords, that the security situation had stabilised, major reconstruction achieved, and the building of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina has begun.

  However, much remains to be done to consolidate and build on this progress. The actions outlined at the Peace Implementation Council, as well as the EU's road map leading to the negotiation of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), give a framework for reform. We are continuing our active support for the new moderate Governments at state and entity levels in their. reform efforts.

  Southern Serbia
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts regarding an international military presence in Presevo Valley. [153113]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in southern Serbia with his EU and NATO counterparts at ministerial meetings on 26 and 27 February. He remains in close touch with them.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet the new Israeli administration to discuss the Middle East peace process. [153025]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Prime Minister spoke to the new Israeli Prime Minister on 7 February. The Foreign Secretary sent a message of congratulation to the new Israeli Foreign Minister on 7 March. We are in frequent contact with both Israeli and Palestinian representatives, and with other regional Governments.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the proposals by Bosnian Croat nationalists to announce the creation of a separate Croat entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement. [153103]

  Mr. Vaz
  The declaration on 3 March by the self-styled Croat National Congress of Bosnia and Herzegovina made clear their intention to place themselves outside the provisions of the Dayton/Paris accords. This is utterly unacceptable. The Bosnia Croat people's future lies in the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina; their legitimate interests can be pursued only through full participation in the State and Federation structures.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many refugees, including internally displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are still without permanent secure access to their pre-war homes. [153108]

  Mr. Vaz
  According to the UNHCR, a total of 781,900 people are currently without access to their pre-war homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This includes 263,500 refugees and 518,400 internally displaced persons.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made in reconstructing Bosnia and Herzegovina's infrastructure and the institution building process. [153099]

  Mr. Vaz
  It will take some time to collate the information requested by the right hon. Member. I will write to him when it is available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [153105]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer to my answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question today,Official Report, column 395W.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been allocated by the European Union for refugee returns in Bosnia and Herzegovina for each year since the Dayton Peace accords was signed; and how much has been delivered. [153107]
  397W
  Mr. Vaz
  It will take some time to collate all the information requested by the right hon. Member. I will write to him once it is available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his EU counterparts regarding the Bosnian Croat plans to create a separate Croat entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. [153104]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with his EU colleagues about Bosnia Croat plans to create a separate Croat entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, EU Foreign Ministers will be meeting on 19–20 March for the next General Affairs Council in Brussels, and High Representative Wolfgang Petrisch will be present. It is expected that this issue will be addressed.

  The Swedish Presidency issued a statement on behalf of the EU on 7 March, which condemned moves to create a separate Croat entity and reaffirmed the EU's support for the High Representative's actions, including the removal of President Ante Jelavic and three Bosnian Croat officials.

  Balkans
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in(a) Bosnia and Herzegovina, (b) Montenegro, (c) southern Serbia and (d) Kosovo. [153110]

  Mr. Vaz
  In Bosnia and Herzegovina the security situation remains calm. We have no specific concerns about the security situation in Montenegro.

  The violent activities of Albanian extremists in southern Serbia are of serious concern to the Yugoslav and Serbian Governments, and to the international community. We welcome the restraint shown by the Yugoslav/Serbian authorities and the proposals they have presented to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We are working with our partners and Allies to support this process.

  The security situation in Kosovo is much improved since 1999 when UNMIK and KFOR were established. Nevertheless, criminally, ethnically and politically motivated violence remains a serious problem. Efforts to counter this is a key priority for UNMIK and KFOR.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of continued support by the newly elected Belgrade administration to nationalist elements in Bosnia's entity Republika Srpska. [153101]

  Mr. Vaz
  The FRY and Serbian Government in Belgrade have publicly expressed their support for the Dayton/Paris accords, and their intention to work within the framework established at Dayton.

  On 5 March, an agreement was signed establishing a special parallel relationship between FRY and Republika Srpska. Such agreements are allowed under the Dayton/Paris accords, and the agreement was approved in advance by the High Representative. We hope that this will formalise relations between the democratically
  398W
  elected Governments in both the FRY and Republika Srpska, increase transparency, and enhance regional stability.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions are attached to(a) Government's, (b) the EU's and (c) the Stability Pact's aid for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [153109]

  Mr. Vaz
  HMG provides technical assistance to support the commitment by the FRY authorities to pluralist democracy and a market economy. We also assist civil society on the understanding that it contributes to service delivery and democracy.

  Following the fall of Milosevic, the EU provided 200m euro in emergency humanitarian aid to the FRY for fuel, emergency food supplies and medicine and a further 240m euro distributed via the European Reconstruction Agency. No specific conditionality was attached to this aid. The swift EU response was in support of the new democratic Government of President Kostunica. FRY will also be eligible for EU aid under the new regional programme CARDS, subject to it meeting the following conditions: respect for democracy, the rule of law, human and minority rights, fundamental freedoms and principles of international law.

  The Stability Pact co-ordinates aid with a regional dimension in south-east Europe. Broadly, such aid should contribute to the stability of the region, but it is for the donor states and funding institutions to decide whether to attach any conditions to disbursement, including to the FRY. Stability Pact funding via CARDS will therefore be subject to the same EU criteria as outlined.

TREASURY

  Contributions Agency Staff
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Contributions Agency staff have been(a) disciplined, (b) prosecuted and (c) dismissed for misusing National Insurance numbers in each year since 1992. [152409]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1992, there have been no incidents of Contributions Agency, or latterly Inland Revenue, National Insurance Contribution Office, staff being either disciplined, prosecuted or dismissed for misusing National Insurance numbers.

  Pensions
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change to income tax receipts resulting from the basic state pension being uprated in line with earnings after 2002–03. [151795]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The full year income tax effect of uprating basic state retirement pensions by average earnings instead of retail prices in 2003–04 is estimated to be £65 million.
  399W
  The estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Mothers (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of mothers in London returned to employment when their youngest child was aged(a) under six months, (b) six to 12 months, (c) one to three years and (d) over three years in each of the last five years. [152205]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Ms Harriet Harman, dated 9 March 2001:
  The National Statistician, has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the percentage of mothers in London who returned to employment when their youngest child was in various age groups (152205). I am replying in his absence.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by National Statistics. The attached table shows information for mothers in employment with a child aged under one year. The other information requested is not available.

  Mothers in Greater London with youngest dependent child aged under one year, 1996–2000 (autumn) not seasonally adjusted (per cent.1)

  Per cent.

  In employment

  1996

  38

  1997

  40

  1998

  44

  1999

  42

  2000

  48

  1 Percentages are based on those in employment as a percentage of all mothers with youngest child under one year.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Pay (Hemswortb)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the number of people in(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district earning less than £4.10 per hour; [153007]

  (2) what his estimate is of the number of people in (a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district who have benefited from the introduction of the minimum wage. [153006]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr Jon Trickett, dated 9 March 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions about the number of people in Hemsworth and Wakefield who have benefited from the National Minimum Wage (NMW) so far, and the number of people in these areas who earn less than £4.10 an hour (153006, 153007). I am replving in his absence.
  400W
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly pay thresholds for all workers in the United Kingdom for Spring 2000, and the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for Spring 2000, disaggregated by gender and full and part-time. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds. These estimates are posted on the National Statistics website at: hup://www. statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_ lowpay_tables.asp
  The new methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and LFS, in measuring low pay. Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the areas requested.

  Departmental Policies (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly to the locations as possible, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 on(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district. [153008]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Hemsworth, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 969, or 36 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 68 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 68 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,127 young people in Hemsworth constituency gain valuable skills and experience—569 (50 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,500 families in Hemsworth constituency and 8,300 in Wakefield local authority district were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 15,600 in Hemsworth, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,600 in Hemsworth.

  Hoteliers (Disability Discrimination Act)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will use the tax system to help small hoteliers meet the financial costs of complying with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [152886]
  401W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Spending by business to meet the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 may qualify for tax relief under the general rules for writing off machinery and plant expenses against taxable income, the 40 per cent. first year allowance and the 4 per cent. tax relief for hotel building costs.

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152996]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Houghton and Washington, East, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 530. or 18 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 73 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 52 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,473 young people in Houghton and Washington, East constituency gain valuable skills and experience—744 (51 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,500 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 14,800 in Houghton and Washington, East, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,500 in Houghton and Washington, East.

  Low Income Tax Reform
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Low Income Tax Reform Group about individuals who have share capital but pay no income tax. [152828]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am not aware of any such discussions on this particular subject, but the Inland Revenue regularly meet the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group to discuss matters of interest.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of tax credits on people who pay no income tax. [152827]
  402W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to making work pay and eliminating child poverty. Those who pay no income tax are those on the lowest incomes and the Working Families Tax Credit ensures that families with children get a decent minimum working income. A single earner family on the National Minimum Wage working 35 hours a week and eligible for WFTC pays no income tax. We have already ensured that families of this sort have a guaranteed weekly income of £214 from April, rising to £225 in October.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions about population are used, for each of the four countries of the United Kingdom, in the formula referred to in paragraph 21.2 of the 2000 Comprehensive Spending Review. [153011]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The population estimates for the four countries of the United Kingdom used in the 2000 Spending Review were set out in the Statement of Funding Policy published in July 2000.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate spending in Scotland in 2001–02 to 2003–04, if the Barnett formula had been applied without the qualifications mentioned in paragraph 21.2 of the 2000 Comprehensive Spending Review. [153009]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Scotland spending allocations set out in the 2000 Spending Review were determined by the Barnett formula in the normal way. Details of the Barnett formula were set out in the Statement of Funding Policy published in July 2000.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the relevant English spending referred to in paragraph 21.2 of the 2000 Comprehensive Spending Review is planned to be in 2001–02 to 2003–04. [153021]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The comparability percentages used in the Barnett formula in the 2000 Spending Review were calculated on the basis of 2000–01 provision of Government Departments. The details of the calculation of the comparability percentages are set out in Annexe C of the Statement of Funding Policy.

  European Union Budget
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which member states were(a) net beneficiaries from and (b) net contributors to the EU budget for the calendar year 1999; and what were the corresponding amounts paid and received including, where applicable, the effect of the Fountainebleau rebate, expressed per capita for the population of each country. [152897]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the net position of each member state for 1999, including on a per capita basis, will be published in the Chancellor's departmental report. Details of the gross contribution of each member state, including their contribution to the United Kingdom's Fountainebleau rebate, and each member state's receipts, can be found at Table 1.2 and Diagram VI respectively of the European Court of Auditors Annual Report concerning the financial year 1999.

  Mrs. B. E. Jones
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department will give a substantive reply to Mrs. B. E. Jones of Verwood about her retirement pension. [153041]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This letter has not been received. If the hon. Member wishes to forward a copy it will be dealt with although the issues raised may be for the Department of Social Security to reply to.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he gives to customs officers regarding the questioning of people bringing into the UK tobacco products and alcohol in quantities below the guidelines stated on HM Customs and Excise Notice 1; and if he will make a statement. [153045]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs officers are guided by Statutory Instrument 1992/3155 The Excise Duties (Personal Relief) Order 1992, implementing EU Directive 92/12/EC, which makes any excise goods personally imported from another member state liable to forfeiture if they are intended to be used for a commercial purpose. The Order lists a variety of factors to be used by customs to determine whether goods are imported for a commercial purpose.

  Second-hand Goods
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the payment of(a) customs duty and (b) VAT on second-hand goods imported in the UK. [152829]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Importations of second-hand goods from outside the EU are subject to the normal import procedures, and conditions, as detailed in the HM Customs and Excise Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom. Where applicable customs duty and/or import VAT are due at the appropriate rates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he will implement when full-scale Automated Credit Transfer is introduced to protect benefit claimants from(a) delays that are the responsibility of Government and (b) delays that are the responsibility of banks. [152431]

  Mr. Rooker
  Automated Credit Transfer was first introduced as a method of paying benefits in 1982 and is now available for all benefits except Social Fund. Currently, over a third of customers already choose to be paid by this method.

  Current procedures and contractual arrangements supporting the process are all aimed at ensuring the customer receives payment on the appropriate day.

  Hospital Downrating Rule
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the approximate annual income derived from the operation of the hospital downrating rule, as it applies to reductions in the state pension after six weeks as a hospital in-patient, and the approximate annual cost of administering the hospital downrating rule on state pensions. [152143]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no income derived from the operation of the hospital downrating rule. Under rules that have been in existence since 1948, Social Security benefits are downrated after stays of six weeks in NHS hospitals and further reduced after 52 weeks, This is to prevent duplicate provision from public funds. The costs of abolishing the hospital downrating rules in respect of State Retirement Pension are estimated to be about £60 million a year. The information requested on administration costs is not available.

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 5 per cent. sample of data from the Pensions Strategy Computer System March 2000.

  2. It is assumed that the information drawn at the date of the sample is representative of the year as a whole.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost; [151481]

  (2) if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the (a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151510]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answers 26 February 2001]: The Department is undertaking a major programme of change to modernise the way it delivers its services and to support the implementation of important new policy initiatives such as the reform of Child Support and the introduction of New Tax Credits. This programme will require extensive IT change affecting all areas of the Department.

  A number of the projects to deliver this change programme are already under way and will continue into the next year. Plans for others, including the implementation of Pension credit from 2003 and the replacement of the Department's outdated computer systems, are currently being developed. Finalised completion dates and costs for these are therefore not yet available. The overall costs of the projects to support Working Age, Pensions, Child Support and other key welfare reforms are shown in the table but it is not yet possible to show the IT cost component because contracts have not yet been let for many of the IT projects.

  Project

  Planned completion date

  Anticipated cost (£ million)

  Working Age Project

  March 2003

  145

  Pensions

  June 2003

  57

  Child Support

  April 2003

  914

  Corporate

  March 2005

  852

  Pension Supplements
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of providing(a) a £3 supplement for single pensioners aged over 75 years and (b) a £5 supplement for pensioner couples aged over 75 years in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [153070]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will increase basic state pension from April 2001 by £5 for a single person and £8 per couple. This is at an overall cost of £1.3 billion and will benefit over 10 million British pensioners of which 900,000 reside in Scotland. The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Gross and net cost

  Great Britain

  2001–02 Scotland

  Gross

  660

  50

  Net of income-related benefit savings

  450

  30

  Notes:

  1. The figures in the table are for basic state pension obtained as of right through the recipients own national insurance contributions (Category A pension). Because the Category A pension is paid to both single and married pensioners it is not possible to estimate the costs. Therefore, it is assumed that the Category A rate of state pension is increased by £3 per week for those aged 75 and over and the Category BL married woman's rate is increased by £2 per week for those aged 75 and over.

  2. Estimates of gross costs provided by the Government Actuary's Department. Income-related benefit offsets are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  3. United Kingdom figures are not available. Costs associated with overseas pensioners are included and are apportioned on a pro-rata basis between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain.

  4. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for Winter Fuel Payments remain unpaid(a) nationally and (b) in Gloucestershire; what factors underly non-payment; what steps are being taken to ensure that these payments are quickly made; and if he will make a statement. [152294]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Laurence Robertson, dated 8 March 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claims for winter fuel payments remain unpaid (a) nationally and (b) in Gloucestershire; what factors underly non-payment; what steps are being taken to ensure that these payments are quickly made; and if he will make a statement.
  As you may be aware, around 11 million people have benefited from Winter Fuel Payments this winter. All automatic payments, where entitlement was established, were made before Christmas 2000. All payments in respect of successful claims determined by 9 November 2000 were also made before Christmas 2000.
  It was made clear in our information campaign that, to guarantee payment before Christmas, claims had to be made before 22 September 2000.
  To enable as many people as possible to get their payment before Christmas another payment schedule was added to the operational plan so that claims determined by 9 November would also be paid before Christmas.
  406W
  Approximately 70,000 claims that were determined after 9 November and before 15 January are due to be paid during the first two weeks in March.
  A further 33,000 payments will be made in April 2001 and any remaining will be made in June 2001. Claims for this winter must be made by 31 March, therefore the June payment schedule is necessary.
  It is not possible to make all payments on successful claims immediately. We must ensure that the right amount of money is paid to the right person. To enable the correct amount of Winter Fuel Payment to be determined various payment processes which can take a little time, are necessary. I am sure you will agree that it is prudent to make sure that people receive the right amount.
  However, we are doing everything possible to ensure that claims for Winter 2000 are processed and paid within the shortest timescale available.
  Unfortunately, information you ask for is not available at constituency level.
  I hope this is helpful.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Administration
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister for the Arts of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 572, on spending on arts administration, how operating costs are defined. [152769]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Operating costs are defined as all staff costs, publicity, administration, overheads and associated costs. It excludes all direct expenditure on art forms.

  Athletics Championships (Funding)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will publish the minutes of meetings between his Department and the Mayor of London about(a) the staging of the World Athletics Championships in 2005 and (b) the investment of transport infrastructure associated with the proposed development of a new athletics stadium at Pickett's Lock; [152520]

  (2) if he will publish correspondence between his Department and the Mayor of London about (a) the staging of the World Athletics Championships in 2005 and (b) the investment in transport infrastructure associated with the proposed development of a new athletics stadium at Pickett's Lock. [152521]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Further to my answer of 9 February 2001, Official Report, columns 703–04W, to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), a copy of the minutes of the Lee Valley Forum meetings which took place on 26 June 2000, 2 October 2000, 13 November 2000 and 16 January 2001 were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 5 March. There has been no correspondence with the Mayor on this issue.

  Sport Strategy Implementation Group
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Action Plan submitted to his Department by the Sport Strategy Implementation Group. [153670]
  407W
  Kate Hoey
  On Saturday 10 March, we will publish "A Sporting Future for All—The Government's Plan for Sport". This is a practical and detailed programme which will make a real and lasting improvement to the sporting 408W
  life of this country and is largely based on the work done by the Sports Strategy Implementation Group set up last year. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
11.5 a.m.
Lord DonoughueMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The present arrangements for protecting animals from abuse are complex and incomplete. They reflect nearly a century of sporadic legislation, especially the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which absorbed earlier legislation dating as far back as the 18th century and which has itself since been amended nine times. That was concerned primarily with captive and domestic animals where humans have responsibility, not with wild animals, and hunting and coursing were exempt. Cruelty was defined as "unnecessary suffering".
Since then, Parliament has passed, as examples, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which I noted created some problems for my former colleagues at MAFF, and particularly the Wild Mammals Act 1996, to which my Bill today is an amendment. The 1996 Act also began as a Private Member's Bill under John McFall. It had two objectives: to prevent cruelty to non-captive wild animals; and to ban hunting. That second part fell so it remained as an anti-cruelty Act.
It had, I believe, two disadvantages. It contained a long list of specified cruel acts, which left grey areas around and between the list; for example, nailing a fox was an offence but shooting it to wound and be left in agony was not. It also contained a list of exemptions. It may help the House if I read out the offence created in the 1996 Act, although it is long and horrifying:
"If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence".
It seemed fairly comprehensive but there were many exemptions, including hunting and coursing.
My Bill today is deliberately simpler than that 1996 Act. It aims at one stroke to protect wild animals from suffering. There will be no exemptions. The existing exemptions for hunting, shooting and coursing are removed, as are exemptions relating to snaring and trapping. So is the use of poison to kill wild mammals, although it is not intended to protect local rats. Simply, if a wild mammal is deliberately made to suffer unnecessary suffering, that is an offence.
440
The Bill is firmly rooted in the excellent Burns report. Chapter 9, page 152, paragraph 9.38 states:
"One other possible legislative approach would be to remove the present exemptions for hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This would give an important signal that hunting should be subject to the same standards as apply to other organisations and individuals. And it would give a clearer opportunity to test views about cruelty in the courts".
We take up that Burns suggestion.
The one reservation expressed in the Burns report was that most of those acts on the list in the 1996 Bill do not apply in hunting; exactly. That is why I replace that list with a single, simple, comprehensive offence. Clause 1 of my Bill states that,
"any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence".
That replaces the 1996 list and so, I trust, meets the Burns reservation and overall, it is in line with the Burns report.
The Bill then goes on to remove the exemptions for hunting and so on as stated in paragraphs (b),(d) and (e) of Clause 2 of the 1996 Act.
The advantages of my Bill are clear. It creates consistent and universal minimum standards to protect all wild mammals. It provides certainty and clarity, with no exceptions or grey areas. There is no list of barbarous acts, as in the previous legislation, with scope to create new cruelties outside the list. It is simply intentionally inflicting, causing or procuring unnecessary suffering which is criminal.
Because it is simple, policing should be easier. The Bill would modernise and pull together nearly a century of piecemeal legislation. Of course, I recognise and accept that nature—those who live in Tower Hamlets may not be aware of this—unavoidably involves some suffering. It is not possible to eliminate all suffering from rural life and that suffering will appear to be cruel. The Bill enshrines in legislation that it is suffering which is deliberate, intentional, excessive and unnecessary which is unacceptable and will be prosecuted.
The Bill does not assume or establish that the simple pursuit of properly organised hunting, without specific acts of cruelty, such as digging out and so on, set out in Burns, is committing an act of cruelty. However, it would be for the courts to decide, as Burns suggests, with which I would be happy. I do not believe that that is a disadvantage in the Bill. It is quite normal for legislation to be tested in the courts and we should all be happy with that.
I turn to the sub-theme of the concerto, the Bill's relationship to hunting and to the Bill that will come before the House next week. First, I declare some interests or potential interests. I am involved with two racehorses that run under National Hunt rules. If God is kind, one will run tomorrow at Sandown. Racing will be damaged by a total ban, so I have a position on that.
I also have a shotgun, although it is not used greatly, and a licence. It is mainly reserved for pests, such as rats, magpies and intrusive journalists! I was also a

441
Minister for agriculture and I am deeply concerned with the countryside in which I grew up. I have been a member of the Countryside Alliance, although I take no part in the direction of its affairs, I disagree with some of its political activities and I shall not vote for its option on the Hunting Bill next week. I have never hunted; nor will I ever hunt. As we appear to be expected to say where we come from, I tell the House that I come from rural Northamptonshire. I dislike cruelty to animals. My dog, Honey, is very close to me—I dare not say "the closest" because others may hear. I support the countryside and I am deeply concerned about the future of National Hunt racing.
On the Hunting Bill, I believe that my Bill forbidding unnecessary cruelty will be of interest to many noble Lords involved in Monday's debate, although it does not stem from that Bill. There are those who will consider voting to ban hunting because they deplore individual acts of cruelty in hunting, as I and many in hunting do, yet quite rightly they have doubts on libertarian grounds because they are reluctant to interfere in the traditional sports and life of the countryside.
This Bill will forbid and punish deliberate and excessive cruelty in hunting—it removes its exemption—but it will leave that sport to continue in the proper and legitimate way, without unnecessary cruelty, if the courts so conclude. After all, some solicitors—I say "some", unwilling to offend friends—regularly defraud their clients, but that is not a justification for a ban on practising the law, although many may sympathise with that approach for other reasons.
This Bill could link naturally to the middle-way option on the Hunting Bill for a licensing authority in a way that would strengthen that approach, give it teeth and reinforce that option by providing a basis on which licences may be withheld or withdrawn; for example, if a master, a member or an employee of a hunt were found guilty of inflicting deliberate and unnecessary cruelty under the Bill, the licensing authority would consider that when issuing a licence.
I admit that this Bill would make the middle-way option more credible and practical, although I should like to insist that the Bill is desirable in itself, without any reference to the hunting issue, because it criminalises unnecessary cruelty. With that in mind, the Bill has been drafted so that it could, if the House wanted, be moved and adopted later as an amendment to the Hunting Bill.
I need not point out in detail to my noble friend the Minister the political advantages to the present Government of this Bill—although I shall. Currently they are under pressure from a militant minority to impose an illiberal ban on countryside people pursuing their traditional sports at a time when the countryside is already suffering quite enough. We know that only a small minority cares strongly either way on this issue, although a significant number reluctantly are inclined to support an illiberal ban, not because they want a total ban, but because they want to stop incidents of unnecessary cruelty in hunting.
442
This Bill offers a compromise way forward. It bans unnecessary and intentional cruelty in hunting, but it leaves the properly regulated pursuit of the sport to continue if the courts so choose. It will do nothing to satisfy the extremists on one side, who basically hate country people who hunt. I am not sure whether they hate cruelty because they are willing to hit country people over the head with baseball bats. It will do nothing for that side. In my view, nothing will influence that minority. Nor will it satisfy some traditional extremists who want hunting to be exempt from all constraints on cruelty.
I make no appeal to either militant sect and I hope that the Minister is not of either tendency. However, I believe that this Bill will satisfy the large majority in the middle ground. Taken together with the licensing option, it would enable the Government to move forward with greater protection for wild animals, without falling into the hands of an illiberal, extreme minority.
The main purpose of the Bill is much wider than hunting. It is justified regardless of what happens to the Hunting Bill. I believe that it will provide a significant improvement and modernisation to our legislation to protect mammals and to regulate relations between man and mammals in the wild. As such I ask the House, the Minister and the Government to view this Bill positively. I am confident that as an intelligent man my noble friend the Minister will not come forward with a hoary old Whitehall spectre, with which all Ministers and former Ministers are familiar. I refer to that of "opening Pandora's Box". Like "the slippery slope", it has been used throughout Whitehall history and throughout the "Yes Minister" series as an obstacle to any desirable reform where rational arguments are lacking. I confess that I was a regular and, I believe, chief adviser to the "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" series. We found that whenever Sir Humphrey lacked an argument to resist the Minister or Prime Minister, he could refer to "opening Pandora's Box" or "going down the slippery slope".
The Bill is not a Pandora's Box. It is a limited Bill, opening up a new horizon but a limited and desirable one. It does not apply to farm animals; pets; domestic animals; birds; fish; and laboratory experiments. It applies only to wild mammals and only to the unnecessary excesses in the method of killing—that is, "how"—and not to the intention—that is, "why". The only Pandora's Box concerns whether there is proof of deliberate and unnecessary cruelty.
My Bill might also raise further questions; for example, why Britain lacks the desirable legislation on wild animal management, which many other countries have. But that is beyond the scope of today's discussion. The Bill aims, simply and effectively, to ban deliberate and unnecessary cruelty to wild animals. I trust everybody who deplores such cruelty will support the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Donoughue.)
11.22 a.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for promoting this Bill today in such a clear and concise manner. I certainly extend a cautious welcome to the Bill.
As a board member of the Countryside Alliance, I am pleased to declare my interest. The Countryside Alliance has a particular interest in animal welfare, both in terms of domestic and farm animals and in respect of wildlife, and our policy handbook makes that clear.
I, too, have taken a special interest in the subject and I have been involved in most of the relevant debates in this House during the past decade. In particular, I was involved in the passage of the 1996 Act, originally a Private Member's Bill introduced into the other place by Mr Alan Meale, and its forerunner in the previous year, in the shape of another Private Member's Bill sponsored by Mr John McFall. I was also involved in the passage of the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, which was later consolidated into the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
The debate comes at a very interesting time. On Monday we shall be having the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill, and many of the issues raised here today will be relevant to that debate. Bearing in mind the strong opposition that I voiced in respect of some parts of the original 1996 Act, it may surprise your Lordships to know that the Countryside Alliance broadly welcomes this Bill. It may, therefore be instructive to look for a moment at the history of the original Act.
As the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, told us, the original Act began life as a Private Member's Bill in the other place. It was primarily a Bill to ban hunting but with other welfare measures tacked on it. It was deemed to be unacceptable to your Lordships in its original form and the anti-hunting measures were removed to allow its safe passage through this House. It was therefore somewhat of a lopsided Bill. At the same time the general offence of deliberately inflicting unnecessary cruelty was taken from the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is still the principle piece of animal welfare legislation in Britain.
However, that primary offence of intentionally causing unnecessary suffering was deemed too wide to be included in the 1996 Act without qualification and therefore the list referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, added to it. Exemptions were included in the Act at Section 2(b). Looking at this again with the benefit of hindsight it seems, not to put too fine a point on it, a little bizarre. The idea that anyone would commit any of the acts listed in Section 1 during the course of the sporting or pest control activities listed in Section 2(b) is not credible. But the reason the exception was thought to be desirable is part of the recent history of animal welfare legislation. The constant battle over hunting has meant that for years we have been unable to make improvements to the law relating to animal welfare. And the ridiculous thing is that even the anti-hunting lobby now admits that hunting is, in welfare terms, an insignificant issue.
444
The Home Secretary set up the Burns inquiry to inform the debate on hunting. Apart from achieving that, it has also helped those of us who were already fairly well informed to clarify our thinking. Certainly those of us who are involved in the hunting debate have benefited from the process. And it is important to remember that the Countryside Alliance is not a single-issue group, as some of our opponents seek to suggest. The Countryside Alliance is a democratic organisation with almost 500,000 members. Not only do they hunt, shoot and fish, but they also own more dogs and horses than any other group in the UK. They also include large numbers of livestock farmers, and many are responsible for the management of most of Britain's wildlife, which task they perform with unrivalled skill and dedication.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, the Countryside Alliance was responsible for contributing one of the options to the hunting Bill that we shall be debating next week. What some of your Lordships will not be aware of is that the option which we produced was not our preferred course of action. We made our position clear to the Home Secretary and he was generous enough to make that point in his speech at Second Reading of the Hunting Bill, in another place. Mr Straw said:
"I should make one thing clear immediately. The Countryside Alliance does not accept that those who undertake properly organised hunting are committing an act of cruelty that would he liable to prosecution under the two Acts to which I have referred [the Protection of Animals Act 1911: Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996]… The second point that I should make, in fairness to the Countryside Alliance, is that while the alliance has been most helpful in presenting that option, it is quick to emphasise that it does not reflect the entirety of its position. The alliance does not believe it is right to deal with hunting in isolation. It would prefer a complete overhaul of our animal welfare legislation, making it unlawful to inflict, by any means, unnecessary suffering on any mammal".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/00; col. 384.]
That is my position today. I believe that there is a substantial gap in our welfare law in respect particularly of wild mammals. I believe that no one should be able intentionally to inflict unnecessary suffering on a wild mammal, and I do not believe that the courts would conclude that properly conducted field sports, including hunting, involve the intentional infliction of unnecessary suffering. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made the same point and I greatly look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on that issue.
I believe that for two reasons, apart from my own experience. First, case law in the English courts has developed the concept that cruelty should be defined in terms of unnecessary suffering. Previous laws have always recognised that traditional rural activities and management practises do not involve unnecessary suffering and have made that clear by including them among the exceptions. However, because they do not involve unnecessary suffering these exceptions may well now be obsolete. Certainly this view was supported by the 1951 Scott Henderson report. I believe that the same conclusion is clear in the report of the Burns inquiry.

445
It is particularly interesting to note that this issue was discussed at length during one of the oral evidence sessions that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, chaired as part of his inquiry on 15th May 2000. I would not want to detain your Lordships by quoting long passages of the transcript of that session, although I have them here. The view expressed during that seminar by Rachel Newman, the head of the RSPCA's legal prosecutions department, seems to reveal that the RSPCA does not believe that it could prove in court that hunting per se involves the intentional infliction of unnecessary suffering.
The seminar also touched on the exemptions that hunting has from certain provisions within the Protection of Badgers Act, but reading the transcript leads me to the conclusion that none of the participants understood the original reasoning behind that exception. It may, therefore, be helpful to your Lordships to look at it for just a moment.
The purpose of the original Bill relating to badger setts was to increase the protection not only of the animal but also its sett. Hunts were not exempted from the new crime of interfering with a sett on welfare grounds but purely as a practical matter. If setts are not stopped during hunting foxes will use them, and consequently hounds will be more likely to disturb them.
In terms of extending protection and the purpose of the exemption the legislation is successful. But the important point is that in providing that level of protection it became virtually impossible to cull badgers in order to regulate their numbers. Consequently, there is now a strong body of opinion that there are too many badgers, and there is evidence that that leads to disease within the badger population. I know that that causes concern within MAFF, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said; and it certainly causes concern within the farming community. This is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. That is more likely to occur when legislation is too complex, unclear in its purpose or too widely drawn.
There is no doubt that the Bill before us today simplifies an area of the law that is currently over-complicated and impractical to operate, and as such it is a welcome improvement. However, I should like to see the whole subject taken further. Clearly, although today's debate is immensely useful, there is virtually no chance of the Bill making much progress. I hope, however, that the Government do not reject it out of hand and take the opportunity to move the whole issue forward in the next Parliament.
The whole relationship between man and animals has changed and we need to take account of that. At the outset of my remarks I said that I welcomed this measure, but I must sound a note of caution. This is a difficult area which we should enter with care. In this short debate we have not had time to look at all the difficult areas into which we need to go. But there are two areas that I believe we should explore further. First, I believe that there is a case for giving some
446
guidance to the courts to assist them in differentiating between what is necessary and what is not in terms of the activity, be it pest control, sport or killing for food. The word "necessary" that is currently in the Act refers to the method of killing, not the motive. I believe that that is where courts may need assistance, although I have an open mind as to whether that guidance should be on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, I am concerned that legitimate activities may face malicious prosecution by private individuals and organisations which are completely undesirable. There is evidence that that was what happened following the passage of the 1994 legislation, and we need to ensure that that is not repeated. But I believe that there are solutions to these problems. At the same time, if we consider welfare we must also examine the wider issues of wildlife management. The Burns inquiry looks at these issues and identifies the problems. There is a conflict between animal welfare—the needs of an individual animal—and the wellbeing of populations and species. What suits the individual animal may not suit the population of animals, and vice versa. When we look at this in future we need to take that into account as one of a whole series of issues relating to man's relationship with animals. Huntingdon Life Sciences, the hunting debate, wild animal welfare and wildlife management are all issues in need of resolution.
The current foot and mouth outbreak following BSE and swine fever has again raised the issue of livestock farming and how we look after farm animals. These issues will not go away. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, the hope that the Minister will not use Pandora's Box as a reason for walking away from this. The box is wide open, and it is up to government to give a lead in dealing with these very complex and difficult issues. If we do not deal with them in that way we shall be pressured into it by extremists in future. That is not a route down which we should like to go.
The Countryside Alliance believes that one way forward is for the Government to take the same approach to these problems that they take in relation to hunting. I believe that an independent inquiry by way of a Royal Commission to inform the discussion rather than resolve the issues would be acceptable to all sides and take the heat out of the debate. I believe that that would command widespread support.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for bringing this matter to our attention. This is a very valuable opportunity. I hope that we can return to the debate early in the next Parliament. I assure the noble Lord and the House of the support of the Countryside Alliance, although I cannot promise that that support will be unqualified.
11.35 a.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, I support the Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. In taking that view, however, I should like to make two points by way of introduction. First, I shall limit my remarks

447
to the relevance of this Bill to hunting with dogs, because I am afraid that I have even fewer qualifications to speak about anything else. Secondly, from my perspective my remarks are of relevance only if Parliament decides against a ban on hunting with dogs. If there is a ban, clearly they have rather less relevance.
I appreciate the scope for misunderstanding, but I also stress that my support for the Bill is not an attempt to predict the outcome of the debate; nor does it indicate a preference for Parliament to decide against a ban on hunting. I shall make that clear when we debate the hunting Bill on Monday. I took on the job of chairing the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs on the basis that the committee did not have to come to a view on whether hunting should be banned. We were asked only to inform the debate on various aspects of hunting. Our report stuck to that remit, and I hope to do likewise today.
I believe, however, that even without coming to a view on that issue it is possible to support both elements of this Bill: first, the proposal to widen and generalise the definition of the offence; and, secondly, to remove some of the exemptions, including those for hunting. My reason for speaking today is that both issues were dealt with in chapter 9 of the report of the hunting inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained. The context of that discussion was consideration of some practical aspects of hunting and coursing where the committee had a number of concerns. We set out suggestions as to how some of those concerns might be dealt with if a ban on hunting was not introduced, and my remarks today should be seen in the same light.
It is important also to stress that today's Bill is not a substitute for a ban in the sense that it would achieve the same result. I doubt that it would achieve the same result as a ban, and that was one of the issues to emerge from the seminar which we held during the course of the inquiry. Instead, I see this Bill as a step towards helping to resolve some of the concerns about aspects of hunting if Parliament decides, for one reason or another, not to introduce a ban.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained, the hunting inquiry report looked at this question and noted that one possible legislative approach would be to remove the present exemption of hunting from the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, quoted part of the report. Basically, the argument was that it would give an important signal that hunting should be subject to the same standards as apply to other organisations and individuals, and it would give a greater opportunity to test in the courts views about cruelty.
The main point here is that some hunting practices are claimed by opponents of hunting to be cruel. I believe that there were a number of concerns raised about some aspects of hunting across the range of people who gave evidence to us. At the same time, supporters of hunting claimed that what they did was necessary and that it involved no more suffering than other ways of managing the population of the animals
448
in question. As we shall see on Monday when we debate the Hunting Bill, much of the debate centres on the welfare of the hunted species; indeed, it is probably the most complicated aspect of that debate, and not one that I want to go into today. But if the present debate does not lead to a ban on hunting, it is important that the courts should have a greater say in the types of practices that do not meet the test for "unnecessary suffering".
As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained this morning, at the moment the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act contains exemptions for,
"lawful shooting, hunting, coursing or pest control activity".
I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Mancroft, about why there were pressures to include those exemptions in 1996 so that the Bill did not become a method to abolish hunting by the back door. However, if the supporters of hunting are right about the welfare implications of hunting, those exemptions are unnecessary. I continue to take the view that to subject hunting to the same standards as apply to other organisations and individuals would be an important signal. It would demonstrate that hunting does not enjoy special favours and that it should be called upon to justify itself, as any other group of people. For that reason, I am in favour of removing the exemptions.
The second issue is the nature of the offence. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained that in the report on hunting we note that removing the exemptions might have only a limited effect, since the principal offence in the Act relates to certain activities only and few of them appear to apply to hunting.
Therefore, the second welcome feature of the Bill is to drop that list of activities and to replace it with a general clause covering anyone who intentionally inflicts or causes or procures unnecessary suffering on or to any wild animal. That strengthens the Bill. It means that it will cover a wider range of matters relating to hunting and other activities. Both aspects of that are important— the removal of the exemptions and the widening of the offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned that during the course of the inquiry into hunting we had a seminar which actually looked at this question. We debated the effect of removing the exemptions. The discussion is available on the CD-ROM at the back of the report. Although I recognise that not everyone will be able to find their way to the issue immediately, help is available if anyone really wants to look at it. There one finds that lawyers acting for the anti-hunting organisations argue that, even if the exemptions were removed, cruelty would have to be proved in each and every case. Therefore, it would be unworkable. They expressed concern that it was very unlikely that sufficient precedent would be set up to outlaw hunting activities as a result of this change.
However, having since contemplated and considered the issue, it is possible to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue pointed out, that a combination of a licensing authority, as set out in one

449
of the options to the Bill, and the changes that we are debating today could substantially reduce some of these concerns.
Removing the exemptions in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act and redefining the offence gives the option to test in the courts some of the practices involved. If successful prosecutions are brought against certain practices, surely the licensing authority would have to take that into account in granting new licences, even if it did not establish a firm legal precedent.
I come to the conclusion that the Bill would strengthen the hand of any licensing authority as it provides the opportunity for the law to play a bigger part in defining what does and what does not constitute unnecessary suffering to wild animals. It would enable successful prosecutions to be generalised beyond the case in question; and it would raise the issue of animal welfare and the role of the courts more clearly in the debate.
Once again I stress as strongly as I can that I am not advocating this combination as a better option than a ban. I wish to keep out of that debate. I do not want to argue that it would give the same effect as a ban, which some people might be encouraged to argue. My remarks are based entirely on the possibility, and not the prediction, that Parliament will decide not to introduce a ban on hunting. This gives us the opportunity to focus on how to take the issue forward; how to raise the question of some of the activities and practices, about which no doubt there is quite a lot of concern; how it will be possible to meet those concerns; and how to take the matter forward with the help of the courts. For those reasons I wish to support the Bill.
11.44 a.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, right at the outset I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Donoughue in his condemnation of the militant tendency that surrounds some of the activities which have been peripheral to the argument. The examples that my noble friend gave are condemned by everyone, whether it is people being attacked by baseball bats or some of the more reprehensible activities that we have seen in the context of Huntingdon Life Sciences. I join with him absolutely, as strongly as I did in the 1970s when we were combating a militant tendency in our own party.
The facility with which the Bill has been claimed to have a potential linkage with the so-called "middle way" is perhaps dangerous. That was partly shown up in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who referred to the facility that this would give to the licensing authority were the Bill to be enacted. But the noble Lord went on to say quite clearly that that was not to argue in favour of the licensing road; we had to make the fundamental decision first. That is where I differ from my noble friend Lord Donoughue.
I have no doubt that my noble friend has produced his Bill with the best of intentions, particularly concerning the welfare of animals. His record on that
450
matter is quite exemplary. However, the argument is beginning to become a diversion, because the Bill never can be, nor should be, seen in isolation from the debate which is to take place in your Lordships' House next Monday. It cannot be an alternative to the choices that must be made. It cannot be a substitute for them. The one matter that it points out very clearly is the rather false nature of the choices between three options that we shall have to make in your Lordships' House.
It would have been far better if we were faced with making a choice of principle between abolition of the process of hunting with dogs or a continuation of it, and, first and foremost, have that choice clearly made. If the choice were for a continuation of the practice of hunting with dogs, then the combination of licensing and the contribution of my noble friend's Bill would be entirely pertinent. But I believe that his well-intentioned measure at this time and in this way and in this juxtaposition to the debate that takes place next Monday, is flawed.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that this measure would not achieve the same result as a ban. That makes this a premature decision to be making. The first and foremost decision should be whether or not this House supports the view of another place on the merits of a ban, rather than the fundamental—some would argue moral—question, "Should the hunting of wild mammals with dogs for sport be banned?" The effect of the Bill, if passed, would be to allow instances of hunting to be brought before a magistrate if there was evidence— that evidence would necessarily be post-mortem evidence— of unnecessary suffering. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to the difficulty of getting such post-mortem evidence.
It could take years for case law properly to emerge. It would remain inconclusive on the matter of principles. It would nullify what I believe is a central conclusion of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns—I join with other noble Lords in expressing thanks and gratitude to him for all the work that went into it—that hunting with dogs would seriously compromise the welfare of hunted animals.
The noble Lord's report produced evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that hunting with dogs includes the element of suffering. It is my belief that that suffering is unnecessary. In those circumstances, to have to prove each and every individual case of unnecessary suffering before a magistrates' court makes as little sense as having to wait for a drunken driver to commit an offence before you take him to court, rather than to say that the offence is being in the position to cause damage to someone else.
The effect of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would be to turn every allegation of cruelty taken to a magistrates' court into a repeat at that court of the process of gathering evidence which the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his inquiry have already done for us.
The Bill has a simple approach. Its simplicity appears attractive, but I believe that it does not produce a positive answer to an equally simple

451
question. Will its passage lay a divisive debate to rest? I fear not. In my view, it will not prevent cruelty; it provides a very limited redress to allegations of cruelty; and that redress would be significant for its capacity to engender protracted legal argument, indecision, confusion and, as between one magistrates' court and another, inconsistency. If the Bill is passed, the only certainty is that hunting with dogs would continue with almost no visible difference. If hunting with dogs is inherently cruel—on the balance of evidence, I believe it to be so—there should not be any requirement to prove each individual case of unnecessary suffering.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Donoughue for his efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, in an argument such as this, my noble friend is trying to bridge an almost unbridgeable gap. There are views that can never co-exist. The fundamental decision on allowing hunting to continue legally or abolishing it must be taken first. It is that fundamental conflict which should be resolved and I fear that the Bill, if carried, would divert us from that task.
11.52 a.m.
Baroness; Mallalieu: My Lords, I should, first, declare my personal interests. I am president of the Countryside Alliance, I am chairman of the Labour Leave Country Sports Alone campaign and I am a member of the RSPCA. I am also fortunate enough to live in close contact with animals of many different types: farm animals— sheep and cattle; pet animals— horses, cats, dogs and even guinea-pigs; and wild animals, which live on our small farm in the Chilterns—roe deer, muntjac, foxes, badgers, rabbits, hedgehogs and a range of small mammals, some of which are more desirable to have as close neighbours than others.
The relationship between man and animals is full of contradictions and the laws which govern those relationships are at present both complex and, in some respects, plainly inadequate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on introducing the Bill. Whatever is said by others, it is both timely, in the light of the debate we shall be having at great length on Monday, and it also provides a much needed opportunity for a short public debate on the duties and obligations we owe to animals and the limits which the law should impose on what we do with them.
I support the Bill. It is limited in its scope because it applies only to wild mammals. I do not believe that the law should afford protection to anyone who deliberately causes unnecessary suffering to any wild mammal or, for that matter, to any animal. We have in recent years, as other noble Lords have said, seen the rise of the animal rights movement and with it a dangerous, intolerant extremism, which is now manifesting itself in acts of intimidation, violence and terrorism. I do not subscribe to the concept of animal rights. If animals have rights, it is surely wrong for us to eat them and it is wrong for us to keep them as pets; and I do both. But I strongly support the concept of trying to do our best to improve animal welfare and to show respect for animals in all our dealings with them.
452
There are many aspects of our present treatment of animals—it is right to say that the animal rights movement has highlighted them—that need proper examination and need to be changed. Many pet animals in this country, both large and small, are kept in wholly unsuitable conditions that cause unnecessary suffering. Many farm animals are treated in ways that require to be changed, as the current crisis is showing us. There is an urgent need for public concerns about experiments on animals to be examined and allayed if we are not to jeopardise progress in research developments which could benefit both people and animals alike. There is a need for proper examination of the way in which man can live together with the wild animals in our increasingly urban and suburban country and how their populations can best be managed and balanced against competing interests.
Unfortunately, the national debate is not addressing those issues and we are becoming a nation of sentimentalists. It may make the nation feel better to see television programmes night after night in which deer have plaster casts fitted to their legs before they are returned to the wild. But it does not begin to address the real and growing problem that the national deer herd has exploded to a level which in some places means that there is serious damage to crops and trees and a major road accident problem. A steady diet of unrestrained sentimentality on television, where every wild animal is given a name and attributed with quasi-human emotions, means that we are failing to face up to the realities and the hard decisions which we are going to have to make. Wild animals have, for a variety of reasons, to be killed. Those reasons include the protection of crops and of livestock and the protection of human health or animal health; and they may need to be killed because they are sick, diseased or injured, or are simply too numerous for their habitats to accommodate them. A lack of contact with wild animals, other than through these television programmes, means that too many people fail to make a distinction—it is an important one—between wild animals and domestic animals such as pets. They have different needs.
Wild animals and domestic or pet animals are very different. The latter usually cannot manage without our assistance. What is acceptable in the treatment of a pet may be positively harmful to a wild animal, and vice versa. A pet may be put in a cage or a kennel. A fox is deeply distressed by the experience, as are most wild animals when trapped, even when the trap inflicts no physical pain. Nor can many people in today's climate, divorced, as most of us are, from the production of our food, understand that a farmer who rears animals for food and sends them off to the abattoir may still care greatly for them.
How these problems should be handled, and how all these aspects of our relationship with animals should be managed, should not be determined or led by people wearing the Balaclava helmet and wielding the baseball bat, to which my noble friend referred. Nor should they be determined or dictated by animal rights lobbying groups with bottomless bank accounts. What is needed is a measured and responsible lead from

453
government; not a defensive or a piecemeal response to this campaign or that campaign, to this pressure group or that extremist demonstration. An inquiry is needed in the very near future into all aspects of our relations with domestic animals, farm animals, animals used for experiments and wild animals, and there should then follow, as part of that inquiry, a proper comprehensive review of the law—not just piecemeal reform of the law—in relation to them. That is why I say that this is an excellent Bill, but it is limited and modest in its scope.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the proposal for the reform of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 was raised initially by the Countryside Alliance in its evidence to the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, back in April last year. Other speakers have referred in detail to what took place. I think that it was unfortunate that those who represented Deadline 2000, which campaigned for a ban, did not welcome that proposed change.
I am also disturbed by some of the arguments proposed so eloquently to the House by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. He believes that hunting is cruel. I believe that it is not. The inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made no finding that hunting was cruel. I hope that that will be spelt out in language that we can all understand during the course of the debate on Monday. There is a dispute between my noble friend and myself. We disagree on this matter. Surely it is right that a disagreement of this kind should be tested by the courts. Surely it is not right that Parliament should adopt the view that perhaps it is difficult to provide the evidence and therefore we should simply legislate to outlaw the whole of the activity without ever trying to see whether an individual charged with an offence has or has not committed the offence.
If hunting is cruel, as the noble Lord believes, then it must be right that the courts should be required to produce evidence of that cruelty before a conviction is passed for a crime. If, during the course of hunting, anyone breaks the rules and intentionally causes unnecessary suffering in the way that this Bill provides, then not for one second would I argue that the criminal law should apply. As an essential principle it must be right that no one, under any circumstances—hunting, pest control or any other activity—is entitled deliberately to cause unnecessary suffering to a wild mammal.
As it stands, this Bill may need some amendments to provide further clarification. Other noble Lords have pointed this out. But that basic principle is surely sound. In reality, there is no nice way of killing a wild mammal. It is not easy to do in a manner that alleviates suffering. Those who bear the direct responsibility for controlling wild mammals must still be able to do so within the law, provided that they adhere to that principle; namely, that unnecessary suffering must not be caused deliberately.
The present law is illogical. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said when introducing the Bill, it cannot be right that someone who kicks a fox to death is a
454
criminal, but someone who deliberately shoots it, intending only to wound, is not. I warmly welcome this modest and sensible measure.
12.3 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lady Mallalieu in commending the Bill and congratulating my noble friend Lord Donoughue. I believe that the speech we have just heard, along with the speeches before it, need to be considered carefully.
Perhaps I may declare a non-interest. I do not practise or support field sports. What I am concerned with is animal conservation and animal welfare. I have been involved in those matters for a long time. On this occasion I shall not refer in detail to my views on the Hunting Bill because I wish to speak in the debate on Monday. However, I will say this: the test should be whether the Hunting Bill will reduce or add to cruelty. In my view, the Bill before your Lordships' House today would reduce cruelty, but the Hunting Bill will increase it. No doubt the reasons for that will be spelt out on many occasions during the long hours of the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill, but the fact remains that, if I were a fox, I would vote against the Hunting Bill. I would rather die quickly by the hounds than in up to a fortnight in agony as a result of septicaemia. I shall not say any more on that subject.
However, I am concerned about the need to improve, clarify and strengthen the existing law in regard to cruelty to animals. Around a year ago, I was fortunate enough to hold a debate on this matter and I remain convinced of the need for stronger legislation. Perhaps I may take the House back to 1973 when I steered the Badgers Act through Parliament. I did so because at the time I was studying badgers. Indeed, shortly afterwards I wrote a book about them. I found out that, in South Yorkshire, badger setts were being assailed during the breeding season when the cubs were below ground. They were being attacked by people who were trapping the badgers and taking them for the purposes of baiting. Those people were pretty ruthless. They even put gin traps at the side of badger setts close to a nature trail being used by the children of local schools. The House passed the Badgers Bill.
Far fewer prosecutions were brought under the Act than there ought to have been because the law allowed that fairly unreasonable defences could be accepted. People who knew very well what they were doing got off because they would say, "We didn't know it was a badger. We thought it was a fox". It was all right for them to be cruel to a fox, but it would have been wrong to be cruel to a badger.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with other Members of both Houses, I took part in several visits to Forestry Commission land. I spoke to the people responsible for the management of deer in those areas. In one case, the chap in charge of culling the deer told me that every single deer culled that year in his territory had been injured or wounded, usually quite deliberately. An air gun pellet had blinded one deer; a bolt from a crossbow was embedded in the side

455
of another. After consultation, I presented the Deer Bill to the House. It did not attempt to stop the culling of deer because, as my noble friend pointed out, the deer population rises and there are no natural predators—unless we take into account motor vehicles, although one could not class them as "natural".
The Deer Bill received all-party support. Then a colleague of mine, who meant well because he was a decent man with good motives, said, "I shall block your Bill". I asked him why, to which he responded, "Because it allows deer to be killed. Deer are beautiful animals which should not be killed at all". I pointed out the arguments and how the Bill provided for a close season for roe deer which, at the time, did not have a close season. That permitted brutality to carry on throughout the year. But the Bill was blocked.
Three or four years later, another measure was passed, which was somewhat ameliorated. Certainly it was better than nothing because it did apply a close season to roe deer, which they sorely needed, but there was a refusal to accept the notion that any control needed to be applied to the deer population. Some controls are needed, but they must be exercised with humanity and competence.
I am experiencing some considerable irritation at the present time because I am deeply fond of swans. My noble friend remarked that wild animals should not be given names. Although I accept the general argument, I should say that, if I step out of my back door and shout, "Charlie!", a cob comes along for some corn. Over the past few months in South Yorkshire, several swans have been shot with air guns, for no good reason at all.
People still go out and shoot what they consider to be rats, but which are in reality water rats, of which there are few in Britain today, largely because of the mink. Mink entered the wild in Britain as a result of the lunatic activities of some of the animal liberation activists that a number of us heard Mr Cass of Huntingdon Life Sciences talk about in this building on Tuesday of this week. They have no regard for the fact that, if they were to succeed in their aim, the research would be moved out of Britain and taken to countries where there is no animal protection legislation, no inspection and no proper safeguards to guarantee some sort of decency in the treatment of those animals. These people are as unwise and irresponsible as my honourable friend who blocked the Deer Bill and ensured that many deer suffered for a long time before we finally got the measure through.
The test has to be one of good sense and wisdom, but with an understanding that what we do should add to the protection of nature and to the fulfilment of our humane responsibilities. I do not believe that the Hunting Bill does that; I believe that this Bill could. I hope that we will see this measure—with perhaps some of the amendments to which my noble friend referred embodied in it—reach the statute book. It is the kind of approach that we desperately need in this country. Frivolous and irrelevant measures which dominate debate do not take us far forward; this Bill could certainly remedy that situation.
12.11 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest. My title perhaps gives sufficient explanation as to where my interest lies; my family are still landowners after hundreds of years. I should also add that I shall not be speaking on Monday. Having seen the list of speakers, I feel that I should not burden your Lordships with anything that I may have to say because it will have been said already by a great many other noble Lords. However, many of the arguments brought forward today will overlap with those which will come forward on Monday.
Whether we see it as a fortunate or unfortunate attribute, human beings have evolved throughout a major part of our time on earth in order to hunt or to avoid being hunted. We have bifocal vision, we have carnivore-type teeth, and we have never developed the multiple stomachs that would enable us to live off grass and to chew the cud. The one area in which this side of our nature is now considered totally acceptable is in what my rather chauvinistic part of the country calls "wenching", where our judgment of movement, form, speed, distance and opportunity are brought into play, along with various other biological urges. The rules are mostly unwritten, but time-honoured.
In the hunting of game, many of the same areas of judgment are used, although the biological urge is different and encompasses many aspects. It encompasses the pleasures of exercise and exploration and the sense that we are participating in an activity that has its origins in the skills which have ensured the survival of our species, down to the pleasure that one can see in the face of a young boy who brings home a fish for his mother to cook.
Your Lordships are, no doubt, fully aware that to say that we are going to make many aspects of this activity illegal is not going to put an end to it. It merely means that those who take part in it will not have as a main motivation that they should minimise the suffering of the quarry species; their overriding motivation will be to see that they do not get caught. That element exists at the moment and, depending on one's background, is known as "claimants of ancient people's rights" or as "poachers".
I have had similar experiences to those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. I have frequently come across roe deer that have been left to die in the woods; geese and wildfowl that have been peppered with shot when they were so high that they were out of proper killing range; and red deer limping around because of their wounds. We even had a ewe running around with a crossbow bolt lodged through its head and sticking out the other side.
The countryside has a fairly active cadre of people who put a lot of time and effort into preventing the activity of poachers. These are people who presently exercise their legal and sporting rights. Perhaps the most effective in this regard are the groups of ordinary working men who form syndicates to police areas themselves. I should like to see any poacher trying to operate in that kind of situation. If we make these

457
activities too difficult, these people will cease to act as guardians and we will be left looking for more official policing and so on to try to control matters.
To achieve mammal and other wildlife protection—which is a very proper and laudable aim—the system we produce must be capable of providing it. Unfortunately, merely passing a law is not the main line of defence that is needed; it is merely the underpinning. We have to be sure that we have thought through what it is underpinning and that it will be effective.
My main misgiving about the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is that it will leave the final determination of what constitutes unnecessary suffering to the courts. They will also be left to determine in each case whether the person accused of causing the suffering did so intentionally. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who I see coming back into the Chamber—
Lord Donoughue: I have never left it, my Lords.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, continually used the word "deliberately" rather than "intentionally". I should be interested to know whether that word better conveys his intention and will be the subject of an amendment at later stages of the Bill.
A considerable amount of time was spent in this House and in another place, both in 1992 and in 1995, in trying to determine a satisfactory definition of what constitutes cruelty. If we continue to pursue this new approach, it seems to me that we may need to introduce amendments and spend a considerable amount of time trying to define certain acceptable methods of wildlife management and control so that these cannot be challenged by some novel interpretation under this legislation at a future date. It is not beyond speculation that shooting with a shotgun might be ruled as capable of inflicting suffering, and then we are back into the old area of intention.
One part of the Bill leaves me completely perplexed. Clause 1(2) states that paragraph (e) of Section 2 of the original Act should be omitted. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would argue that the legal use of poisons does not cause unnecessary suffering. However, the current legal use is not confined to the control of rats and mice—which, after all, are mammals, whatever their other status in law may be—but may be used for the control of squirrels and moles, and perhaps for other mammals of which I am not aware. The Government have to reserve the right to use strychnine to control foxes in the event of an outbreak of rabies. We cannot leave it that the Government should require primary legislation to carry out this activity. Unless the noble Lord can reassure me on this matter, I feel that an amendment will need to be introduced into the Bill to ensure that that paragraph is retained.
458
The Bill has many aspects to commend it—I certainly support the idea that it merits further consideration—but I feel that we should proceed cautiously.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken, I appreciate the opportunity provided by the Bill to discuss an issue of great importance to the House. There is no question but that during the debate on Monday—and, who knows, for a long time afterwards—we will be carrying out a most important task on behalf of the people of this country; that is, we will be giving our minds to an issue about which a great many people are concerned.
I am heartened by my knowledge that over the years when a Member of the House introduces a Private Member's Bill it has been customary for that Bill not to be opposed; it is given a Second Reading. That does not happen automatically—sadly, I have been in the House when a Second Reading has been opposed—but I subscribe to the convention that such a Bill should be given a Second Reading. It should then be sent to the other place, where I hope that it will be dealt with in the normal way, and I can imagine exactly what that will be.
Other noble Lords have declared interests. I have no interest to declare as a member of any organisation; I simply declare a lifelong belief, or commitment, or feeling, that hunting foxes and wild animals is wrong. It is either right or it is wrong; I believe that it is wrong. I do not disrespect those who believe that it is right. This is not a political issue. It goes across both sides of the House, as we shall see on Monday, and is an issue among all parties. We all have to make our decisions.
Not only am I very much concerned with what the Bill seeks to do; I should also certainly subscribe to the view that we have heard from many that its purpose is to be helpful to those who take my point of view. However, I do not believe that it will be. With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, have said so many times that, ultimately, this will be dealt with in the courts where determinations will have to be made. I am mindful of the fact that the magistrates' courts vary; that they are numerous; and that they come to different decisions.
I can understand a situation where, for example, a criminal act is committed in the eyes of individuals and they need to proceed with the evidence. That evidence will undoubtedly need to be a carcass. There will need to be a post mortem, as well as an assessment, a judgment and a finding, all of which will then be produced as the evidence in the case. It will then be tested; it needs to be. A magistrates' court will have to determine whether an offence has been committed and then apply, in its judgment, the punishment to suit that alleged crime. I can envisage time being wasted and much money being spent. We not only have this House as the nexus of appeals; we also have the European Court. Quite frankly, I just wonder whether the desire to do something that I accept is designed to be helpful will be fulfilled.

459
I turn to the definition of "cruelty". I have considered the evidence, but, quite frankly, I do not have a jot of experience in the matter. Indeed, I adopt the same stance as that of the former Prime Minister, Mr John Major, who stood up during the debate in another place and said, "I've never hunted; I have never seen a hunt. But I have my views on the matter". That is where I stand. My view on the matter is that it is cruel and barbaric. I have seen pictures of the barbarism and the obscenity and it has been conveyed to me through correspondence. I am interested only in moving towards a situation where such practices are obliterated.
When we examine the possible effect of this Bill, the test for me is whether or not it answers the fundamental question: should the hunting of wild mammals with dogs for sport be banned? Many Members of this House attended a well-attended meeting yesterday and heard the speech made by the chairman of the Countryside Alliance. I listened to him and was grateful for his presence at the meeting. But when it came to the question of the motives in the minds of different people for hunting, I believe, with great respect, that he ran into trouble. He said that, for many people, the premise upon which hunting takes place is watching the way that the dogs "work". They do not see the kill; they do not feel the cruelty. It is the social ambience of the hunt that attracts them. Yet, once the chairman had said that, it was challenged from more than one side.
Quite honestly, the great difficulty here is trying to persuade people like me that hunting with dogs is a benign exercise. In my view, it is not accidental. It is organised for, and culminates in, a sequence of events that the people who go along for social purposes know will happen I do not believe that it is right; I believe that it is wrong. Indeed, it will be difficult to go through a process—as this Bill proposes—whereby the suffering must be proved in every case.
Remarks have been made about the activities of saboteurs and others. As a law-abiding citizen and a reasonable person, I am repelled, like most decent people, by the activities of extremists. On Monday, I shall attempt in the limited time available to me to comment on what was said by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu about the intimidation, violence and terrorism connected with the issue. I say that it is not all on the side of the hunters: some of it is perpetrated by those who oppose hunting. In other words, it is not right to categorise people. I believe that my noble friend Lord Donoughue talked in terms of extremists and people who hate country folk. There will be some like that, but the vast majority of people who share my views on the matter are reasonable people who just cannot stomach the idea that wild animals are hunted to their death by people for sport, and cruelty.
Therefore. I shall not oppose the Motion when the Question is put at the end of the debate. However, I very much hope that colleagues in another place will give it the treatment that I believe it deserves.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my congratulations to those offered by other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on this valuable piece of proposed legislation and for thus giving us the chance to discuss such an important matter. I find myself very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord said, especially as regards the exemptions and grey areas in existing legislation. I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that I do not support this proposed legislation for sentimental reasons. There is a truth—it may be a brutal truth, but it is, none the less, a truth—namely, that there is a food chain. The human species is at one place on it and mammals are at another. Nor do I support the Bill for anthropomorphic reasons. Again, a brutal reality is that there is a need for pest control in the last resort in order to safeguard the position of our species.
Surely the mark of a civilised society must be that those processes are carried out with the minimum of suffering. Therefore, I particularly support the wording of the Bill and the reference in Clause 1 to "any person" intentionally inflicting "unnecessary suffering". Along with many other noble Lords, I believe that this issue will no doubt be raised again on Monday. However, I do not wish to dwell upon it today.
I should like to raise quite another issue. I wonder whether the noble Lord considers that this is indeed an issue which could be brought in under the provisions of his Bill. I should also like to hear from the Minister what view the Government take on it. The process to which I refer is that of genetic implantation. In simple terms, plans are now well advanced to breed animals with a disease implanted in them; for example, cystic fibrosis. I am talking about the deliberate breeding of faulty animals—that is to say, deliberately to breed maimed animals, deliberately to cause suffering—and then experimenting on them to see whether cures can be found.
I should like to make it clear that this is not about Huntingdon Life Sciences. I doubt whether anyone likes the proposal to experiment on live, healthy animals but it is a necessity to ensure that medicines are safe for human use. The experiments by Huntingdon Life Sciences, and those conducted elsewhere, are carried out in a controlled way at minimum levels and, most importantly, within a statutory framework. Therefore, within the evolutionary chain, I see these experiments as a regrettable necessity but a necessity none the less. I submit, however, that gene implantation is different because its objective is to breed diseased animals, intentionally to cause suffering. At the very least in my view, there is an issue of public policy which deserves wide discussion.
A number of scientific articles on gene implementation have been published recently. The one I wish to quote from appeared in the Financial Times of the weekend issue of 24th/25th February. As a nonscientist and a banker I feel more at home with the

461
Financial Times. The article refers to work being undertaken by Professor Schatten at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, USA. He is attempting to insert a fluorescent gene from a jellyfish into a monkey. The article states that Schatten,
"tried again to insert the gene, this time using a slightly different method. Six months later, twin monkeys were born. Schatten was more cautious, but became excited again when he saw them in the black light.
These monkeys glowed brightly, and genetic tests soon confirmed that the fluorescent gene was, indeed, present. The trouble was"—
this is some trouble—
"that the twins were still-born. 'We don't think it was the fluorescent gene that killed the monkeys but we are still investigating that possibility', says Schatten … Why would anyone want to create glowing monkeys? Fluorescence was simply a convenient way to prove an important concept: that scientists may use gene therapy to alter monkeys' DNA. The technique paves the way to breed transgenic primates with human-like illnesses",
and then use them to experiment on and test drugs.
I understand that transgenic experimentation on mice has taken place for some years. However, the DNA of a mouse is very different from that of a human being. Monkeys are much closer to human beings in that regard—hence, this new work. Fluorescence, however, is only the beginning. The article further states that Schatten is now working,
"on better ways to transfer the DNA. 'We really need to be able to place the gene on a specific part of the chromosome, so we can for instance remove the healthy gene for breast cancer and replace it with a defective one' says Schatten";
that is, to breed monkeys who are bound to get breast cancer or some equally unpleasant disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, used the word "obscenity" in reference to hunting. I believe that we are getting close to obscenity when we talk about deliberately breeding maimed animals. I hope that I am not alone in finding this a difficult and challenging moral issue. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that his Bill does not, and will not, cover animal laboratory experimentation. He will understand that I am concerned about that gap. As I hope I have made clear to your Lordships, the processes I have described inherently and intentionally cause suffering to animals. I therefore very much hope that the noble Lord may consider introducing amendments to strengthen his Bill in that respect.
I also hope that the Minister may find just a moment when he replies to the debate to outline the Government's approach on this issue which I believe is coming upon us by stealth. I end as I began by congratulating the noble Lord on his Bill. I wish him success with its broad approach.
12.34 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I rise in the gap to express my warm support for the Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. He said that it might be of interest to some of your Lordships who wish to speak in the debate on Monday. I certainly had intended to speak on Monday in order to support the middle way and in doing so to declare two interests
462
which I suppose I should declare today. First, my family firm might be said to be the regimental tailors to many of the hunts in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. However, I was somewhat distressed to discover in Horse and Hound advertisements for second-hand Bernard Weatherill hunt coats. That is not much good to us.
My second interest is a much more personal one. As some of your Lordships may know, for many, many years I have refrained from eating meat. I am a passionate vegetarian. I became a vegetarian on the ground of cruelty. I have seen too much cruelty and too much cruel death in my lifetime, not least between 1940 and 1946, gratuitously to cause cruelty to humans or to animals. Having listened to the debate, it seems to me that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, seeks to outlaw gratuitous cruelty to wild mammals. That, of course, includes foxes. He mentioned that it might be incorporated as an amendment in the Hunting Bill. I hope that it will be because it constitutes the middle way which I would wish to support if I were to speak on Monday. As I say, I hope that it will be incorporated and that it will attract wide support not only inside but also outside your Lordships' House.
12.36 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House and for enabling us to have a particularly interesting debate this morning.
I was struck by the fact that three noble Lords referred to evolution in one way or another. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, suggested that we were rather further back on the scale in evolutionary terms than we might wish. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is obviously further advanced in evolutionary terms with regard to what I concede are animal rights. Speaking as a carnivore, I find it difficult to accept that animals have rights when we eat them. However, we have initiated an important debate this morning. We are somewhere along the evolutionary route as regards our treatment of animals.
The Bill has a useful part to play in that debate. I do not believe that, standing alone, it will constitute the debate on hunting that needs to take place. However, it will be useful as a part of that debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has just said, if the middle way were to be adopted incorporating a body to regulate hunting, that would be an effective way forward.
I consider that the disadvantage of the Bill as it stands stems not from the words "intentional" or "cruelty" but, rather, "unnecessary". We still have forms of hunting which I believe fall outside anyone's definition of what is necessary. An example is hare coursing. I accept that foxes need to be managed. I have read extremely carefully the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I note that the methods of managing foxes, deer, mink and hares vary widely. It is interesting to compare the cruelty inflicted by shooting them ineptly with a shotgun, shooting them more

463
accurately with a rifle or hunting them. In upland areas there seems to be considerable doubt as to whether shooting could provide a reasonable alternative for hunting foxes that would cause less suffering.
If we were to take the Bill as a stand-alone measure, thereby placing the onus on the courts to decide whether unnecessary suffering was caused, there would be inconsistency of judgments, as has been pointed out this morning. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, regarded that as a bad thing, one could argue that magistrates in different areas had every right to make different decisions on unnecessary suffering. Hunting in an upland area might be considered the most efficacious control of foxes in that area. The courts may take different views for valid reasons.
Even if this Bill were to proceed in this House, it will be overtaken by the Hunting Bill. I believe that that is right because the Hunting Bill is the forum for debate. The public expectation is that there will be a legislative decision on the correct way forward. As an evolutionist, I believe that the middle way is right. The Government have not considered in sufficient detail the issues around fallen stock. I must declare an interest: my husband is chairman of the Exmoor National Park Authority. A large number of issues about the management of the national deer herd remains to be resolved. None of those issues has been addressed, and if the Government were to support an outright ban sufficiently the deer herd would face rapid and extreme culling, as occurred in the Quantocks when the Foster Bill was first introduced. A ban on hunting should not place our national deer herd under the threat of less adequate management than we would all wish.
I hope that we shall return to this measure, perhaps as an addition to the Hunting Bill. Today's debate has been useful. However, I do not believe that as a standalone Bill the measure will be sufficient.
12.42 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this Bill is an important addition to the debate on animal welfare and hunting. Neither this Bill, nor the Hunting Bill which we shall debate on Monday, will achieve passage through both Houses in time for the general election which we hear will come in May—but, of course, the Government Chief Whip looks perplexed and knows nothing about that, as we would expect. Discussion on both Bills will add to the public and parliamentary understanding of the issues. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for introducing the Bill. The timing is helpful. It will add to our understanding in the debate on Monday.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft said that the Countryside Alliance welcomes this Bill. I, too, welcome it. I am delighted that the Countryside Alliance is able to support it. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, supports the Bill. Indeed, the Bill is referred to in Chapter 9, paragraph 38, of the noble Lord's report if no ban on hunting is introduced. As the noble Lord
464
said, if such a ban is introduced, the measure might be unnecessary. But if there is no ban, this Bill could be helpful.
I agree with the noble Lord that the courts could have a greater say. That would demonstrate clearly that hunting would not enjoy special favours. I would be in favour of hunting coming under the remit of this Bill. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Mancroft; we would have to consider further the details of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, addressed the subject from another angle. He attempted to persuade your Lordships that the three choices offered to another place during debate on the Hunting Bill should not be offered to this House. I find that argument extraordinary. I cannot agree with any attempt to curb debate in this House and remove its proper role as a revising Chamber. Like another place, this House must be able to debate all three issues. I believe that the Government have given that commitment and will give it again at Second Reading of the Hunting Bill on Monday.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke with her usual clarity on the Bill, animals in general and hunting. I agree with her concerns about how we treat pets and experiments on animals, to which my noble friend Lord Hodgson referred. Although the Bill does not cover such issues, they must be addressed by Parliament. The Government must consider the best way in which to address them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said that if he were a fox he would vote against the Bill in its current form. I understood him to mean that he would vote against the ban. His speech reflected his strong interest and experience over many years in dealing with animal protection and animal welfare issues. His contribution was helpful.
At first, the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose seemed more to do with sport conducted in Scotland on a Saturday night rather than any afternoon sport. (I am not sure whether such activity is cruel—that is a different issue!) My noble friend was concerned about control of wildlife, particularly in relation to deer.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has always been against hunting. He believes that hunting wild animals is wrong. He is, therefore, against the Bill. The noble Lord said that he has never seen a hunt.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I have just remembered that I once saw the Quorn Hunt. It met at Stanford Hall which was owned by the Co-operative Movement. In 1950, as a student, I went along to remonstrate but received short shrift. I have never seen a hunt in action.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that explanation. I wish that the noble Lord could see a hunt in action. If he did, his views might change. The noble Lord might understand the motives of those who hunt. It must be clear that the only hunters of the fox are the hounds. The hounds hunt the fox guided by the

465
huntsmen. Those who hunt follow the hounds; they do not hunt the fox. They do not hunt for cruelty. Nor would any of them hunt if they considered it cruel. I believe that he is wrong on that issue. However, I was glad that he and other noble Lords condemned those extremists who break the law, on whichever side of the issue they stand.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts was concerned about genetic breeding, cloning and the swapping of genes. I share his concerns. I have always been concerned about animal testing on primates. I am never happy about animal testing on other mammals.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who spoke in the gap, declared his interest in his family firm that tailors hunting clothing. I declare my interest as a client and customer of the noble Lord's family firm. They do a fine job and I hope that I shall continue to go along to Saville Row as one of their customers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, showed clearly how the courts could rule on the different issues involved. She gave the example of hunting in upland areas, which could be shown as the best and most effective way of controlling foxes. Her remarks on what would happen to the deer herd on Exmoor were very interesting. We must consider whether the animals would be better off if hunting did not happen. There is a strong argument for saying that that has not been shown to be the case and that they would be worse off.
The courts rule on many issues. Case law is constantly evolving. The 1911 Act and subsequent Acts and case law clearly show how cruelty or justification for cruelty can be proved or not. I would be disappointed if the Minister said that the Bill was too wide in that regard and that it would be difficult to rule on what would be cruel. That is an unacceptable argument and I hope that the Minister will not use it, because the premise behind it is disingenuous. The courts have clearly shown since 1911 that they are able to decide what is cruel and what is not. The Government must come clean on that. In Standing Committee on the Hunting Bill in another place, the Minister resisted that idea. That was more to do with not wanting to involve the courts in that Bill. The Government should admit that the courts could have a role, because they deal with the point on many other issues.
The Bill would amend the 1996 Act. It would ensure protection for wild mammals from unnecessary suffering. There would be no exceptions for the previously exempt activities. I am happy for hunting to be included, as is the Countryside Alliance. The Bill would make the intentional infliction or causing of unnecessary suffering a criminal offence. The Bill is a model of clarity, certainty and brevity. I hope that the Minister will take those words back to the Home Office draftsmen next time he is considering a Home Office Bill.
466
The Bill would go a long way towards raising welfare standards for our wild mammals. I hope that the Minister will welcome it as a contribution to the debate. However, we all recognise the limited timetable that it is up against.
12.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, before I get to the heart of the issue, I join the general congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on introducing this important Bill. I also congratulate him on his diligence in and out of government, in championing the welfare of animals. He has focused particularly on striking a balance between the demands of modern agriculture and the needs of the environment, including the welfare of wildlife.
The Government will not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. That is in accordance with tradition and it is particularly important in this case, because we recognise that the Bill has an important part to play in a wider debate. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, this is a prelude—and a very well-intentioned one, I think—to our debate on Monday, which will have broader considerations.
There have been too many contributions this morning for me to refer to all of them, but I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, not least because of his report. He set out some important pointers and guides for our other debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, gave a clear exposition of her position. The noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Tomlinson, and others also gave clear and well made arguments. Both Opposition Front Benches have also made important contributions. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this well-informed debate, which has been underpinned by a genuine desire on all sides of the House to promote the protection and welfare of wild animals. That does your Lordships' House great credit.
The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is an important Act that has made it easier than ever before for the police to act to protect wild mammals in the countryside. It gives officers more power to prosecute those causing unnecessary and unlawful suffering to wild animals such as hedgehogs, squirrels and foxes. Section 1 of that Act makes it an offence to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. Those convicted can be fined up to £5,000 or sent to prison for a period not exceeding six months.
Section 2 contains a number of exceptions to this general provision so that a person is not guilty of an offence if an attempted killing of any such wild mammal is an act of mercy; if the killing is done in a reasonably swift and humane manner and it can be shown that the wild mammal had been injured or taken in the course of lawful shooting, hunting, coursing, or pest control activity; if any act made unlawful under Section 1 of the Act is done by means of any snare, trap, dog or bird lawfully used for the

467
purpose of killing or taking any wild mammals; or if they have lawfully used any poisonous or noxious substance on any wild mammal.
The Act addresses cases of, for example, hedgehogs being kicked to death or live squirrels being thrown on a bonfire. The Act is not intended to threaten those who, in the course of carrying out their lawful pursuits in the countryside, may cause death or injury to wild mammals.
So much for the present position. Perhaps I may now turn to the effects of the amendments proposed to it by the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The noble Lord's amendments to Section 1 would delete all the explicit references to specific acts, such as mutilation, beating or kicking. The effect of this would be that the provision would bite on anyone who unnecessarily caused suffering to a wild mammal.
The changes to Section 2 are equally significant. Three of the exceptions would be removed. Protection would no longer automatically be afforded to those who kill wild mammals as part of hunting, coursing or pest control. Nor would those who lawfully use snares, traps or poisons have the benefit of an exception.
I shall say more about pest control in a moment, but first I shall deal briefly with hunting. We are going to have a lengthy deliberation on the subject on Monday and it would not be right to get into a detailed discourse in advance of that. As I have already explained, the 1996 Act contains exceptions for hunting from the offence in Section 1 of cruelty to wild mammals. Section 2(b) provides an exception in respect of the killing in a reasonably swift and humane manner of any such wild mammal injured or taken in the course of, among other activities, lawful hunting or coursing. Section 2(d) provides a further exception in respect of any act made unlawful by Section 1 if carried out by a dog used lawfully for the killing or taking of a wild mammal.
The Bill before us would remove those exemptions. The effect would be that hunting with dogs would constitute an offence where unnecessary suffering was caused to the mammal being hunted. I can see the attraction of that suggestion as most, although perhaps not all, people who oppose hunting object to it because they believe that it is cruel. If they could be reassured that any unnecessary suffering would be punished in the courts, they might feel more comfortable about the matter.
However, I could present the other side of the coin and suggest that that may not, as some supporters of the Bill would argue, help to resolve the difficult issues of hunting. From the meetings that I and my colleagues in the Home Office have held with various campaign groups involved in the hunting issue, I am well aware that very different views exist. Some, such as Deadline 2000, support a ban and believe that, by its very nature, hunting with dogs inflicts suffering on the quarry. Others, such as the Countryside Alliance, take the contrary position and argue that, in properly organised hunting, no unnecessary suffering is caused.
468
Both sets of views have been heard in the House during the course of this debate. Both sides choose to interpret in different ways the scientific evidence and, indeed, the report produced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so as to support their point of view. This Bill does not seek to resolve the question of whether hunting with dogs causes unnecessary suffering; rather, I believe that it would hand the courts a difficult and, no doubt from time to time, highly controversial problem.
However much some of us would prefer to avoid the issue, I believe that it must be for Parliament to take a view on whether or not hunting is an unnecessarily cruel activity and, therefore, whether it should be permitted to continue in its present form or be regulated. Some will argue that we should not abdicate our responsibilities by placing this essentially political question in the hands of the courts. They may be right, but your Lordships have heard arguments to the contrary. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke in favour of variable sentencing as a potential strength, and I can understand that argument.
As your Lordships well know, on Monday we shall discuss the Bill on hunting. That will give Parliament the opportunity to form a view on what it wishes to do in relation to what we all accept to be a contentious question. I believe that that is the right way to proceed.
Perhaps I may now turn to the pest control aspects of the Bill. Again, I have every confidence that the intentions of those who proposed and support the Bill are entirely honourable. Their motives are to protect wild mammals from unnecessary suffering. I believe that we all applaud that sentiment; I certainly do. On the face of it, it appears that the Bill would have precisely that effect in that it would simply ensure that those who inflicted unnecessary suffering as part of pest control would be liable to prosecution.
However, again, I venture to suggest that the degree of imprecision that that creates may cause problems. I do not believe that anyone could argue seriously that there is not a need to control various pests. It is an important and valuable aspect of the work of gamekeepers and others involved in the management of the countryside. However, there may be disagreement about the best way to do it, and perhaps a concrete example would illustrate the matter.
Mink is a vicious and voracious predator which does great damage to riverbanks and attacks indigenous wildlife, such as water voles. Clearly, mink numbers need to be controlled. There is no argument about that. One way in which to do so is to use traps and snares. We can all form a view as to whether such devices cause unnecessary suffering. The Government's view is that where traps and snares are used properly, they may prove to be more humane than other methods. Of course, strict rules apply to the use of snares, including a requirement for them to be checked every 24 hours. I am conscious that others take a contrary view and regard such devices as little short of barbaric.

469
There is a danger that if we remove the exemptions for pest control, as the Bill seeks to do, those who quite legitimately and properly use snares and traps in order to control mink numbers could find themselves the subject of private prosecutions and brought before the courts—perhaps even convicted. I could cite similar examples involving other species and other means of control, including poisons, but I hope that the point is made clear to your Lordships.
It would be unacceptable to remove the exemptions for pest control without defining clearly what such control is and is not. There would be a risk that those who undertake proper and necessary pest control activities would be exposed to private prosecution by those who may take a less reasonable attitude in relation to animal welfare. I believe that we are all aware of people, particularly on the extreme wing of the argument, who can be quite unreasonable in that regard.
I want to make a further point. If farmers and gamekeepers consider that they are at risk from the threat of prosecution, there is a possibility that that could encourage the use of more dangerous and illegal alternatives, such as uncontrolled poisoning. Clearly, the cause of animal welfare would not be served if that were to happen.
The 1996 Act is aimed at preventing mindless cruelty against wild mammals. I believe that it has been an important tool in preventing such activity. My fear is that the Bill before the House may confuse such mindless cruelty with the proper and legitimate work undertaken by farmers and landowners to control pests in the countryside. I am also concerned that the proposed amendments, if passed, may make the 1996 Act more difficult to enforce because they would remove the clear tests as to what does or does not constitute cruelty. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu was right to suggest that, even with the Bill as it is—she suggested a measure of support for it—there would need to be important clarification. I believe that that comes close to the heart of our concerns about the Bill.
I would not want anyone to imply that the existing tests are inadequate or that areas of cruelty to wild mammals are not being tackled. I do not accept that that would be a valid view of the tremendous amount of work carried out in recent years by animal welfare experts and legislators to improve the welfare of our wildlife.
One or two important points were made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in relation to scientific experiments. It may be worth placing on the record that such experiments are regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They fall outside the scope of this Bill. All animals used in experiments are captive and not wild, and the Bill will have no effect on animal experimentation. It may be worth reminding the noble Lord that a Motion to be moved, I believe, next Tuesday will seek to establish a committee of the House to report on the working of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Perhaps that will
470
provide a better opportunity for a more scientific debate in considering the issues that the noble Lord raised.
In conclusion, again, I want to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Donoughue for having introduced the Bill. I believe that we all agree that it has provided us with an all too rare opportunity to discuss important questions. Questions in relation to pest control, in particular, are rarely debated in your Lordships' House. I hope that my noble friend has not found my remarks too discouraging, not least because, having discussed the Bill with him privately and also publicly, I am in absolutely no doubt about his genuine desire to improve animal welfare.
Although I could not suggest that the Bill in its present form should be passed into law, I hope that, by highlighting what I consider to be some of the areas of concern, I have given my noble friend and other noble Lords food for thought. My noble friend may wish to reflect on that as the Bill progresses.
This has been a most valuable debate. I am sure that it will be seen as an important contribution to the debates that follow. I certainly recognise the validity and importance of all the contributions made by noble Lords during the course of the debate.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to what I considered to be an excellent discussion. I welcome the support which the Bill received. That support was not universal but came from all sides of the House: from my own, from the Cross Benches and from the Front Benches of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative sides. I particularly appreciated the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the weighty support that he gave. I also thank my noble friend Lord Hardy, who has a deep knowledge of and commitment to wildlife and rural affairs.
I say to my noble friends Lord Tomlinson and Lord Graham that although I respect their views, of which I was already aware, we continue to differ. I do not accept what my noble friend said about there being an unbridgeable gap on the broader hunting issue. There is an unbridgeable gap with regard to the two minority positions but I believe that a bridge can be found with regard to the majority position. My noble friend Lord Graham made a fine speech, which would be more appropriate for next Monday's debate than today's debate. If only he had consulted his diary! I have difficulties with my noble friend's statement that my Bill will not reduce cruelty. It is clear that regardless of one's views on hunting, the Bill will reduce cruelty. I stress that. I should be puzzled if any individuals or, especially, institutions that claim to be committed to the reduction of cruelty tried to oppose the Bill. I would not know whether they had other agendas.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made an impressive contribution but I believe that his concerns are covered by the 1986 Act, to which my Bill does not relate.

471
I thank my noble friend the Minister for not opposing the Bill's Second Reading and for his friendly words, which were warmer than I was expecting in view of the stable from which he comes. I really appreciated that. I was a little disappointed but not surprised by one of his reservations— predictably, the "Pandora's box" of court decisions was wheeled out. I welcome that aspect of the Bill, as have some other noble Lords. I support the role of the courts in clarifying what cruelty is. I support the courts in this country and I was surprised that the Home Office does not; it may know things that I do not. In fact, it already lies with the courts to interpret existing legislation. Case law does establish positions; that is normal in our polity. However, that does not mean that there is a permanent ratchet of court cases endlessly going on. Case law would be established, and I should accept whatever was decided.
I hope that the Minister will press his department to adopt an open approach on this issue. He and other noble Lords— in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who made a very good contribution—raised genuine points that I hope to address as the Bill progresses through the House. I am aware of the question of test controls. I am confident that we can get more clarity on that, which will be done as the Bill progresses through the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deregulation (Sunday Licensing) Order 2000
1.14 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, that the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 12th December 2000 be approved [First Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order supplements the Sunday Dancing Order, which was made on 21st December—amid much jollity, I might add, and it led to much jollity—and which became law on 28th December. It permitted commercial dancing on Sundays for the first time in more than 200 years.
The order is designed to provide for special hours certificates and extended hours orders to be available to casinos, nightclubs, discotheques and restaurants on Sundays. It is a complex document and it may be helpful if I provide a little explanation.
On other clays of the week, special hours certificates, which are authorised by magistrates, allow casinos and nightclubs to supply alcohol to customers up to 2 a.m. or, in the West End of London, up to 3 a.m. Extended hours orders allow restaurants providing food and entertainment to serve alcohol up to 1 a.m. The legislative intention has always been that the supply of alcohol after the end of permitted hours should be ancillary to activities such as dancing, eating or gaming.
Special hours certificates and extended hours orders cannot currently be granted for Sundays, and permitted hours end at 10.30 p.m. So, for example, the situation is that a discotheque can obtain a licence for music and dancing on Sundays, but may serve alcohol at the dance until only 10.30 p.m. The restriction also applies to charities holding fund-raising balls.
The draft order would allow magistrates in certain circumstances to grant such certificates and orders on Sundays but only until 12.30 a.m. However, where a Sunday falls on a day before a bank holiday—other than Easter Monday—extensions up to 2 a.m. would normally be permitted, or up to 3 a.m. in the West End of London.
The draft order also provides for special consideration, which would apply to applications in respect of Sundays. Before granting such a certificate or order, the magistrates must: have regard to the special nature of Sunday, and to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on that subject; and consider objections that are made by the local authority and that are based on the residential character of the area in which the premises are situated, and they must give reasons.
I should mention that the guidance on the special nature of Sunday has been compiled after considering comments that were submitted by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House. If the order is agreed to, the guidance will be sent shortly after that to all licensing benches and magistrates' courts in England and Wales.
Furthermore, where a special hours certificate has been granted and includes Sundays, the police, local residents, local business or the local authority may seek to exclude Sundays on the grounds that the premises are causing disturbance or annoyance or because people frequenting the premises are exhibiting disorderly behaviour in the vicinity.
In the interests of maintaining public protection, it also remains the case that those nightclubs and discotheques applying for special hours certificates for Sunday nights must as a starting point have a music and dancing licence issued by the local authority which relates to Sunday.
The order has a long history. The previous government brought forward a similar proposal in 1995. Unfortunately, they were unable to win the support of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House. It was then strongly of the opinion that Sunday dancing and drinking was too controversial to be the subject of a deregulation proposal. Happily, times have moved on, as the House showed by approving the Sunday Dancing Order in December.
The draft order represents a significant move by the Government from our original proposals, which were laid before Parliament in January 2000, and it contains a positive response to the concerns that the committee expressed in its reports last year and before then.
The time of 12.30 a.m. is a compromise over later opening. It is the earliest closing time that the industry considers to be economically viable when running a

473
discotheque. Acknowledging a special nature for Sunday is a compromise. Those noble Lords who have read the licensing White Paper will know that in a multi-faith society we do not consider it right to treat any day of worship specially or differently from days that are of similar importance to other faiths. Strengthening the influence of the local authority and of local residents are compromises because we felt that our original proposals already balanced the needs of business with necessary public protection.
The draft order is therefore not as deregulatory as some within the leisure industry would have wished. However, we have compromised because we believe that the order can still significantly help consumers and the hospitality, leisure and tourism industries. We are grateful to the committee because it, too, has shown a willingness to compromise. It has moved from a position that we believed was impossible to implement lawfully. We are delighted that it has been able to recommend the draft order in its present form for your Lordships' approval. That shows that the Government and the committee can work together successfully to achieve a satisfactory outcome that is acceptable to us all. The draft order was approved in another place on 18th January.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 12th December 2000 be approved [First Report from the Deregulation Committee].— (Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
1.20 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this order started life as the draft Deregulation (Sunday Dancing and Licensing) Order. The two parts, dancing and licensing, were then decoupled and the dancing order was approved by your Lordships' House a few weeks ago. However, the two remain linked in practice: the extension of hours for dancing in clubs and discos is largely meaningless unless drink is on sale at the same time.
The licensing issue, as the Minister said, led to long proceedings in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which were discussed in the 9th Report of our last Session and published in March last year. There is no doubt that attitudes towards Sundays have changed quite radically in recent years. Since 1994 football and other sporting events for which admission is charged now take place on Sundays. The Sunday opening of shops is widespread: indeed in parts of London there seems to be more traffic then than on weekdays as people come into London to shop.
Since 1995, as the Minister has said, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has rejected the proposal for the extension of dancing hours on Sundays on the ground that it was too controversial. Last year the committee took the view that the provision of entertainment on Sundays—or, in practice, in the early hours of Monday—was no longer seriously controversial on Sabbatarian grounds.
474
Although 22 individual churches, mainly Baptist churches, objected, none of the main church bodies consulted by the Home Office chose to respond.
There were, however, a considerable number of objections on the grounds of noise and disturbance. The point was made by a number of objectors that restaurants and clubs cause noise and that, even if soundproofed to prevent internal noise getting outside, noise is inevitably caused by people arriving and leaving. Monday, for most people, is the first day of the working week and a restriction on the hours of Sunday licensing has meant that up to now they have been able to get a slightly earlier and quieter night.
The committee paid particular attention to the views of local authorities. The consultation process resulted in 68 responses from local authorities, of which 58 were in support of easing licensing restrictions. Five were basically sitting on the fence and five were against. On the face of it, therefore, there was a very clear majority in favour of relaxation of the licensing law, but it is not quite as straightforward as that. A high proportion of local authorities which supported the easing of restrictions were those of resort towns or districts where those towns were situated.
It is very understandable that in towns of that kind the local authority should want extended hours, and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee saw no reason to deprive them of that wish. However, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in particular argued very strongly against the relaxation, on the ground that many areas containing both leisure and residential premises can be found in the borough. That is something I can vouch for, having lived there for a long time and having been the candidate for Kensington in three parliamentary elections.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee invited the Royal Borough to give evidence, and it sent a team which was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The committee was very impressed by that evidence and took the view that the best answer to the problem was to allow local authorities to decide for themselves whether or not to opt into the changes contained in the order. They would be best placed to decide whether commercial benefits to local traders outweighed the disturbance to local residents.
Unfortunately, the Government received legal advice that it was to ultra vires to delegate to local authorities the power to decide whether or not to opt in to the order. The committee was not convinced that the advice was correct, but recognised that there was a serious legal issue. As a result, a compromise was reached: anyone applying for a special hours certificate for Sunday must notify the local authority and the local authority may make representations to the licensing justices. If the justices override those objections they must give reasons for doing so.
There is also a power for the local authority, the police or residents to apply for the revocation of a special hours certificate applying to Sunday. As has been mentioned, the order also contains powers for the

475
Home Secretary to issue guidelines which have been published in draft to guide justices in taking their decisions.
I have gone into this background at a certain length because I believe it is useful to place it on record. Of course, I am speaking here on behalf of my party and not on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, of which I have been a member since 1998. We believe that decisions on special hours certificates should be taken by local authorities rather than by justices. Local authorities are in the best position to know the views of the inhabitants, and they are accountable to them. We in my party therefore regret that the legal advice which was received by the Government made it impossible to accept the committee's proposals.
However, we believe there are good grounds for deregulation, and accept that the present order is the best that can be done to ensure local control. We look forward, in the event of the Government being returned to office, to the implementation of their proposals on a fundamental reform of the licensing system, which will transfer the control of licensing matters from the licensing justices to local authorities.
1.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, the Deregulation (Sunday Licensing) Order 2000 is a sensitive issue for many Christians, as has already been indicated, and those of your Lordships who have been at the receiving end of the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign will know that the arguments are strongly made.
I wish to assure your Lordships that I do not seek to oppose this order. I would like to make one comment and also to seek reassurance. I welcome the Government's recognition of the special nature of Sunday. As has already been indicated, this is dealt with in the appendix to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Deregulation. It is interesting to note that it takes one paragraph to argue for the special nature of Sunday—which gives—and two paragraphs to take away the special nature of Sunday.
We recognise that this is a special area for those who live in a society which is both multi-faith and multicultural, but I would like to remind your Lordships' House that the inherited structure of the week and of the year which we live by has its base in the Christian tradition. I am grateful for the fact that Easter Sunday is to be given a special status. I therefore welcome the way in which this matter has been dealt with, even if some people believe that it has not achieved quite the right balance.
Secondly, I seek reassurance from the Minister that, if residents make objections to the granting of a late licence on Sundays, those objections will be given due consideration and not just treated as "window dressing" in this order. Will the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Deregulation play an important role in the opportunities given to local authorities and local residents to make their objections clear?
476
In thanking the Government for the sensitivity with which they have listened to and dealt with the views we have raised, may I say that we are grateful indeed and I shall support this order.
1.29 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the first Sunday dancing order came to us in December, just before Christmas—just in time to save an event the Government had planned for New Year's Eve, which of course fell on a Sunday. Sadly, it could not save the Dome, which collapsed soon afterwards.
We welcome this order. There is widespread public support for this reform, and the reform will be balanced by the responsibilities. The special nature of Sunday will be preserved. Clubs will need to apply specifically for a Sunday, and employees' rights will be protected.
There are many beneficiaries other than nightclubs. That will include charities and other organisations which wish to hold events on a Sunday. Indeed, I believe that it will help save many businesses in seaside resorts, something about which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, coming from Brighton, knows more than I do. I should declare an interest. I am a director of a company which may derive some benefit from being able to open on a Sunday.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that this is a compromise, and indeed, it is. I believe that it takes account of the special nature of Sunday. The licensing authorities must take account of that and, specifically, the issue of disturbance to local residents which was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.
I believe that Sunday will still be special, just as it is still special north of the Border in Scotland, where, of course, they have been able to dance on Sundays for many years. I welcome the order.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, your Lordships' House has been witness to a great historic compromise. All noble Lords who have entered into this short discussion appear to have willingly embraced that compromise. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has an interest in dancing. No doubt that is a vigorous interest. I share that interest but not in quite the same way. I should like to encourage him to invest in Brighton, but there we are. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained some of the difficulties, but, again, he spoke in favour of the compromise and urged us to bring forward new measures on licensing which will deal with the whole package and, in a sense, will overtake the order at which we are looking today. It is a compromise welcomed also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.
I am more than happy to give the right reverend Prelate the reassurance which he seeks about residents' concerns. Of course they must be adequately addressed and considered. Indeed, the mechanism used to take on board residents' concerns with regard to early Sunday morning deliveries during the passage

477
of the Sunday trading legislation was not a million miles away from having part of its authorship in myself. I take a particular interest in those issues, coming, as I do, from a local authority background and having heard many of the arguments about protecting the interests of local residents close to areas where there is intense leisure activity. So we do take those points very seriously indeed.
I am grateful for the support that this order has received. I am sure that your Lordships will endorse the order. All of those who enjoy Sunday dancing, whether for business, profit or pleasure, will support this too. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001
1.34 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my intention to address both the orders which relate to the regulation of investigatory powers. The second order is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Designation of Public Authorities for the Purposes of Intrusive Surveillance) Order. The two draft orders before us today are made under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I shall deal with each instrument in turn.
The BBC order is made under Section 47(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—RIPA—and applies Part H of the Act, with modifications, to the carrying out of surveillance to detect whether a television receiver is being used in any residential or other premises. This order provides an express legal basis for this activity, which is not one of the kinds of surveillance currently regulated by Part II of the Act. We signalled our intention to bring forward this order when this House considered the RIP Bill last year. Let me say a little more about that.
Your Lordships may recall that last summer we discussed the issue of surveillance for TV licence detection purposes undertaken on behalf of the BBC. The RIP Bill was amended in Committee specifically to exclude such activity from the definitions of intrusive and directed surveillance in Part II since it was considered that that particular surveillance activity did not properly fit under either definition. The resulting provision is to be found in Section 26(6) of RIPA.
But in deciding to exclude the specific activity of surveillance for TV licence detection purposes from the definitions of intrusive and directed surveillance, my noble friend Lord Bach said in Committee on 28 June, that,
478
"this does not mean to say that we do not believe this activity does not constitute some invasion of privacy or that it should not be put on a statutory basis".
He went on to say that:
"Bringing forward an order specifying it [i.e. TV licence detection] as a new type of surveillance would be a way of making it subject to statutory controls".—[Official Report, 28/6/00; cols. 903–04.]
That is what the order before the House today is all about—providing specific statutory control for a specific type of surveillance.
The BBC's view, which the Government share, is that if TV licensing's detection activities interfere with the rights protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, such interference could be justified in terms of Article 8(2)—that is to say, for example, for the prevention of crime—since licence evasion constitutes a criminal offence. However, Article 8(2) of the ECHR also requires an activity to be "in accordance with law"; that is, having an express legal basis. This order provides that basis.
The order will modify Part II of RIPA so as to provide for authorisations to be granted, only in relation to the detection of television receivers, by persons holding certain senior positions within the BBC's licence fee unit. They must be satisfied that an authorisation is necessary for preventing or detecting certain offences under Section 1 or 1A of the Wireless Telegraphy Act; for example, having a TV with no valid licence, or for assessing or collecting sums payable in respect of television licences. Those are the only grounds on which authorisations may be given.
The proposed surveillance must also be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out. I should stress that we are talking here about surveillance carried out from outside a premises. And authorisations will be time limited: an authorisation can last for a maximum of eight weeks.
Responsibility for overseeing surveillance in relation to licence detection on behalf of the BBC falls to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner by virtue of Section 62(1)(a) of RIPA. And the Act provides for a right of redress for the individual. An individual can complain about this activity to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal by virtue of Section 65(5)(d) of the Act.
I now turn to the second draft order before your Lordships today, made under Section 41(3) and (4) of RIPA, and which designates the Home Office as a public authority which may make an application to carry out intrusive surveillance under the Act.
Perhaps I may explain our reasons for bringing forward this order. The Prison Service has come to the view that it requires statutory cover under RIPA for intrusive surveillance operations. Your Lordships will recall that under Part II of the Act intrusive surveillance is covert surveillance carried out in relation to residential premises or private vehicles. The definition of "residential premises" in Section 48(1) of the Act includes prison cells. There may be occasions when such surveillance by the Prison Service is considered necessary. We are thinking here of cases

479
such as prison hostage situations. The use of covert surveillance techniques may be necessary in such cases in order to provide an accurate assessment of the situation arid safeguard the life of the hostage.
The order before your Lordships will enable the Prison Service in England and Wales to apply for authorisations under RIPA to conduct intrusive surveillance operations. Your Lordships will note that the order designates the Home Office as a public authority whose activities may require the use of intrusive surveillance. It then specifies that within the Home Office it is only Prison Service staff that may make an application to use that power. The order is constructed in this way since the Prison Service does not have a separate legal status.
I shall explain briefly how the authorisation process will operate. The way that Part II of RIPA works means that authorisations permitting the Prison Service to conduct intrusive surveillance are to be given personally by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that such action is, first, necessary on one of the grounds listed in Section 32(3) of the Act; and, secondly, that it is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying out the surveillance.
In considering the circumstances of the individual case, the Secretary of State must consider whether the information which it is thought necessary to be obtained could reasonably be obtained by any other, less intrusive, means. Those are important tests. We believe that the intrusive surveillance power in Part II of RIPA is, rightly, narrowly drawn.
Authorisations granted by the Secretary of State to the Prison Service for intrusive surveillance will last for a period of three months unless granted orally, in which case they will last for a period of 72 hours, unless renewed.
As with the BBC's licence detection activities, responsibility for overseeing the use of intrusive surveillance by the Prison Service falls to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner by virtue of Section 62(1)(a) of RIPA; and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the appropriate forum to address complaints about this activity by virtue of Section 65(5)(d) of the Act.
To conclude, in my view, both orders before your Lordships today are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—[Lord Bassam of Brighton.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome these two orders. With regard to the first order, relating to the BBC, I was going to ask whether anyone who felt that he had been unfairly intercepted could go to the tribunal, but the Minister has answered that he can.
With regard to the second order, I have some questions as I am unclear about it. The Minister says that it covers surveillance, which is a rather broad term. Does that cover, for example, the tapping of
480
telephone lines into a prison, or is that covered by a separate power or authority? Would the word "surveillance" cover the interception of mobile phone calls or e-mails via a computer system into a prison? What, in fact, does it cover?
Can the Minister give the House an assurance that surveillance will not be used to cover either meetings or discussions of people in prison when they are with their legal advisers? That is an important issue. Under the second order, is there an appeals system to the tribunal? I believe the Minister said that there was, but perhaps he could confirm that. Perhaps he could also confirm that this order is, in his view, consistent. with the Data Protection Act.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, we are entirely happy with the order relating to the BBC. That kind of surveillance has been going on for many years. It has been accepted as a reasonable way of finding out who is not paying a licence fee that they should be paying and it is accepted as not being unduly intrusive. I believe it is fair to say that we welcome the fact that this is being brought under a modified version of Part II of the Act rather than being left outside that part. We have no problems in relation to that.
However, we find some problem with the order relating to intrusive surveillance by the Prison Service. I have no problem in seeing why the order is needed; there are situations—the taking of hostages is not the only one—where the bugging of a prison cell may be necessary in order to prevent crime or to assist in the clearing up of crime. Indeed, one could say that it is such an obvious point that it is surprising that it was not dealt with when the Bill was before your Lordships' House and it was subsequently left to be dealt with by an order.
I am struck by the enormous difference between the control over applications for intrusive surveillance authorisation by the police and by the Prison Service. So far as the police are concerned, they are subject to detailed rules under Sections 32 to 40 of the Act as to how authorisation is given. One starts with the grant of authority by the authorising officer—there is a list of who they are—and that is followed by approval by the surveillance commissioner.
However, there is nothing of that kind in the case of the Prison Service. All ranks—that is anybody in the Prison Service—can apply for authorisation. No such authorising officer is interposed between the person making the application and the Home Secretary. Apart from anything else, the Minister said that the Home Secretary will have to approve such orders personally, which may be perfectly correct, but it does not necessarily appear to be an appropriate use of the time of the Home Secretary. I find it unsatisfactory that there is no intermediate provision for authorisation, with all the safeguards that would be covered by such a procedure in the case of applications from the Prison Service. What sort of investigation will the Secretary of State be able to carry out?

481
I believe it is unsatisfactory that the provisions for the applications by the Prison Service are so extraordinarily open-ended as compared with those for the police. There is, for example, no attempt to limit the number of officers who can apply. One would have thought that if an application goes direct to the Secretary of State it should come from someone at governor or deputy governor level. Again, there is no attempt to use the power to impose restrictions that the Home Office could have used under Section 41(5), which could have been incorporated into the order. While we do not oppose the order, we believe that its form is pretty unsatisfactory.
My final question is: what is the position of employees of private organisations that run prisons under contracts? Are they, or are they not, holders of office, rank and position in Her Majesty's Prison Service? If they are not, clearly there is a major lacuna in the order.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support offered from both Opposition Benches, although there was qualified support from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has addressed the issues in the orders with his customary knowledge and precision. As he has raised some important points of qualification, to which it may be beyond me to respond directly today, I shall endeavour to study his comments. I want to take careful note of those.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked some specific questions relating to powers of authorisation and I shall try to answer those points during my concluding comments. The orders do not cover telephone tapping, e-mails and so on. They are covered explicitly in Part I, Chapter I of RIPA. A definition of "surveillance" is contained in Section 48(2) to (4), which makes it clear that the interception of communications is not treated as surveillance under the Act, except in the limited circumstances where one party to a conversation has consented to it being monitored.
What safeguards are there for prisoners and lawyers? Surveillance in prisons will be subject to a code of practice that will provide safeguards on the use of the power under Section 72(1) with which the Prison Service will be under a duty to comply. I hope that that answers the noble Viscount's questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, queried the use of the Secretary of State's time and asked whether there had been an oversight. Applications will not go directly from the Prison Service to the Secretary of State; they will go through a dedicated unit within the Home Office which will provide back-up, insight, support and advice on which the Secretary of State will need to rely. I am sure that that expertise will be most welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also asked about the position of private prisons and their employees. I recognise that that is an important matter. I want to ensure that I am clear about it and for that reason I want to write to the noble Lord about it. In order that
482
there can be no confusion, I shall express clearly what their position is. I shall share the letter with noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion and listened to the debate and I shall also place a copy in the Library of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Designation of Public Authorities for the Purposes of Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2001
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enlargement and EU External Frontier Controls: EUC Report
1.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Enlargement and EU External Frontier Controls (17th Report, Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 110).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to be introducing a short debate on one of the final reports under my chairmanship of Sub-Committee F of the House of Lords EU Committee. It is a very important, delicate and novel area in which the UK is engaged. As in many other areas, the gap between public understanding of what the UK is involved in and the depth of official engagement seemed to us to be wide.
The report is one of a succession which the committee has undertaken on the UK opt-out of the Schengen agreement and the then UK partial opt-in to the Schengen agreement. The committee, under the chairmanship of my successor, my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, is undertaking a study of the Commission's recent proposals on common immigration policy. That is a new area for EU integration. Until 1989, there was no particular problem with the EU's eastern frontier. It was maintained as a solid fortress frontier by the Soviet Union on our "unintended behalf".
This is the first enlargement that has taken place since justice and home affairs became such an important part of European integration, with the agreement to loosen or end internal border controls and compensatory measures to strengthen external frontier controls. The UK is closely involved in that. As we discovered in our study, the opt-in to much of the Schengen agreement makes Britain's borders those of the European Union. That was made explicitly clear by the joint statement from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and Giuliano Amato on 4th February. It was

483
also published in the Observer. I then thought that the attack made by the Opposition spokesperson, Miss Widdecombe, on that statement showed that even the Official Opposition do not fully understand how deeply the British Government and our law enforcement agencies are now engaged in this whole area of activity.
The Blair/Amato statement proposed a number of further measures for co-operation, on which the Minister may want to comment briefly in his concluding remarks. One was the proposed creation of an EU liaison officer network in the western Balkans. The statement reads:
"We want the network to be up and running by the middle of 2001",
with joint UK and Italian teams of national immigration and police officers circulating around the Balkans. That is another step further towards internationalising the British police and immigration services.
Despite the fact that we are maintaining frontier checks, the UK clearly understands that frontier controls are not enough and that no frontiers can be made watertight, short of re-imposing an iron curtain. That is part of a world-wide surge of legal and illegal immigration, with a great expansion of trafficking in human beings—or "people smuggling", as it is sadly and more popularly known. It comes across the eastern frontiers of the EU into the United Kingdom. Indeed, we read in today's newspapers stories of Nigerian girls coming here as asylum seekers and then being smuggled on to work as prostitutes in Italy. They come into the United Kingdom and then go on into other parts of the EU.
The efficiency and scale of criminal organisation came across to us during the course of the inquiry. We were told by the Polish officials whom we interviewed that, after German complaints, they had managed to tighten their measures against "people smuggling" through Poland, only to discover that the number of people apprehended on the German/Czech border had shot up as the number apprehended on the German/ Polish border went down. I am sure that our Czech friends would have told us that as they tightened their controls, so the use of the southern land and sea routes went up by contrast.
Our inquiry drew a number of key conclusions, which I hope contribute at least to a certain level of public information and, we hope in time, debate. First, frontier controls cannot be taken in isolation. There must be broader co-operation among law enforcement agencies and prosecution authorities of the kind which the British Government fully opted into under the Schengen arrangement. There must also be extensive help with training and equipment across the wider justice and home affairs process as a whole.
Secondly, as we say in paragraph 83 of our report, external frontiers need to be half open as well as half closed. They need to be secure against criminals but open to legitimate trade and human contacts—the movement of people. Forty per cent of Russian external trade comes out through the ports of the
484
Baltic states. That means that after enlargement a substantial amount of Russian external trade will come through the EU. We were given strong evidence that eastern Poland and western Ukraine now hang together economically. We want to ensure as a matter of good relations with the western Ukraine that as Poland joins the EU useful cross-border economic activity is not choked off.
When I was in Estonia for other reasons in May, I was told with a smile by an Estonian official that Estonia intended to issue multiple-entry visas to the drivers of the Russian shunters who moved goods trains backwards and forwards across the border several times a day. Such activity must continue. The Transylvanian issue between Hungary and Romania is also important and I understand that my noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond will address it later.
Kaliningrad, which during the study we covered only at the margins, will become an enclave after enlargement within the EU. Two weeks ago when I was at a conference in Moscow the Kaliningrad issue came up sharply as being important and sensitive in Russian/EU relations. In some ways it is like the Cyprus problem; everyone knows that it is going to be a problem—and perhaps an awkward problem—once the enlargement negotiations are finished, but no one wishes to address it at the moment.
Our third conclusion is that effective controls require good co-operation with those on the other side. We had impressive evidence from Finnish officials about the way in which the Finns already manage their border with Russia. Effective frontier management requires you to have excellent relations with those on the other side, in order to assist those on the other side to understand how you are managing cross-border relations. The Finns told us that they have done their best to export their expertise to Estonia and Latvia as part of a training programme.
Clearly, this means that in relation to Russia and Ukraine and, in time, Moldova and—with even greater difficulty—Belarus, there must be an extensive shared EU programme to assist in maintaining a worthwhile relationship. This is not just a Third Pillar issue but an aspect of European Union foreign policy.
The conference that I attended in Moscow was about the northern dimension of EU foreign policy and the whole Russia-EU relationship. I was struck by the extent to which the Russia-EU relationship ran all the way from questions of arms control and status to sewage management in Kaliningrad and St Petersburg. All of these issues matter a great deal to all of us in the EU and, particularly in terms of waste water treatment, to our friends in the Baltic states, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Poland and Germany.
Fourthly, there is no reason why this dossier should delay enlargement. One of the reasons why we undertook this inquiry was the real danger that anxiety among the public in Germany and Austria about opening of the border would become an obstacle to enlargement in the course of the next year. For that reason, I was extremely happy to note that in his report to the Bundestag on the Nice Summit on 19th January

485
the German Chancellor spent a good deal of time on the question of freedom of movement. He said that Germany was prepared to allow the matter to go ahead subject to a transitional period before frontier controls were entirely lifted within the European Union. He spoke about "sensible transitional arrangements" and a four to seven-year interim period in moving towards complete open frontiers within an enlarged European Union.
Some of those who attended the British-Austria seminar yesterday tell me that the Austrian representatives were also much concerned about the transitional arrangements. One trade unionist suggested that it would be fine to open the frontier once wages on the other side were the same as those in Austria, provided that emergency measures were allowed to close the frontier again if too many people came in. Clearly, there are many sensitivities here which concern the British less than those on the EU's front line, as it were.
A further major point made in the report, about which I hope the Government will say something, is the need for much more generous financial assistance to the new applicants. Dr Lehnguth of the German Ministry of the Interior said, bluntly, that "the costs are enormous". By and large, the scale of the costs has not been matched either by the bilateral assistance or the multilateral EU PHARE programme. I was interested in the Government's response from Barbara Roche. We were told that,
"A number of options are currently under discussion in EU fora, which seek to establish a strategy for financial burden-sharing in managing the EU's external frontier … It would however be the first occasion on which external assistance had been provided for a state's responsibilities for controlling its own frontiers. The Government would want to examine the implications of this for its own frontier control as well as any precedents for other areas of EU competence before adopting this solution".
I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that in his closing remarks.
That tells us that the British Government have an ambivalent attitude towards shared Community financing and that discussions are under way about which, so far as I am aware, this House—or its relevant committees—have not been informed. After all, we are talking about the rebuilding of physical frontier posts, substantial investment in information technology and training, decent salaries for those who are members of these national border controls and, if we follow the Finnish example, electronic measures to ensure that the border remains secure in between those frontier posts. Once these countries become full members of the Schengen system, Germany, Austria and, earlier, the Netherlands and Belgium will save a great deal of money on their own national frontier controls. Many of us believe it is entirely appropriate that that should be a matter for common EU funding.
We also noted the lack of co-ordination among different bilateral programmes. The United Kingdom is, happily, engaged in a number of areas: the development of liaison officers, about which I know my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond will say
486
more; and twinning programmes with ministries of the interior and judicial systems. However, we were told by witnesses that different countries had different bilateral programmes, and that on occasions they simply did not fit together. We were also told that the United States was involved in a certain amount of bilateral training programmes and those also failed to fit in with EU measures. That is another area in which we believe the British Government should act with others to ensure that there is proper provision, fully co-ordinated
As someone who has worked on matters to do with NATO, there are some comparisons to be drawn with the Partnership for Peace programme under which NATO has provided all those countries with very extensive retraining of their armed forces. When I was in the Baltic states I met several British military officers who were members of training teams in Latvia and Estonia—a substantial number of people of excellent quality who were doing first-class work. That is the kind of thing that we should now be doing in relation to the police, judicial and border services in these various countries.
We recognise that the United Kingdom faces particular problems in this regard. We have a national organisation for our Armed Forces but a local organisation for our police forces. One of the matters that I suspect my noble friend Lady Harris will want to raise is the particular budgets from which these things are paid. We were informed by the National Criminal Intelligence Service that the liaison officer network was currently paid for through a precept on police authority budgets. This seems to us as we become very much more international a great deal less appropriate than a new budget line for this very important extension of national involvement in multinational co-operation.
We welcome the British contribution. To quote the report, we were told by Inspector Borek of the Polish Police Force that,
"there are two countries to which Poland was particularly indebted: Germany and the United Kingdom, in that order".
If he was asked to name a third country it would be the United States. Therefore, Britain has been a great deal more helpful and active in this area than many others.
We were particularly impressed by the quality of the liaison officer we met in Warsaw and what we learnt about British involvement in expanding the network of liaison officers. We would very much like to hear more about further plans for that expanding network; how that fits in with existing police practice; and how the Government intend to report to Parliament on its further development.
Lastly, therefore, we ask for more open reporting on liaison officers, on the depth of British involvement in Schengen, on the evaluation missions in which British police are engaged and so on.
One of the most interesting exchanges in the inquiry was the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, and a number of policemen about precisely how closely Britain is now involved in the Schengen system, with the noble Baroness following the official

487
line that we are by and large out and the policemen operating as if we were by and large in. That may be the impression that the Government wish to give the Daily Mail and the Sun, but it would be rather more sensible if we were prepared to be a little more honest about how deeply involved we are.
There are a number of other issues that follow from this. For example, in one of our previous reports we talked about the need for the Government to consider the relationship of British airport controls, since we are part of the external frontier, and the way in which the Schengen system operates. We have border checks, but, as the recent stories about Nigerian girls coming in show, we are very much part of the EU's external frontier. The idea that we should not think about redesigning our own frontier controls so as to distinguish between the huge numbers of people who come into Britain from other parts of the EU and the smaller numbers of people who come in from outside the EU, is outdated.
British immigration policies are clearly part now of a European set of immigration problems and policies. There are wider issues here which were raised in the Government response. The Minister welcomed the Commission's paper as
"a contribution to the growing debate on the benefits and challenges of managed migration which must respond to the changes in the world and to national, economic and social interests".
Having now retired as chairman of that committee, I welcome the sub-committee now discussing and examining the current Commission proposals on a community immigration policy. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Enlargement and EU External Frontier Controls [17th Report, Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 110].—(Lord Wallace of Saltaire.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may put a brief question to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who chaired the committee. During your Lordships' previous debate on enlargement I pointed out that there is a strong and growing strand of opinion which says that enlargement is not a good thing at all and is not in the interests of the applicant countries. I mentioned this 1998 publication from the Centre for Research into Post-Communist Economies, A coming Home— or poisoned chalice? After that debate I handed the publication to the noble Lord. I subsequently received a letter from the Clerk to the Committee assuring me that the next time enlargement was discussed in your Lordships' Select Committee that this publication would be considered by it. I want to ask the noble Lord whether or not that consideration took place?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it did not fall within the bounds of my own sub-committee to discuss the broader issues. Several sub-committees of the European Committee have discussed enlargement. It is a strategic matter which this House might like to take on board. Personally, I disagreed with the
488
argument in the pamphlet. That is only a personal opinion. The noble Lord may wish to press for a debate to take the matter further.
2.12 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I begin with an apology. I must be in Richmond this evening and have to travel on the East Coast Main Line which is still not fully opened following the Selby rail crash. I may have to leave your Lordships' House before the end of the debate. I apologise in advance should that happen and assure noble Lords that I shall read very closely in Hansard the rest of the debate.
My contribution to the debate will focus mainly on the area of international organised crime and the challenges of combating it which will be faced by the new member states. I do so from a perspective I gained as a former member of the National Crime Squad Service Authority and from some of the impact I know we might suffer more locally—I chair the North Yorkshire Police Authority—should the policing of the new borders not be rigorous enough.
As the background to the report states:
"One of the fundamental elements of the Convention is the principle that the open internal borders of the Schengen zone require in compensation strictly controlled external frontiers".
Indeed, on page 10 of the minutes of evidence, Mrs Lesley Pallett, Head of the EU and International Unit, Organised and International Crime Directorate, Home Office, said:
"It is essential, for the effective fight against organised crime and illegal drugs, as well as immigration controls, that the new enlarged EU has effective frontier controls".
Police, drug control and judicial co-operation are only those elements of the acquis in which the UK wishes to participate. But the applicant states, we were told, must comply with all the requirements of the Schengen acquis. No "opt out" will be possible for them.
In his Working Document W112 for the WWR Scientific Council for Government Policy, Professor Jörg Monar, who was our specialist adviser on the inquiry, recognised the difficulties with which the applicant countries would be faced because of the need for them to integrate into the AFSJ with the incorporation of Schengen. He said:
"Because of the advanced state of development of the Schengen acquis, and its provisions on matters of justice and home affairs, where the applicant countries have particular deficits (such as external border controls) the incorporation of Schengen has added a particularly high new hurdle for the applicant countries. The second consequence, now that Schengen countries can develop their acquis further within the legal and institutional context of the EU, is that any measures they adopt, building on the incorporated Schengen acquis, become automatically part of the EU acquis. The applicant countries have to accept this extended acquis. This 'addition' to Schengen is likely to grow considerably over the next few years as the new EC and EU instruments and the ambitious objectives within the context of the ASJ, provide the Schengen countries with additional incentives to deepen their system. This, too, will add to the demands of the applicant countries".
During our inquiry, we were told that much had been achieved by the applicant countries and much help had been given to them. For example, Mrs Pallett told us of a project in Poland that is dealing with the

489
teaching of community policing and which the Dutch and British are overseeing. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the European Commission's PHARE programme has given over 100 million euros to improve and upgrade the Polish eastern border. The Commission's Twinning programme, which focuses on training the police services and border management, has also made a significant contribution to the applicant countries. But it is to the areas of police work and resources that I now wish to turn.
In his evidence to us, Mr Neil Bailey, Director of the International Policy Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, spoke of the vital role played by liaison officers, both on a bilateral and multinational front, in helping the applicant countries reach the required levels of Schengen. He referred to them as "diplomats" and the United Kingdom saw them as primarily intelligence gatherers, although this was not necessarily so in other countries. There they may be seen as "facilitators for legal process documents"—a very different concept of their work. In the UK the liaison officer's role went only as far as the point where arrests and seizures were made in this country.
I was particularly grateful for a conversation I had with a drugs liaison officer—perhaps the same one to whom my noble friend Lord Wallace referred—who made some very important points. The first was that he felt there needed to be better co-ordination of drugs strategy. Some applicant countries perhaps had not recognised until recently the importance attached to drug smuggling.
While many improvements were being made, however, there was neither sufficient funding nor knowledge to address this area adequately and governments needed to recognise that. Structures in police forces varied enormously, and were changing, but there was a great need to identify priority areas and distinguish between low level criminality and organised criminality, and adopt methodology to tackle these issues.
There may be a problem accepting intelligence-led policing, which deals with serious and organised crime, drug smuggling and money laundering, because of the perception of its "sinister overtones". This is a real problem and can be tackled only by working away in a multi-agency approach, using co-operation and sharing expertise in law enforcement matters, which will begin to give applicant countries confidence in these new systems and tools of police work.
I was told that the police have a poor image, perhaps not surprisingly understanding their past connections. They are still seen as being corrupt and ineffective, but it is to be hoped that the work being done on community policing, to which I referred earlier, will produce major change in time. Generally, the police are badly paid and that is a sure recipe for corruption. When we spoke to the Polish Minister about that, he told us that many professions were poorly paid, which I rather felt missed the point about the temptation which could be put before police officers in their unique role.
490
It was apparent that leadership at all levels of policing was vitally important. Many officers were in charge of policing under the old regimes and needed excellent training to help them move to the new order. In his working document, Professor Monar tells us that,
"Further structural problems include a shortage of experienced senior officers, due to the dismissal of officers with a questionable political past and major recruitment problems because of relatively low salaries and the better pay in private security services. In many cases effective coordination structures with other institutions involved in the fight against organised crime and money-laundering, such as the ministries of finance and the border guards, are still missing".
I shall turn now to resources. It is vital that we support our liaison officers, who are doing a quite magnificent job helping the applicants to reach their required standards. In order to do that, I shall illustrate the difficulties under which they labour. In the Minutes of Evidence, Neil Bailey tells us that,
"If the number of member states goes up to 20, the cost of Europol will need to go up because Europol will need to be bigger so it will cost us more. At the same time, because there are more countries contributing, our actual cash contribution may not be that much greater. We may find that we are having increasing requests to assist in the applicant countries during the build-up to accession and the difficulty with that is, although on the one hand the EU will give us the money back to send people to help, the problem for me is that if I send two officers to one of the applicant countries for six months I have two empty desks back in London and work which I should be doing I cannot do".
Currently, 17 NCIS liaison officers are drawn from the police service and HM Customs and Excise, with more posts approved if funding can be found. At present, NCIS is funded principally through levies placed on local police authorities and other partner agencies, although I know that the Government have plans to change this. At times it is difficult for local police authorities to see the benefit derived from funding such complex work, but an illustration of this would be that, during the past financial year, the NCIS drugs liaison officer network contributed to the seizure of drugs with an estimated street value of £270 million. Some 443 people were arrested; 88 major disruptions of criminal organisations took place; and 43 controlled deliveries of drugs were requested or offered by UK law enforcement officers through the DLO network. Furthermore, during 1999–2000, the DLO network was responsible for 32.1 per cent of arrests attributable to the organisation. That is an excellent record which I hope illustrates the effectiveness of the liaison officers' work. It is not difficult to imagine what impact those drugs and criminals would have had on the streets of our local cities, towns and villages had they not been apprehended through the intelligence system.
How much harder it will be for the applicant countries to come up to this level of performance. So I believe that we must have a commitment to employ, train and equip their police to work co-operatively with other border agencies, border guards and customs. As we have heard, massive funding is still required to upgrade eastern borders.
If we have not provided good training, equipment and a commitment to high standards, as well as consistency in applications and procedures to comply

491
with the EU acquis, we can expect to see real problems in the future. We know that applicant countries are eager to join the EU, but in order to do so smoothly and with confidence they will also need our support. They will need it in the areas of cross-border surveillance operations, hot pursuit, better data protection systems, better judicial and legislative systems, better crime management and very much more training in multi-agency working.
I shall end on a final quotation, again from Neil Bailey. He stated that:
"There is a willingness to do it because in the applicant countries there is a great enthusiasm for joining the EU, not just at the political level but we notice it at the level we deal with, the law enforcement level. There is a tremendous enthusiasm. Once you actually explain to people the processes that we go through, they can see the benefits and they go back enthused with the idea. The problem for them is that they have to have resources to implement the idea and that is sometimes more difficult".
2.25 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Wallace on what he said in opening up the real dimension of this issue.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who made an earlier contribution, is no longer in his place. In her closing remarks my noble friend Lady Harris spoke of the great enthusiasm of people in eastern Europe for enlargement and of the way in which, despite enormous economic difficulties and challenges—and, in many cases, real economic cost—these people are in no way confused by the choice between the lack of democracy that they had previously and the chance fully to grasp and solidify the opportunity that they now have. To greet the enthusiasm and the genuine determination of the peoples of eastern Europe to join a European Union of not only frontiers but of values by talking about a "poisoned chalice", is not only ungenerous but unwise.
It is very important that our attitude towards applicant states in dealing, for example, with the problem of frontiers, should be as generous as possible. We should show a real and warm welcome to the applicant states in the enlargement of the European Union.
In that regard, I have been struck on a number of occasions, both while travelling in eastern and central Europe and on talking to representatives of the applicant states' governments in the United Kingdom, by the very clear recognition that they all offer; that is, that in this regard Her Majesty's Government have been absolutely consistent in their support for enlargement. Of all the current member states, their clear advocacy and steadfastness on this issue is very much appreciated, understood and welcomed by the applicant states. It is important that we do not see eastern and central Europe as a poisoned chalice, but as a tremendous obligation and as an opportunity, both for them and for us.
The dimensions of what we are talking about are dramatically expressed in the first paragraph of the introductory chapter to the report:
492
"With the next enlargement the European Union's external frontiers will move to the east. The Central and Eastern European candidate countries will take over tasks hitherto mainly fulfilled by Germany and Austria, becoming responsible for controlling thousands of miles of the EU's new land frontiers … They will also become responsible for controlling long sea frontiers, in the Baltic and the Black Sea".
I shall say something about that in a moment.
"The new Member States will thus assume a central role in securing the frontiers of the European Union's 'area of freedom, security and justice'—
a union of values, not only of frontiers—
"especially as regards its protection against illegal immigration and international organised crime".
The Government's response to paragraph 75 of the report is very important. It suggests, quite rightly in my view, that some of the problems are not speculative but all too real. It states:
"There are currently several points of challenge en route into the EU through Central and Eastern Europe. When the candidate countries join the EU, there will effectively be only one: the frontier control into the candidate country itself".
That is the extent of the challenge involved. That is why it is so important, when we come to the resources being made available, that we understand the danger of a paucity of response on our side.
We are looking at an extraordinary venture of European architecture; that is, the building of the new European home. That phrase came, of course, from Mr Gorbachev.
It is important to understand what is really involved here. We have the construction, in effect, of Schengen standard external frontiers, which are the absolutely necessary quid pro quo of the internal openness of the frontiers of the European Union. So the fundamental architecture must be of sophisticated, strong and dependable external frontiers—not frontiers of a fortress, but frontiers that are dependable in terms of drugs, human trafficking and the other issues—so that we may have the internal exchange within the European Union that is of such enormous importance to the motor of all our economies.
It is a huge economic challenge for the applicant states to match the technology—if you like, the state of the art—of Schengen-type external controls. I hope that I have read the figures in the report correctly, but I understand that under the PHARE programme Poland will receive something like 15 million to 20 million euros to help it during this transitional period. The Poles themselves calculate the actual cost to be somewhere between 400 million and 500 million euros. So the actual amount of assistance, certainly on a multi-lateral basis, is really tiny.
For good reasons, the report focuses on the Luxembourg Six. It does not really say much about the later wave of applicant countries. I should declare an interest here in that I am a member of the so-called "high level group" helping with some of the transitional problems in Romania, which is jointly chaired by the Romanian Prime Minister and my noble friend Lady Nicholson. Three days ago in the Palace of Westminster we enjoyed a visit from the present Foreign Minister of Romania, Mircea

493
Geoana. During a meeting that took place upstairs, which I thought was quite dramatic in its own way, he said that Romania's eastern border—and, therefore, second wave—will be the longest with the East from the European Union after Finland. It is in fact longer than Poland's: it is 1,200 kilometres in length and will include the substantial coastline of the Black Sea.
We have talked a little about the problems of Poland in dealing with its external frontier. Let us just imagine what the problem will be for Romania. It is important to start now rather than later in terms of helping Romania. I do not mean that we should revert to the primitive borders that descended across Europe comprising barbed wire, watch towers and all the rest of the ghastly paraphernalia; we are talking about a quite different technology of frontier maintenance under Schengen with very high levels of information technology, mobile units, risk profiling, testing, and so on, all of which costs a great deal of money.
It is a central challenge to the European Union in this enlargement process that we do not in any way replace one iron curtain with another. We must not, because of poverty of resource, replace all the barbed wire, the army patrols and the rest of the dreary business with something that is comparable. It will be apparent to your Lordships that, were we to do so, the affront to Russia would be very great. We have only to bear in mind the oncoming problem of Kaliningrad. I believe that one of the most ghastly nightmares that could be realised in Europe is if Kaliningrad became an enclave surrounded, ironically, by the paraphernalia of a kind of iron curtain defence.
At the earliest point and with considerable diplomacy and sophistication, it is very important for us to ensure that the borders of Kaliningrad with the enlarged European Union really function for Kaliningrad, for Russia and for ourselves. That will be no small challenge because, as your Lordships will be aware, Kaliningrad at the present time is a major centre of drugs, HIV infection and many other major problems.
As I say, we have a major challenge on our hands. It has been rightly noticed and noted in this debate that the quality of our bilateral support to a number of the applicant states on the borders is of a very high order and of a very high human order. Time and time again mention has been made of the sheer quality of the officers and advisers. However, we have only just begun. We seek assurances from the Minister that not only will the quality of British bilateral aid be maintained but that it will be increased; that it will be extended beyond the first wave countries to the second wave countries; and that the United Kingdom will do its very best in the councils of the European Union to ensure that the response of the European Union is coordinated and generous and matches the historic challenge that we have, not in defending ourselves against a poisoned chalice but in welcoming the historic opportunity of the opening of Europe.
2.36 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the debate gives us an opportunity not only to examine the matters relating to enlargement but also to thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his chairmanship of Sub-Committee F. He has done sterling work, for which we are grateful. I am also delighted that my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond is to be the new chairman. As one who shares working accommodation with her, I know that she is totally committed to the work of the committee. I certainly wish her well.
The speakers' list clearly demonstrates my party's connection with, and commitment to, the wider Europe. It would have been interesting to hear the views of many Eurosceptics, who unfortunately are not present. Of course I welcome the noble Lord opposite. I have great respect for the views he expounds from time to time which give us an opportunity to produce even better reports.
I had the privilege to serve on Sub-Committee F which was responsible for the production of the report on enlargement. Unlike some previous reports, there was a consensus among members on the conclusions we reached. This is very much a non-controversial report and irrespective of the views we hold about Europe, the report highlights the issues we need to face in the light of the enlargement which will entail new land borders stretching to thousands of miles on the eastern front.
We were delighted with our visit to Warsaw. It gave us the opportunity to discuss key areas of concern with the authorities there. We were impressed with the way the witnesses conducted themselves. I also endorse our thanks to the ambassador and staff at the British Embassy. Perhaps the Minister could convey to his counterparts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office our thanks for the enormous help that we received from our Embassy staff there.
There is no doubt that there is an overwhelming political commitment on the part of Ministers in the Polish Government to accession. This is further supplemented by the efforts being made by officers, for example, the border guards or the police, to meet the requirements of the justice and home affairs acquis.
Of course, many of our views on border controls are coloured by the entry of asylum seekers in EU member states. However, we should never underestimate the efforts being made in upgrading border control facilities, recruiting staff and equipping them properly. All those matters have serious resource implications, ably set out by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond and other noble friends. But one came back with the feeling that the controls are becoming effective. There is evidence that Poland has been partially successful in combating illegal immigration. Professor Okolski of the Institute of Social Studies in Warsaw noted that the numbers of apprehended illegal migrants transiting through Poland had fallen from 30,000 in 1994 to around 5,000 in 1999. The number being readmitted from the European Union had also fallen to around 1,000 in 1999. He argued that organised traffickers had realised that the most

495
profitable and efficient way of trafficking and smuggling migrants is no longer by land but by sea. As frequent press publicity has demonstrated, Italy is now a preferred target.
The action taken by Poland clearly demonstrates a need for corresponding effort from the European Union. We welcome the Prime Minister's visit to Warsaw as a welcome sign of his personal commitment and the commitment of our country towards enlargement, but it has to be backed up by a practical commitment to providing extensive and well co-ordinated assistance to the candidate states.
Can the Minister spell out how that is being done following the Prime Minister's visit to Warsaw? I suspect that there is scope for considerable improvement. The political commitment of European Union leaders needs to be visible and unambiguous to maintain support for all EU membership within the candidate states. What is more, the EU should more clearly commit itself to a timetable for enlargement. I shall come to that point later.
Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 77 of the report:
"Enlargement demands efforts on both side. In adopting the EU acquis the candidate countries are undertaking comprehensive and often painful reform. The Union and its political leaders must be equally committed and vigorous in helping the candidates to complete this reform—in giving them moral as well as practical support. In the candidate states the prospect of early enlargement is vital if the process of reform is to be kept up, and public support for accession maintained—fears over frontier security should not be made to supply a pretext for delay. The precise timetable for enlargement is beyond the scope of this report. However, the most advanced candidate countries have set themselves a target of 1 January 2003. It may not be possible to meet this target; but if so, it is at least incumbent on the EU to offer a clearer indication of the likely timetable than it has done hitherto".
It would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of the timetable. Would he confirm that it is still the intention of the European Council that the first wave of candidates might be able to take part in the 2004 European Parliament elections?
The area which concerned us most during our visit to Warsaw was that aid was poorly co-ordinated. It was not getting to some areas and was duplicated in others. We have no doubt that there is scope for better co-ordination, possibly through the Commission. Can the Minister elaborate on what is being done towards co-ordinating resource delivery through a single agency?
I support what my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond said. This is the first enlargement since the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into the treaties. To put it differently, it is the first time that Schengen membership has been part and parcel of EU membership rather than being a separate club. Would the Minister agree that that is likely to create the possibility of delaying enlargement because all new member states are required to adopt the acquis in full as a prerequisition to membership? If that is so, should it not be avoided at all costs? Border controls must not, and should not, be used as a pretext for delaying enlargement. However, there is assurance in the readiness of the member states to continue to apply the
496
traditional Schengen procedures—admitting new members but without lifting internal border controls until the existing members are satisfied that Schengen standards are being met. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what standard of border controls will be required as a pre-condition of EU as opposed to full Schengen membership.
At present the definition is too vague. The Government described it as,
"generally severe and effectively managed borders".
That generalisation is not good enough. The Schengen member states must provide a more precise definition. Will the Minister urge them to make their requirements as specific as possible and to do so before the end of this year?
Your Lordships may wish to read the evidence of Mr Adrian Fortescue, the European Commission's Director-General for Justice and Home Affairs. He has expressed concern that, for the first time, certain important Ministers who had not been closely involved in past enlargement negotiations are playing a big part. Is there a danger that justice and home affairs in general could be a factor for delay? His answer is yes.
What part is our Home Secretary playing? There is a contradiction between what Home Office and Foreign Office officials said in their evidence to the committee. I need not elaborate, except to refer your Lordships to paragraphs 52 and 54 of our report. I draw attention to the Home Secretary's comments in the other place on 1st February. He said:
"The Schengen countries that currently maintain a border with eastern Europe are all absolutely clear that they have to maintain border controls … for many years to come.
Although we are not formally a member of the Schengen area, we take part in Schengen. One of the reasons that I want to do so is to stiffen the resolve of my fellow Interior Ministers".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/01; col. 485.]
The Home Office cannot have its cake and eat it. Is that a helpful role for the Home Office to play? Jack Straw refers to countries currently maintaining borders with Eastern Europe. That means Germany, Austria and possibly Italy. It is obvious that they have particular and legitimate anxieties, but although the EU must take account of their concerns, it is by no means clear that they are well founded. The Germans, for example, have well known concerns about free movement rights for workers and fear an influx of Polish and other cheap Eastern European labour after enlargement. There is no evidence that that will happen, particularly in the light the EU's earlier experience of enlargement. Given the insistence of the Home Office that the UK must preserve its autonomous border control rather than fully joining the Schengen area, on what basis does the Home Secretary want to "stiffen the resolve" of Schengen members? If the Government are committed to retaining autonomous UK frontier controls, they should not seek to influence the frontier policy of Schengen states. If they accept that the security of UK frontiers depends on that of Schengen frontiers, why is the UK not a full member?

497
I trust that EU member states will not constitute themselves into a rich man's club, expecting others to join the enlargement process on their terms. Some of the new countries are still trying to establish economic stability. They will need help, not a diktat from member states.
Border control is closely associated with asylum seekers—a subject that arouses considerable emotion whenever we debate it. The fear and xenophobia reflected at the highest level in the Tory Party should not influence Jack Straw in taking a decision that is good for us, good for Europe and good for those who wish to join us. I want my country—Britain—to be at the forefront of the debate on enlargement.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as this fascinating debate has been monopolised so far by the Liberal Democrats, it might be healthy to have an alternative voice, although I assure them that mine will not be a very disputatious one. It is customary for speakers to say how wonderful our reports from European committees are, but I really feel that this is one of the most illuminating reports to have appeared from our European sub-committees in recent months, or even years. It has opened more windows for me into the enormous complexities and importance of the issues than any other that has emerged recently. Its merit is widely recognised outside this House. The relevant committee in another place paid tribute to the work of our committee, which has looked so deeply into the issues.
Therefore, I consider that, in recognising the contribution that the report makes, one should congratulate rather than criticise—at least, to begin with—and I congratulate its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Two lessons come blasting out of the report. But the stronger of the two is the one about which we deserve to be reminded. It is that freedom of movement between countries is splendid; we all enjoy it and welcome it. It seems to make complete sense and logic. However, it has a price. Quite simply, borders which are open to allow trade, free movement, tourism, and so on, inevitably are open not only for the good but also for the bad.
It is inevitable that the more open that we seek to make the traditional borders between nations in Europe, the more necessary it will be—this is where a more illiberal note comes in—to have controls to replace border controls. It will be necessary to have more bureaucracy, organisation, enforcement, mobile units, checking and documentation behind borders in order to pay for the freedom that one has at the border itself.
I believe that the situation in relation to borders is a little like the Internet. With the Internet we have a fantastic, liberating instrument which gives the world access to information. Of course, it comes with great benefits but also with great dangers. Like the Internet, the open border can be used for licit and illicit
498
purposes, for more trade but also for legal and illegal immigration and movement, human trafficking, criminal arrangements and the type of issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, referred in her fascinating contribution. Those represent the dark side of open borders. Nothing comes without a price.
With regard to Schengen and the question of the Schengen acquis—now the EU acquis—being applied to the applicant states—the lively democracies of central and eastern Europe—that price is still higher. The prices, or hurdles, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, described them, are very high indeed. One quality of the report is that it identifies those problems so candidly and frankly in its analysis.
One has only to start reading the report to discover on page 6 that the possibility of, or rather the need—indeed, the requirement—to move the frontiers of the European Union from the west side to the eastern side of the applicant states raises the prospect:
"that they will cut through long existing cross-frontier economic, ethnic and political links. Local and regional markets in eastern border areas, relations of ethnic minorities on one side of the frontier with their ethnic homeland on the other side, and political relations with neighbouring non-EU Member [countries] could be affected".
With regard to the trafficking of human beings, the report goes on to say that,
"a reflection group set up by the European Commission … suggested that 'tighter border controls"—
that is, on the new, eastern frontiers—
"will only drive up the price, and thus the profits, of this criminal trade'".
Therefore, for the Schengen countries, undoubtedly that is a very high hurdle indeed.
There are possibilities that frontiers that have been relatively permeable, even in the darkest days of the Cold War and, indeed, even for centuries back, where people went to and fro easily and did their trade, will now not only be created in a new sense—I fully take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in relation to this—but will also imply the need for visas. Visas will be required in areas where for hundreds of years farmers have been free almost to walk across and see their relatives. These are dangerous areas where new triggers could be pulled to inflame local feelings in south-east and eastern Europe and near-central Asia. We need to watch them carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly urged us not to fall into the easy phraseology that is rightly referred to in the report. That involves the prospect of replacing the old iron curtain with a new Schengen curtain. That may not happen but there will certainly be a wall of some kind; it may be an electronic or a virtual wall, and it may not have the familiar barbed wire and watchtowers that we associated with frontiers of the past. There will be an extensive and high-technology arrangement, which will create a barrier as surely as any barrier that existed during the Cold War and before it. There will need to be a barrier. If the internal border controls are to be removed, the internal politics of the EU will create enormous pressures for such a barrier. It will be expensive and there will be

499
uncertainties. As the report fairly points out, one does not know where the borders of Europe will finally settle.
I hope that there will not be a delay in enlargement as a result of the proposal. I listened closely to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in that context. Enormous problems could be created.
What are the consequences of saying that the Schengen acquis is part of the EU acquis and that the acquis communautaire must be accepted with, I hope, sensible—transition—arrangements—the—report mentions this—to move the frontiers from the internal western side to the external eastern side? The first consequence—the report is very helpful in making us all face this—is that old controls will be replaced by new controls. The new controls will be extremely extensive and they will range behind borders and involve interference with freedom of movement not across frontiers but down high streets and in towns and villages. Documentation and mobile units will be required.
That brings us to the role of documentation in the form of identity cards. What about them? I am not sure whether the report touched on that issue, but the successor report in the other place clearly faced up to it. The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee in the other place:
"If you wanted to go down the Schengen road—which, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not, and neither does the Government— and lift border controls, then you would have to have a strong system of internal controls and that would lead you, inevitably. into a system of compulsory identification cards".
That is a difficult issue; it is not clear cut on one side or the other. I am not sure where noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand on that issue, which lies near the heart of the matter. Almost all of the relevant countries have identity cards and documentation of some kind. The system will have to be strengthened, made electronic, mobilised and placed under the general system of the Schengen information system, which will become—it already is—an enormous central depot of information and control. The liberally minded among us should ask how that system is supposed to be accountable to our democratic legislatures. It will have enormous power over the movement of almost everybody in the movement-free zone in the new electronic walls of Schengen.
My view is that the internal demands—that if western barriers are to be reduced, eastern barriers must be built up—are carried a little too far. There appears to be a degree of exaggeration about the terrors that are associated with immigration from the east. Many people have the old-fashioned view that Poland is teeming with people who want to come west, but that view is completely out of date. Poland is a dynamic modern economy. If anything, just as British workers ship off to Ireland to do the work for which there are no workers in that country, I suspect that there will be movements from Germany back into Poland because people will go to the new, dynamic and
500
reasonably free economies that have not been subjected to the full glories and restrictions of many western European economies.
The truth is that an attempt to build up this great new electronic wall is not going to succeed—but I may be wrong. The new Europe has no eastern frontier. Ideology tried to impose one for 70 years, but it collapsed. The attempt to build a new wall, I believe, will fail, as walls usually do. Europe, in this sense, is an idea—a very powerful idea— but it is never a single-state identity in the united states USA sense, nor is it a superpower; and it is never going to be complete. There is not a final arrangement for Europe, as you often hear some people saying. It is going, I hope, to be an ever-open and expanding entity.
I like, and treasure, the free movement.It is very enjoyable for us western Europeans, but I fear its replacement, especially if that means a lot more documentation and especially if vast electronic walls have to go up to calm the fears of the existing members of the European Union. Like so many other things about the great European. Union, they are excellent up to a point but if pushed too far and with too much dedication and insistence, they achieve the very opposite of what is intended.
3.1 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful, as have been all other speakers, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for instigating this debate this afternoon. The scrutiny committee's excellent report on EU enlargement is a testament and tribute to the noble Lord's interest in and commitment to this area. It is a very well-informed document, well researched and well supported. The kind words that have described it during the debate have been not just well meant but absolutely accurate.
This has been a Liberal debate and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, added to it with his interesting contribution. Certainly I have learnt a lot through being involved in this. The Government are also very grateful to the committee for its expert assessment of the issues facing the EU and the candidate countries in the run-up to enlargement. Certainly their views have helped to inform our thinking, and we hope that a constructive dialogue with Parliament will continue, as I am sure it will, under the careful stewardship of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. Her contribution this afternoon was ample testimony to what we can earnestly and honestly expect from her.
The Government are committed to a swift and successful enlargement of the European Union. This will remove unnatural divisions in Europe and help to ensure the future peace, prosperity and strength of the EU, the candidate countries and the wider Europe. We are pleased that the Nice Council and the Swedish presidency have confirmed the political priority that they attach to early enlargement.
We have set ambitious targets, but they are realistic. With efforts on both sides, there is no reason why the targets should not be achieved. Perhaps I may say to

501
the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that it is by target setting that we can focus minds. We are working hard, along with the presidency, to ensure that the present position on both the full movement of persons and on home affairs will be completed for the most advanced candidates by the end of this year. Achieving this goal will, in our view, demonstrate a major advance in the process of the negotiations.
As the report rightly identifies, both chapters raise some difficult and no doubt sensitive issues for the accession process. However, may I state again that the Government are committed, as ever, to resolving those. One of the report's main interests was the implications for enlargement of inclusion for the first time of the Schengen arrangements in the EU acquis. Implementing a Schengen-based system for the candidate countries is, as everyone has said, a massive task with significant resource implications. The UK and the EU both recognise that and, in response, EU financial assistance to the candidates specifically for JHA issues—especially through the PHARE programme—now stands at 130.7 million euro for 2000, which represents a 400 per cent increase over the last three years. That is a very significant increase in support.
But the process by which the Schengen acquis is implemented also recognises the scope of the task. The EU does not expect full-implementation on day one. Instead, we expect the candidates to show that they can provide an effective standard of border control by the time they accede to the EU.
There will then be a period of further implementation, and evaluation, before internal borders with other member states are removed, during which time they will have acquired access to the tools of Schengen co-operation, most notably the Schengen Information System—the SIS.
We should be clear that the time taken to become full members of Schengen would not affect the candidates' rights of free movement. The two are quite separate. Accession countries that have not yet passed through the second phase of Schengen implementation could operate dual frontier controls in the same way as we do.
The report was concerned also that the EU had not specifically defined the minimum standards that it would expect to see on day one of accession, and that the candidates were confused, perhaps, about the standards that they were expected to meet. I am pleased to say that that position has now moved on: consultation with the candidates has advanced considerably in the past six months. The Government will press for that dialogue to continue, most immediately in the debate at the JHA Council on 16th March.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, nevertheless, will the Minister acknowledge, particularly when we look towards the second wave of candidates, that the amount of resources available on a multilateral level within the European Union and the PHARE
502
programme are really completely inadequate to meet the task that is required? The real financial burden of doing this will be very difficult. Therefore, will he assure the House that the Government will use every opportunity to ensure that the priority of that is understood by other members of the European Union?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the priority is understood. Certainly it is understood by our Government. No doubt that is an issue which will be examined most closely in the various discussions and meetings which will need to take place. It would be negligent if we did not do that and the Government are of course aware of that issue.
As I said, debates will continue at the JHA Council on 16th March—a week today—when the EU will explore with the candidates ways to increase practical co-operation.
We also recognise the need to ensure that EU enlargement does not create fresh divisions between new member states and their neighbours who will remain outside the EU. Some very sensible observations were made on that particular set of issues.
The Government are thinking carefully about the consequences of EU enlargement for the countries further east, and we have encouraged the Commission and candidate countries to take into account views of the EU's new neighbours. And by furthering cooperation between the EU and Balkan countries following the Prime Minister's initiative on combating people smuggling, we shall further extend the area of freedom, security and justice.
It is important to recognise that there will be a new relationship between new member states and their eastern neighbours. That is inevitable. But that does not mean that genuine travellers should be in any way disadvantaged. There are a range of ways to deal with the situation. The Schengen acquis recognises the existence of routine frontier traffic and regular travellers, for example.
But while the Government consider that we should be sensitive to the implications of enlargement for those outside the EU, we should not over-react to the situation. That is a relationship in which adjustments will be made on both sides. For example, last year, Poland introduced a visa regime for citizens of Belarus and, from discussions with the Polish authorities, we know that the implementation of that regime has not caused major problems, which we find very encouraging.
A number of points and questions were put to me during the debate and I shall try to deal with some of the issues. Border control was at the heart of those observations. On a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the UK supports the efforts of the EU to develop close partnerships with the countries of eastern Europe. We believe that strengthening border management, administration and co-operation in the fight against organised crime is an important element in that co-operative relationship. The EU and its member states have

503
contributed to the improvement of border administration across the region. We welcome the EU's recent allocation of an extra 3.9 million euro to strengthen border management in the Ukraine and in Moldova.
A number of observations were made about resources. A number of options are currently under discussion within the EU fora generally to establish a strategy for financial burden-sharing in managing the EU' s external frontier. The Government do not view the fact that those have yet to bear fruit as a lack of commitment to enlargement. However, it would be the first occasion on which external assistance has been provided in relation to a state's responsibilities for controlling its own frontiers. The Government want to examine the implication of all that in relation to their own frontier controls, as well as any precedence for other areas of EU competence, before adopting some of the solutions that apparently have been canvassed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, drew attention to the issue of illegal immigration. As a government, our concern is to ensure that EU enlargement does not adversely affect the current situation within the EU. The assessment that eastern enlargement, without improvements in border controls, will exacerbate illegal immigration, trafficking in people and drugs and organised crime is based upon close examination by technical experts. Currently, there are several points of challenge on routes into the EU through central and eastern Europe. When candidate countries join the EU effectively there will be only one: the frontier control into the candidate country itself.
In many of the countries border demarcation, which will form the new EU border, has yet to be defined. In some candidate countries, road and rail crossings are unstaffed and the only controls in force are at the main airports. There is evidence to suggest that some of the candidate countries do not yet have the expertise or the resources to patrol borders in order to provide an effective control. That aspect of enlargement must be carefully monitored. Several noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, rightly drew attention to that. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred in particular to liaison officers.
It is worth saying that in addition to our immigration liaison officers in the Balkans, our key agencies, including the police, Prison Service, NCIS, NCS and other NGOs, are involved across all the applicant countries. We have drug liaison officers in Warsaw, Budapest, Sofia and Bucharest and we shall consider posting further liaison officers as the need arises and as enlargement and the difficulties and problems of enlargement become more apparent.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, quite rightly raised the costs of SIS participation. That has a cost implication, but it needs to be considered against the broader picture of police funding. In terms of Schengen, we believe that it represents a valuable investment in the fight against cross-border crime. The Home Office has appointed a programme manager, tasked to deliver by the end of May a definition of the programme, its organisational structure, a timetable
504
for delivery and an assessment of the costs. The programme may well be composed of a number of individual projects with their own start and finish times.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about target dates for enlargement. As I said earlier, we believe that target dates galvanise negotiations and that the time is fast approaching for the EU to concentrate minds by setting a target date for the conclusion of negotiations with those countries that are ready for membership.
It is a matter for debate as to whether the Gothenburg Council would be the right time to do so and that will depend on a number of factors, including, I would argue, progress in negotiations between then and now.
Perhaps more provocatively, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the comments made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about a stiffening of resolve on some of the border matters. It is right that my right honourable friend made that observation. This is a serious issue and hard considerations must be taken up and given proper examination. And yes, sometimes there will have to be a stiffening of resolve. There is nothing wrong in saying that and being plain about our intentions from the outset.
I said that the committee's inquiry feeds into a vitally important debate on EU enlargement which will no doubt continue throughout this year. I hope that today's debate will not be our last opportunity to discuss the issues raised and I welcome the committee's report as a contribution to that debate.
The debate presents an opportunity for me to reflect on the views of the House and the importance of the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, during his excellent chairmanship of Sub-Committee F. As he now steps away from that role, we are eternally grateful to him for the quality of debate which his expert knowledge has provided. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his most valuable contribution. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, has left the Chamber, but we look forward to her continued contribution as chair of that committee.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The subject deserves a fuller House than we were able to achieve on a Friday afternoon. I want to underline everything the Minister said about the issue being an important one to which we must return on a number of occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned identity cards. They were considered in one of our previous inquiries. I well remember his noble friend Lord Pilkington becoming convinced during the inquiry that Britain should opt in entirely to the Schengen arrangement and that we should also adopt identity cards. I suspect that that is the direction in which we shall find ourselves going. We are of course half way towards having identity cards in this country. I have

505
my identity card with me; it is my driving licence. Indeed, Northern Ireland also has non-driving licences as identity cards.
The issue of frontier controls raises questions about the relationship between an enlarged EU and its new near neighbours. Other sub-committees of the House's EU Committee will deal with that. The problem of what happens if there is a gap between rich and poor at the border which sucks in crime, illegal labour and so forth is part of the reason an EU strategy towards Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya is a very important part of dealing with the issue of immigration.
506
I must not delay the House—it is time for everyone to go home. I simply ask the Minister to consider the expansion of the liaison officer network. It is an interesting and important departure in policing practices and in the practice of the Home Office. I suggest that as the Prime Minister has committed us to a further enlargement in respect of which there are major budgetary implications, it might be appropriate after the election to have a Home Office consultative paper on the subject.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past three o'clock.

  S.P. Hinduja: Application for Naturalisation
  S.P. Hinduja: Application for Naturalisation
  Afghanistan: Export Licences
  Afghanistan: Export Licences
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Greater Manchester Police Force
  Greater Manchester Police Force
  Asylum Seekers: Reasons for Non-compliance
  Asylum Seekers: Reasons for Non-compliance
  Mounted Police Units
  Mounted Police Units
  Authorised Encampments: Police Advice
  Authorised Encampments: Police Advice
  Special Constables
  Special Constables
  ukonline.gov.uk: Per-session Cookies
  ukonline.gov.uk: Per-session Cookies
  Warrior Armoured Vehicle
  Warrior Armoured Vehicle
  Armed Services: Public Events
  Armed Services: Public Events
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Wild Deer
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Wild Deer
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Farmed Deer
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Farmed Deer
  Bovine Tuberculosis: Survey of Badger Carcasses
  Bovine Tuberculosis: Survey of Badger Carcasses