Sitting of 1 May 2001

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

  Anti-Semitism (Middle East)
  Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): What recent representations he has made to Governments in the middle east about anti-Semitism. [158607]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): We deplore anti-Semitism, as we deplore racism and xenophobia wherever they arise, and we condemn any incitement to hatred and violence. We have consistently called on all parties in the middle east to do everything possible to desist from such incitement and to curb extremism.
  Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend condemn categorically the well-documented anti-Semitism that is emanating from the middle east? Specifically, will he condemn the article that appeared in the Egyptian state newspaper Al Ahram in November 2000? The article repeated the blood libel and stated that Arab children had been abducted by Jews who wanted to use their blood for baking Passover matzo. Will he also condemn Syria for the statements that appeared in Tishreen, the state-owned press, in January this year? The report condemned Zionists for trying
  "to suffocate the voice of … David Irving, who proved the holocaust to be an illusion, the product of the Zionist imagination."
  Does my hon. Friend agree that anti-Semitism in the Arab world, as elsewhere, is a barrier to achieving true justice for Palestinians and Israelis? Will he also condemn its ugly manifestations in this country, which include the attack on the Chief Rabbi and his wife as they made their way to celebrations of Israel's independence day last week?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes some very good points. The point about racism that should always be borne in mind is that, in any form, it disfigures those who are responsible for it more than those against whom it is directed. In respect of the attacks that she mentioned, which we all deplore, it should also be borne in mind that anybody who uses the language of racism must assume that an audience is listening to what he or she is saying or writing and that that audience is subject to incitement.
  732
  Such people therefore bear a heavy responsibility. I repeat my initial statement: we condemn anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia in all their forms.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: As both the Arabs and the Jews are Semitic races, will the Minister try to persuade the Secretary of State that it would be more than usually fatuous of him to send a racist message to either of them, or even to pontificate to them about their national diet?
  Mr. Wilson: I fear that we have just heard yet another bad example of the views of a senior member of the Tory party. The hon. Gentleman makes an unhelpful contribution. I would have thought that every hon. Member would agree that this a serious subject. I am not interested in dealing with semantics; I am being asked to speak about anti-Semitism. Let me make it clear again, without equivocation or any play upon words, that we condemn anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia, from whatever source they come—full stop, no fancy words and no messing about. One should condemn them and then live as one speaks.
  Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about condemning racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism wherever they arise, as anti-Semitism affects both Arabs and Jews. Will he confirm the Government's view that discrimination should be tackled wherever it exists in the middle east? Does he agree that we must register concern about water supplies in the west bank, 90 per cent. of which are reserved for Israeli settlements? That is a matter of discrimination on which it is right for us to register our concern.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We try to practise what we preach by telling both parties to the conflict in the middle east that the only way to advance is through dialogue and an end to violence. Part of that process must be an end to the abuses that are coming from all directions, against all parties. They must try to draw the line and get back to dialogue. In that way, we can go forward. The specific abuse to which he referred is, of course, wrong. The closures are wrong. We make these points, but I return to the original point: we condemn racism, prejudice and bigotry, from whatever source they come.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the Minister also condemn those who try to brand as anti-Semitic people who criticise Israeli Government policy, especially people who deplore the cruel and excessive reaction of the Israeli authorities to the unrest that their illegal settlements inevitably provoke? Peace process or no peace process, those settlements are ever expanding, and young Palestinians see their homeland rapidly shrinking. Will the Minister acknowledge that such name calling is used by some to try to silence those who wish the Jewish people well, but realise that their policies on Palestine are futile for everybody in the middle east, not least the Israelis?
  Mr. Wilson: I generally agree with the early part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, I am wary of giving a blanket endorsement to what he described as

  733
  inevitable provocation. Deeds should be judged on their merits; provocation should not be assumed to be inevitable.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right that one can criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic. It is important to maintain a distinction. No one should attribute false motives to critics in order to protect themselves against legitimate political criticism. The more such debates are debased by the sort of language that we discussed earlier, the more difficult it becomes to maintain the distinction. However, its maintenance is important in the interests of dialogue, debate and decency. One can criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic and the Arabs without being racist. One can criticise hon. Members and other politicians not on the basis of race or religion, but genuine political belief.

  Visa Applications (Dhaka)
  Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the waiting time for visa applications submitted to the British high commission in Dhaka. [158608]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am pleased to report considerable improvement in recent months. All straightforward visit visa applications are resolved within 24 hours. Applicants for visit visas that require an in-depth interview currently wait eight days.
  Current queues for settlement visa applications are: 18 weeks for right of abode and dependent relatives over 65; 26 weeks for spouses and dependent children; 18 weeks for fiancés and other settlement categories; and 38 weeks for reapplicants.
  Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also wish to put on record my thanks to Adrian Loxton, the second secretary at the British high commission in Dhaka. He and his team have worked incredibly hard to reduce waiting times for settlement applications. Will the Minister reassure me that our post in Dhaka will receive the necessary resources so that applicants do not have to wait longer than people in any other part of the world? Will he also give us some idea of when the new visa section in Sylhet will open? If he does not have the information to hand, perhaps he will write to me about it because it is important to my constituents.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments about the staff in Dhaka. I will ensure that her message, which will be much appreciated, is conveyed to them. Like me, they know of her long-standing interest in the matter.
  The number of applications in Dhaka continues to increase. It is a busy post, and the first three months of the year show an increase of 36 per cent. in new applications. To some extent, that reflects the better service that is being provided. However, we are working on providing additional staff for Dhaka to improve matters further.
  I assure my hon. Friend that plans for Sylhet are going ahead and that there is a close working relationship with Dhaka. Premises have been identified for the new office. The high commissioner has the seen the proposed
  734
  premises and we hope to establish the section later this year. We will certainly do so according to the tightest timetable. I shall write to my hon. Friend with further information.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that a new visa section will open in Sylhet? When will that happen? In the meantime, will the immigration advisory service be funded fairly for its invaluable work and advice in that part of Bangladesh?
  Mr. Wilson: The function of the office in Sylhet is to provide advice and information to visa applicants in the region. The staff will be able to accept, check and forward applications to Dhaka for decision. However, the additional cost of posting UK-based entry clearance staff to Sylhet permanently would have been unacceptable.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister reported figures that revealed that spouses and their children trying to join people here in Britain still have to wait six months in Bangladesh for an interview for entry clearance. We have made great progress in speeding up some of the queues, so will we soon be able to tell our constituents that they will not have to wait that long for their families to be reunited?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The figures that I quoted show that two of the four categories are still falling short of their targets. In the case of spouses and dependent children, the target is 13 weeks and the actual figure is 26 weeks. I assure her that every effort will be made to reach the target figure and that the necessary investment and resources will be put into ensuring that that can happen. I hope that that is a positive message. Equally, I hope that it sends a positive message that so much has been done in recent months to improve the previous position.

  NATO
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will next meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the future of NATO; and if he will make a statement. [158609]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I regularly speak by phone to Secretary of State Powell, most recently yesterday evening. We will next meet later this month at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Budapest, when I expect that we will both discuss the future of NATO and confirm our continuing confidence in it.
  Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding his telephone conversation last night, does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is growing disquiet in the United States about the relationship between the United States and Europe? Just two or three hours ago, the Washington Post and The New York Times published an article following Gerhard Schröder's statement yesterday, which included the following quote from Reimund Seidelmann:
  "There is a long tradition in German foreign policy of giving up sovereignty in order to increase, indirectly, Germany's influence over Europe … This has been the German recipe for increasing power ever since the end of World War II."

  735
  Whatever the truth of that statement, does not the Foreign Secretary accept that such disquiet exists? What can he do to allay the growing American Euroscepticism in Washington DC?
  Mr. Cook: I must confess that I got slightly lost halfway through that question about the relevance of the quotation about Germany. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a real danger of a rift between Washington and Berlin, I would have thought that that would confirm the strategy of this Government in making sure that we have respect in both places, so that we can go between them.
  I find the presumption of Conservative Members quite extraordinary, in that they claim to interpret American public opinion better than those who are elected by American public opinion. Both Secretary of State Powell and the President of the United States of America have expressed confidence in their relations with Britain and in the European security initiative. The hon. Gentleman really should stop trying to upstage the President of the United States.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity, in his exchanges with the Americans, to make the point that while many of us here recognise the United States' critical role in the leadership of NATO, its preparing, possibly unilaterally, to breach the anti-ballistic missile treaty by going ahead with the national missile defence system is not an agenda around which NATO will unite?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the issues of national missile defence and President Bush's forthcoming speech were discussed by Secretary of State Powell and me last night. I welcome President Bush's commitment to early and senior consultation with his allies. That is what we asked for and we are glad that he has agreed to it. On the question of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, we have repeatedly said to our American friends that any step that they take should be in consultation and agreement with Russia. I am, therefore, glad that President Bush will be speaking to President Putin today.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Notwithstanding that answer, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the cohesion of NATO if President Bush, as widely reported, announces later today that he proposes to depart from the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 in spite of the reservations, both public and private, of all the European members of NATO? When the Foreign Secretary next meets Colin Powell, will he impress on him that the United Kingdom, like all the other European members of NATO, is strongly committed to a multilateral nuclear non-proliferation regime, and that any action that provokes an increase in existing nuclear arsenals or that undermines the existing strategic balance should be avoided at all costs?
  Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with the last point. It is very important for us to take advantage of the change in international relations post-cold war to achieve deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. I also fully accept that such deep cuts would be of great value to us in containing nuclear proliferation. That is why I warmly welcome the passage
  736
  in the speech that President Bush will deliver tonight in which he looks forward to working with Russia to make deep cuts in offensive nuclear systems.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to an article in the Washington Post about recent views expressed in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that American Administrations have frequently said in the past that European member states of NATO should shoulder a greater burden of defence? Does he not find it somewhat curious that Opposition Members are attacking the steps that European member states are taking to make their defence contribution to NATO more effective?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right: a strong theme in the present Administration is the wish to achieve fairer burden sharing in the military responsibility of securing crisis management in Europe. That is why President Bush has said that the European security defence project will make Europe a stronger, more capable partner. I find it strange that Opposition Members, having claimed to be the people who interpret the United States for us, should oppose a measure that will help us to shoulder that fairer share of the military burden in Europe.
  Mr. Francis Maude: The Prime Minister assured President Bush at Camp David that the European army would be "anchored within NATO". The Nice agreement obviously shows that that is not true, but it would help if DSACEUR, NATO's deputy commander in Europe, were to act as chairman of the EU's Military Committee. Did the Foreign Secretary propose that, or does he agree with France's chief of defence staff, General Kelche, who has said that NATO has nothing to do with this?
  Mr. Cook: General Kelche said:
  "Europeans are not building a force independent from NATO, they are simply trying to strengthen their capability to manage crisis situations".
  I should have thought that Opposition Members, even including the right hon. Gentleman, would wish to share that objective.
  As for the Nice documents, I wish the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending that they are secret documents that we have managed to stop the Americans getting their hands on. They were widely circulated by NATO ambassadors, including the United States ambassador, and are widely available in Washington. By constantly pretending that President Bush has somehow been hoodwinked by the British Government into not reading them, the right hon. Gentleman is insulting not only the transparency of the British Government but the intelligence of President Bush.
  Mr. Maude: It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's assurances to President Bush at Camp David are proving about as reliable as his promises to the British people.
  In the light of the speech on missile defence that the President will make later today, will the Foreign Secretary now take the opportunity to make the Government's view absolutely clear? The Secretary of State for Defence said in March last year that he would look sympathetically at

  737
  requests for the upgrading of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. Will he have the Foreign Secretary's support in that, or is the Foreign Secretary too keen to curry favour with the CND types on his Back Benches, who are dogmatically opposed to such a move?
  Mr. Cook: If that is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do, it really is time that we cleared the air for a fresh start by consulting the wider public in the election.
  Of course any decision that we reach when we receive a request will be a collective decision. I fully understand the United States' concern about missile proliferation—we share that concern, and want to work with the United States against such proliferation.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Geraint Davies: What role his Department is playing in negotiations with the United States in relation to the Kyoto protocol. [158610]
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What discussions he has had with his US counterparts on implementing the Kyoto protocol. [158613]
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What recent representations he has made to the President of the United States about his position on the Kyoto agreement on climate change; and if he will make a statement. [158617]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is playing a full role in Government discussions with the United States on the Kyoto protocol. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the issue on several occasions with his American counterpart, Secretary of State Colin Powell.
  The Government are committed to tackling climate change through constructive engagement with the international community and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelt out, we continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best framework for that. We will continue to discuss with the Americans their participation in international efforts to tackle climate change during their review of climate policy in Washington, and in the run-up to the resumed international negotiations in Bonn in July.
  Mr. Davies: In 1998, the cost of weather-related insurance claims in the United States was $89 billion—more than the entire cost in the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of climate change on the United States economy—tornadoes, floods, droughts and desert expansion—clearly illustrates that the Kyoto protocol is as much about economic sustainability as environmental sustainability? Will he impress upon the new United States Administration that saving the planet and world prosperity are two sides of the same coin?
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point in stressing that sustainability, economic and environmental, is key in the long term. Doing nothing and leaving things as they are would have a negative impact. I like to be more positive. Cleaning up the environment and tackling
  738
  pollution will develop new environmental industries that will design out pollution and generate new jobs. Tackling the challenges of the environment will produce new jobs. It is a good, positive, win-win story.
  Mr. Griffiths: Can this and other European Governments be so powerless that George Bush, who bought the presidency and now wants to sell the world, can get away with murdering the environment? After Trieste, when Bush went along with Kyoto—he now repudiates it—can this Government, or any Government, trust anything that the American Administration say on any international subject?
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has highlighted the challenges that we face in ensuring that the Kyoto protocol is signed up to. On his campaign website, I noticed some scientific references to the latest international panel on climate change, spelling out the impact of climate change. There is more or less consensus among the world's best scientists that human activity has an impact and is causing global warming. It does not say on his website that that intergovernmental panel has been endorsed by the American Government. That gives us something to work with, but we should continue the conversation with the Americans to encourage them to accept that although they are part of the problem, producing 25 per cent. of CO2 emissions in the world, they can also be a major part of the solution.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the "W" in George W. Bush may stand for, he would do well to visit the WWW—the worldwide web? Will he urge him to look at the site www.kyoto-cola.org, where he would perhaps find that the only key that the world has to tackle climate change is the Kyoto protocol?
  Mr. Battle: I cannot restate often enough that we believe that the Kyoto protocol will provide the best framework. We want and intend to work with it. It is important to add that we are prepared to ratify the Kyoto protocol without the United States if necessary, and will continue to work towards its entry into force in 2002, assuming that we can get an acceptable outcome at the resumed international negotiations in Bonn in July. Pulling all the countries of the world together is an international challenge, but it is important that the developed world provides the lead by example. I am glad to say that, under this Government, the United Kingdom has been doing that. We have exceeded the target commitments that we signed up to.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What will be the implications of United States policy for our stance in future trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and with America, given that, in the short term at least, American policy of ignoring the Kyoto protocol will mean that USA industry has a competitive advantage over our own?
  Mr. Battle: Again, I would prefer to take things from where we are. The key point is to continue to engage and negotiate constructively with the Americans, saying that there is a consensus on the science and that we must find ways in which to bring about reductions in CO2 emissions internationally. We are playing our part in Britain, we are

  739
  pressing others in Europe to do so and I think that we can go further than has been suggested recently by the Americans.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the Labour party will not use Kyoto as an excuse to knock President Bush or the United States of America. We all wish to see progress in reducing carbon emissions, but we must be realistic about the fact that President Bush says that he is not about to do anything, particularly with the downturn in the US economy, that will damage jobs or industry in the United States. Will the Minister therefore use the summit in Germany this summer as an opportunity to look at fresh ways of ensuring that the whole world plays its part in reducing pollution, including India and China?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government who, I seem to recall, did not do much to introduce programmes for renewable energies or ideas for emissions trading as new and imaginative ways of hitting the target. We have not used the previous Government's argument that we can do nothing until we get the economy right—we have got the economy right and we are delivering on the environment as well. We will continue to campaign for that internationally.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: While we all share concerns over the American decision to abandon the Kyoto protocol on climate change, does the Minister consider the Deputy Prime Minister the right man to carry out sensitive discussions with the United States when the right hon. Gentleman was described at The Hague climate talks by the French Environment Minister, Dominique Voynet, as a male chauvinist pig who had lost his nerve and lost his cool? Before visiting the United States last month, the Deputy Prime Minister talked up a storm. He promised bilateral talks and even told GMTV that he would be arguing the case on Kyoto.
  While my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) met the Vice President and other senior figures last month, did the Deputy Prime Minister meet anyone in the new Administration? Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman lost his nerve again and that in the United States, on Kyoto, he achieved nothing and influenced no one? After all, is that not what happens when we send a male chauvinist pig to do a diplomat's job?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I require temperate language in this House.
  Mr. Battle: I was a little disappointed that the hon. Lady should reduce this discussion to petty personal remarks. We are talking about probably the greatest challenge of the 21st century. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister championed Kyoto and is widely respected for doing so. He was at the meeting in New York, where he strongly supported the Kyoto protocol, and he found support for Kyoto from all the other parties there. He met 35 colleagues, including representatives of the United States of America. He is
  740
  widely respected for his campaigning on this matter. There was a notable absence of such campaigning when the previous Government were running the country.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss these matters with his counterparts in the Australian Government, who I understand have stated in the past few days that Kyoto is dead because of President Bush's decision? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a question not simply of persuading the American Government to see sense, but of persuading all the countries that constitute the American bloc in the climate change conference? Although it is possible to ratify Kyoto without the support of the United States, it may not be possible to do so without the support of all the other countries in the American negotiating bloc.
  Mr. Battle: I do not accept that Kyoto is dead, which is the term that has been used. The Kyoto protocol is the culmination of 10 years of international environmental diplomacy. It is the best framework available for taking action to tackle climate change, and I do not believe that we can back out now. There is strong international support for Kyoto, as was evident at the informal ministerial meeting in New York attended by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Japan and Canada were negotiating with America, and they strongly support Kyoto.
  All the key players are coming out in support of the agreement, and Britain and the EU remain committed to its ratification by 2002. There is some time to go, and there is hard work to be done to persuade those countries that have signed up to Kyoto that it is the realistic framework and option for taking action. I am confident that we can make progress, and we are campaigning at every level to achieve that. That contrasts with the way in which Opposition Members occasionally reduce the matter to petty personal comments.

  Commonwealth Monitoring Action Group
  Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on the Commonwealth monitoring action group mission to Zimbabwe. [158612]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government of Zimbabwe continue to prevaricate on a date when they can receive the mission of Commonwealth Ministers to convey our concerns. I wrote last week to Don McKinnon, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, to stress that it was now all the more urgent that the mission should go ahead.
  Our own concerns are now even greater. The Minister of State with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), summoned the Zimbabwean high commissioner to the Foreign Office last week to protest at the war veterans' programme of intimidation and extortion against the business community, with which there is clear official connivance. The targets include businesses from half the countries of the European Union and a transit depot of EU humanitarian aid. I will be raising these attacks with my colleagues this weekend at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers.

  741
  The worsening situation in Zimbabwe was fairly expressed by the International Bar Association, which warned last week that there was a growing culture of impunity among those who carried out intimidation, and that the rule of law was now in the gravest peril.
  Mr. Brazier: For how much longer will the Government continue simply to wring their hands while Mugabe terrorises the Opposition, intimidates the courts, suppresses the press, stirs up racial hatred of the worst sort and even conspires in the murder of his own citizens? The Government supported the immediate suspension of Pakistan from the Commonwealth Council as soon as a coup took place in that country, even though the Government thus brought to power were much less unpleasant than the present Government in Zimbabwe. Why have not the Government supported Zimbabwe's immediate suspension from the Commonwealth, and economic sanctions?
  Mr. Cook: First, I reject economic sanctions. It would be a grave mistake for the Government to apply such a sanction, which would deal a very grave blow to the innocent people of Zimbabwe. They have suffered enough already under the appalling economic mismanagement of President Mugabe. I do not think that it would be wise of Britain to volunteer to allow Mugabe to make us the scapegoat for his errors.
  The hon. Gentleman must not underrate the enormous number of steps that the Government have taken already. We have imposed a complete arms embargo on Zimbabwe, halted the provision of Land Rovers to the police and cut aid to Zimbabwe by one third. All that is in complete contrast to the behaviour of the previous Conservative Government, who increased aid to Zimbabwe at the time of the Matabeleland massacres, when 10,000 people were killed.
  This Government have also withdrawn the British military advisory training team from Zimbabwe. We have raised the question of Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations, and we have received support in all of them. At last month's Question Time, I asked Conservative Members whether they could name one other organisation in the international community to which I could go to seek support. I said that I would seek that support, but I am still awaiting an answer.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The activities of the so-called war veterans, in collusion with the Government of Zimbabwe, clearly affect the whole of southern Africa as well as the country itself, because they deal a blow to investor confidence. Investment in the region is already very scarce, and will suffer further as a result. Has my right hon. Friend seen any evidence of a change of position on the part of the South African President when it comes to leaning on Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe owes South Africa substantially, both politically and in terms of moneys given for energy and other matters.
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that I saw the South African Foreign Minister yesterday. We had a full discussion on Zimbabwe. She stressed to me the words used by President Mbeke at one
  742
  of the international investment conferences, when he expressed South Africa's serious and growing concern about the situation in Zimbabwe.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right: the crisis in Zimbabwe is especially acute for the people of that country, but it is having a dramatic and serious economic effect on neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Mozambique. We are working with those countries to find out how we can together to achieve a change in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation is no longer one in which Mugabe can possibly claim that his campaign is simply against white farmers? In Binga, for example, the local government offices have been closed—as far as one can tell, because 89 per cent. of the province voted for the Movement for Democratic Change. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the public in this country realise that this is no longer a war against the commercial farms, but a war against Mugabe's own people?
  Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. In the past 10 days, more than 200 companies have been targeted by the war veterans within Zimbabwe, the majority of which, we believe, are Zimbabwean. They include a number that are part-owned by ZANU-PF, which are being invaded by the war veterans. We are not entirely clear whether it was understood that these were ZANU-PF companies, but the veterans were certainly acting against local companies and knew that they were doing so. At present, we are witnessing a concerted campaign of intimidation by President Mugabe, which is intended to silence political opposition and secure his re-election.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the time has come to take stronger action than has been considered until now? Although we require no lectures from the Conservative party, is it not clear that the President of Zimbabwe is, like all political scoundrels, using the race card in every possible way to stay in power, and that the campaign that is being waged by the thugs has his every encouragement, which should be stated clearly? That is why some of us believe that the time has come for stronger action.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right about the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe and the President's wish to find a scapegoat. The economic situation in Zimbabwe has resulted in the majority of the population being unemployed, the total absence of foreign exchange, an inability to pay for essential imports such as energy and a very real danger later this year of food shortages. In those circumstances, President Mugabe is looking for someone other than himself to blame. We would not rule out any credible step that would be responsible and would have a realistic chance of changing opinion and policies in Zimbabwe. However, we should also ensure that any step we take is clearly consistent with our message to the people of Zimbabwe: that we are on their side and that we have a common enemy in Mugabe.
  Mr. Francis Maude: I strongly agree with what the Foreign Secretary just said. It is a regime that

  743
  has declared war on its own people in a cynical attempt to remain in power. It is important that any steps that we take are clearly directed against Mugabe and the wretched henchmen who sustain him in power. Given that he has now made it clear that he is unwilling to treat with the Commonwealth mission, which is attempting to go there to talk to him, is it not absolutely clear that the time for quiet diplomacy has long gone? Is it not intolerable that at this autumn's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, Mugabe might be allowed the yet further propaganda coup that would follow from his being allowed to strut his stuff there? Is it not now urgent to take steps to begin the process of suspending his wretched regime from the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Cook: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of what I just said, but I have said it every month for the past 12 months and I have said it not only here, but in Brussels, within the Commonwealth and in New York. That has certainly not been quiet diplomacy, as the right hon. Gentleman claimed.
  On the Commonwealth, I warned when we gave our commitment to the mission last month that we would be preparing advice for the Commonwealth Heads of Government when we meet at the end of this year. That is the only body that can take a decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe continues to isolate itself by refusing to deal with the mechanisms of the Commonwealth, the Heads of Government must take that factor into account this coming autumn.
  As I said to the right hon. Gentleman at the previous Foreign Office Question Time, one of the most practical differences that we made during the past 12 months was to get Commonwealth observers into the parliamentary election. They were warmly welcomed by the Zimbabwean Opposition for inhibiting the worst excesses of Mugabe's thugs. One consequence of suspending Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth would be that we would be unable to send Commonwealth observers for the presidential elections early next year—the only person in Zimbabwe who would welcome that is President Mugabe himself.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Today is May day. In Zimbabwe, the trade unions are trying to celebrate international workers' day. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that peaceful trade union activity in Zimbabwe is subject to intimidation and threat by forces supporting the Government of President Mugabe?
  Mr. Cook: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The trade union movement is one of the areas where there is strength of criticism of President Mugabe and it has, therefore, attracted violent intimidation in recent weeks. I say to the Government of Zimbabwe, to President Mugabe and to all the other Ministers—especially the Minister of Justice—that we shall all be watching closely the trial of Morgan Tsvangirai when he appears before the court.

  Macedonia
  8.
  Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [158615]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited Macedonia last month, where I met the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. I also visited Tetevo, where I met the leaders of the Albanian parties. I raised Macedonia during my visit last week to Kosovo, where I received assurances from the leaders of all political parties of their support for the integrity of the borders of Macedonia.
  We fully support Macedonia as a multi-ethnic democracy, and we congratulate it on being the first country in the region to sign a stabilisation agreement with the European Union. However, we continue to press the Government of Macedonia further to strengthen their society by tackling the discrimination that is felt by the Albanian minority.
  The whole House will wish to deplore the recent ambush that killed eight Macedonian soldiers and to express our condolences to their families. We are determined to work with the Government of Macedonia to defeat both the terrorists and their poisonous message that Albanians and Slavs cannot live at peace in the same single state.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is it not critical that the international community does everything that it can to prevent the importation of terrorism and instability to Macedonia? To that end, will he reconsider the point that I put to him on 27 March: that there is a need for some sort of force similar to UNPREDEP to protect the borders of Macedonia? Secondly, will he give the House his assessment of the consistency and coherence of different elements of KFOR in their approach to disarming the former KLA, and when does he think that that process will be completed?
  Mr. Cook: While I was in Kosovo, I discussed the proposals for new anti-terrorist laws made by UNMIK. I am pleased to say that those proposals are now well developed. I hope that they will be in place soon and that they will provide a basis for longer detention of the type that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  On the question of Macedonia, I stress to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are doing a lot on the Kosovo side of the border. Indeed, British troops have been involved, interdicting terrorists and trying to make sure that we stop those who return from Macedonia having carried out terrorism. We remain committed to ensuring that that task continues and that there is a strong intelligence link-up with the army of Macedonia to make sure that together we are successful in beating the terrorists.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is not the real agenda for those KLA terrorists a greater Albania? It has nothing to do with the extension of the Albanian language. Having ethnically cleansed Kosovo of almost all the minorities, the KLA's murderous extension into Macedonia is the real threat to peace in the Balkans. When will the Government and the west stop having tea with the likes of Thaci and Agim Ceku and start arresting them? They are the ringleaders, and until they go there will be no peace in the Balkans.
  Mr. Cook: I would repeat to my hon. Friend what I told the House last month, when I made a statement on

  745
  Macedonia: in the Balkans, we have managed to halt any plans to achieve a greater Croatia or a greater Serbia, and there is no place on the map of the Balkans for a greater Albania either. That is the message that I firmly expressed in Kosovo and Macedonia, where I said that the borders of Kosovo had been set and that the era in which borders can be redrawn in the Balkans in blood is gone and past. However, I tell my hon. Friend that if we had not acted in the way that we did in Kosovo—if we had allowed Milosevic to emerge a hero and a victor from Kosovo—Milosevic would still be in power, not, as he currently is, in prison.
  Sir David Madel: Is it the Government's view that more NATO troops are now needed properly to police the Macedonia-Kosovo border?
  Mr. Cook: No, that is not the Government's view. We have always made it clear that if we receive a request from NATO on a decision in which we have participated, we will, of course, consider it, but we are urging all members of the KFOR team to show the same flexibility as the British contribution in being willing to go where the command of KFOR believes there is a requirement for them.

  EU (Enlargement)
  Mr. Owen Paterson: When he next plans to meet representatives of the Government of Belgium to discuss their plans for the enlargement of the EU. [158616]
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make statement on the development of the agenda for the forthcoming Belgian presidency of the European Council with regard to enlargement. [158620]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Belgian Foreign Minister will be in London next month for talks on the forthcoming Belgian presidency.
  We are pleased with the new momentum in the enlargement process under the Swedish presidency. I warmly welcome the commitment of the Belgian Prime Minister in Budapest that enlargement will remain at the top of the agenda during the Belgian presidency.
  Britain is widely recognised throughout the candidate countries as a champion of their membership. That is why we are keen to ratify the treaty of Nice. We would be able to do so more quickly if the official Opposition also agreed to ratify a treaty without which enlargement cannot happen.
  Mr. Paterson: Enlargement cannot happen without effective, radical reform of the common agricultural policy. It was a humiliating indictment of the Foreign Secretary that that issue was not even discussed at Nice. When he meets the Belgians next month, what are the chances of his persuading them seriously to discuss radical reform of the CAP and its completion during their presidency?
  Mr. Cook: As you, Mr. Speaker, will recall, we have been up and down this red herring so many times that I
  746
  weary the House by repeating it. The fact of the matter is that we did carry through a reform of the CAP in Berlin—a much more far-reaching reform than was ever secured by Opposition Members—which has saved every British household £94 a year on its food bill. Yes, we would like to go further—of course, we would, but that does not require a treaty change; it requires the policy change that the EU will be obliged to face up to when we consider the next financial setting.
  The hon. Gentleman has to come clean. He is, I understand, a leading member of the British-Czech and Slovak group. Next time he meets those who come from the Czech Republic or from Slovakia, he will have to be honest with them about whether he will stand in the way of a treaty that is essential to their membership of the EU, and it would be helpful to them if he were to tell the House now. Will he or will he not back the treaty that they want to be passed?
  Mr. Waterson: Is there not a real danger that, with the integrationist agenda of the Belgian Government, enlargement will take second place under their presidency? Is not that concern added to by the latest plans of the German Chancellor for a European Government? Is not it as plain as a pikestaff to everyone except the Government that an enlarged Europe needs more flexibility, not closer political integration?
  Mr. Cook: On the views of the Prime Minister of Belgium, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said in Budapest—that enlargement will be at the top of our agenda. I would rather listen to what the Prime Minister of Belgium says about his priorities than to the hon. Gentleman.
  On the paper from the SPD, which was endorsed by Chancellor Schröder, if the hon. Gentleman ever gets round to reading it, he will find much in it with which he agrees, such as the commitment to combat the creeping transfer of competencies to the EU, or the need to repatriate the competencies that are better exercised by national Governments. Of course, there are some things in it with which neither he nor I would agree, but we cannot call for a wide-ranging Europe-wide debate and then insist that everything said in it is something that we agree with.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Secretary of State agree that enlargement of the EU will genuinely be impossible without the endorsement of the Nice treaty? The Conservative party simultaneously tries to argue against the Nice treaty and to support enlargement, but is not the reality that Conservative Members know that they will not have to resolve that contradiction because they will not be in government for the foreseeable future?
  Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's comment about the centrality of the treaty of Nice to enlargement. Indeed, the Foreign Minister of Poland, Mr. Bartoszewski, and I wrote a joint article that was published here and in Poland. It says:
  "The treaty is a precondition for enlargement—unless it is ratified, enlargement cannot happen."

  747
  Those are not just my views; they are the views of the Foreign Minister of Poland. I am sure that, when the time comes, many Polish communities around Britain will weigh those words carefully at the ballot box.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: When the Government come to consider the five economic tests on whether to join the single currency, is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House whether the effect of enlargement on the euro area and, in particular, on the value of the single currency will be taken into account?
  Mr. Cook: Of course, all factors will be taken into account. However, I do not anticipate any of the current candidates being within the eurozone in the time scale that his question requires.
  Mr. John Redwood: Is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that there needs to be no further reform of the CAP for enlargement to take place? Is not the truth of the matter that it would break the bank if enlargement proceeded on the current basis? When will he debate proper reform of the CAP, and when will he announce how much extra it will cost to bring in the new member states? When will he reform the CAP to provide better animal welfare than we have seen in recent months in this country?
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman really should brush up on the history of the recent negotiations. If he does, he will find that the decision that we took at Berlin on the current financial perspective is explicit. Within it, sufficient room is provided for enlargement to go ahead. Before he shakes his head, when he claims that we cannot afford enlargement, he should remember that he supports all the forces of reaction on the continent that want to oppose it. The money is there and we should not pretend that it is not.
  Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has repeatedly said in the Chamber that Turkey's membership of the EU is conditional on the improvement of human rights in that country? Will he comment on the fact that 20 hunger strikers have died in the past few weeks, that hundreds of other prisoners are on hunger strike and that Turkish MPs, such as Leyla Zana, are serving 15 years in prison for using a few words of the Kurdish language? Will he encourage the EU presidency to be tough on these issues so as to help people in the Turkish Government and the Turkish prison service who are attempting to improve the situation?
  Mr. Cook: I have no problem at all in saying to my hon. Friend that political reform, improvement in human rights and respect for ethnic minorities are conditions of Turkey proceeding with its application for membership of the European Union. Indeed, we explicitly agreed at Helsinki that negotiations would start only once Turkey had met the criteria on human rights and the treatment of ethnic minorities. I agree with my hon. Friend that Turkey has a long way to go, but those who are most active on human rights in Turkey also tend to be the very people who most want Turkey to continue with its integration in
  748
  the European structures. They see that as the strongest lever for reform, and I do not suggest that we should take it away from those who are trying to improve human rights in Turkey.
  Mr. Richard Spring: When the right hon. Gentleman discusses enlargement, will he agree that the alienation of so many in the EU has much to do with the remoteness of its institutions and its lack of accountability? Does he not agree that the way to reinvigorate the relationship and make enlargement easier is not by further centralisation but by enhancing the role of democratically elected and accountable national Parliaments?
  Mr. Cook: I am very pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposals for an institutional link with national Parliaments, which would provide a second Chamber in the European Parliament. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to supporting my right hon. Friend's proposal. As I asked the hon. Gentleman last month—we still have had no reply—whether the Conservative party is really to pose as a supporter of enlargement, why can it not tell us that it will support the treaty of Nice, which is essential for enlargement to proceed?

  Conflict Diamonds
  Mr. Brian White: If he will report on developments in controlling the sale of conflict diamonds. [158618]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am pleased to confirm that I led an Adjournment debate on behalf of the Government in the House on 26 April, reporting on national and international developments in controlling the sale of conflict diamonds. The United Kingdom has played a prominent role throughout in supporting the UN Security Council resolutions and the Kimberley process.
  Mr. White: Given that the UN global policy forum produced a report last December that set out not only the smuggling routes, but the names of the brokers, dealers and cutters involved in the trade, will my hon. Friend assure me that the global certification scheme, on which the Government are working, will not get bogged down? Will he also give an idea of the time scale, because each day's delay means that more people die needlessly?
  Mr. Wilson: I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's complete commitment to see the process through to the end. Useful progress was made at meetings in Brussels last week. It is vital to involve Governments in the producer states as well as the industry and countries such as Britain, which are central to the trade. Everyone is working together to produce a scheme. At the same time, it is important to remember that only 3 or 4 per cent. of diamonds come through illegal channels. Nothing should be done to damage the legal trade because diamonds are very important to producer countries, especially in southern Africa.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. You will no doubt have seen early-day motion 619 and press reports about the proposed merger of the Halifax bank and the Bank of Scotland. If those reports are to be believed, the Halifax headquarters will move to Edinburgh, even though it is a much larger bank. The Halifax is hugely important to my town, from which it takes its name. It is Yorkshire's premier financial institution and Britain's biggest mortgage lender. It would be a devastating blow for my town and the Yorkshire region if the headquarters were to relocate. Has a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry notified you that a statement will be made on that important issue?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister on that matter.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there are a number of protests today, not only in London, but in more than 1,000 general practitioners' surgeries throughout the United Kingdom at the Government's inability to deliver their promises on health. Are you as surprised as I am that the Secretary of State for Health has not made a request—or perhaps he has—to make a statement to the House today?
Mr. Speaker: After 22 years in the House, I am never surprised.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the revelation on this morning's edition of the "Today" programme that the Ministry of Defence is facing difficult choices between retaining our aircraft carrier programme or a large chunk of the Army, have you received an application to make a statement on that matter?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that the serious issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is worthy of further consideration? The revelation has been lent some credibility by the response of the Minister for the Armed Forces earlier today, who confirmed that difficult decisions have to be made. Given that there is not another session of Defence questions before the general election, is it not appropriate for a Defence Minister to be called to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know when the general election will be announced.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said in response to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that no Minister has contacted you to make a statement on the possible merger of the Bank of Scotland and the Halifax Group plc—in which, by the way, I have a small investment.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Soames: In which one?
Mr. Winterton: The Halifax.
The hon. Lady made an important point. Bearing in mind that thousands of jobs could be at stake at the Halifax and in Yorkshire, and that the Government send Ministers to this place to make statements when jobs are at risk, are you, Mr. Speaker, able to bring pressure on them to make a statement on a matter that is crucial to Halifax, Yorkshire, England and Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: I have no desire to see anyone lose his job, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) know their way around the Order Paper, and they know how to get a Minister to the Dispatch Box to give an account of his or her stewardship of the matter.

Transport of Farm Animals
3.35 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the distance that farm animals may be transported in any one-week period.
The Bill will do three things: it will reduce animal suffering, it will lower the risk of epidemics and it will restore the market for local abattoirs. A few weeks ago, a senior official of the National Farmers Union in Nottinghamshire said to me that not only politicians but even farmers have learned a great deal about the farming industry in recent weeks. One of the most startling facts that we have all learned is that more than 1 million sheep movements were made, many right across the country, in the days after the first infection of foot and mouth disease. Why so many, and why so far?
The first reason is retailers' insistence that farmers use specified abattoirs. It is not generally realised that many of Britain's big retailers require suppliers to use specific abattoirs, even if they are on the opposite side of the country. If farmers wish to sell to them, they are forced to transport their animals the necessary distance for the convenience of the retailer.
Secondly, there is a large number of middlemen who buy animals speculatively at markets and move them from one market to another, looking for a better price. We can imagine the stress of animals packed into transporters for day after day as the dealer hunts his profit. I am not against profit, but we can reasonably ask ourselves whether that activity, with its cost in animal suffering and human risk, is producing anything worth while. Thirdly, price competition lures farmers into sending their animals across the country to make a marginal saving, even when a local abattoir is still available.
The Bill will empower the Secretary of State to limit the total frequency, time or distance that each animal can travel in any one week. The effects would be to inhibit
752
the trade of middlemen who repeatedly move the same animals and to prevent the longest journeys to abattoirs. Local abattoirs would regain their natural markets, the stress to animals would be substantially reduced and the danger of new epidemics would be lessened. Similar proposals have been made by the Swedish and German Governments at European Union level following studies showing that 10 per cent. of animals transported across Europe are dead on arrival from stress or other causes. I hope that the Bill will promote a readiness in Britain to welcome such moves.
We have a great tradition in Britain of cheap food, and that has done a great deal to promote the interests of the people of the country. However, it is time to consider whether that is necessary in its current absolute form. What is the real price that we are paying? It is an increased risk of epidemics that cost Britain billions when they occur and the suffering of animals, which consumers, when asked, say that they are not seriously willing to accept. The real price is too high.
We must accept that the Bill would increase the price of meat—I estimate that it would do so by 5 per cent. A piece of meat now costing£2 would therefore cost an extra 10p. I have a 10p with me—the price of saving it is a great deal of suffering for animals and an increased risk of epidemics that cost all of us billions of pounds. With the Bill, I should like to invest that 10p in higher standards for the animals' sake and for Britain's sake. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. David Winnick, Jane Griffiths and Mr. Mark Todd.

TRANSPORT OF FARM ANIMALS
Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to limit the distance that farm animals may be transported in any one-week period: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 June, and to be printed [Bill 90].

Business of the House
3.41 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I beg to move,
That—

(1) at the sitting on 2nd May the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Regulatory Reform not later than Seven o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and

(2) if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.

The motion is self-explanatory and provides that the draft Standing Orders cannot be talked out by requiring that the Question be put at seven o'clock. It protects the rights of the House by ensuring that amendments selected by the Speaker can be put at the end of debate and that if Divisions occur after 7 pm, the time for private business is not reduced.
Such business motions have been standard under this Administration and the previous one. The debate on the first Standing Orders on deregulation orders was similarly limited to their concluding
"not later than two hours after their commencement"
by the previous Administration in 1994. The fact that the business will be followed by private business, which should start at 7 pm, or shortly after, makes such a formulation inappropriate on this occasion.
3.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: First, so far as I am aware, there was no ostensible reason for Ministers to resort to the necessity of constraining debate tomorrow on that basis.
Tomorrow's debate is important and I shall not prejudge any issues that may arise then. However, as the Minister knows perfectly well, the comparison with orders made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is not comprehensive, as that Act dealt with exceptional powers, and the super-affirmative procedure was intended for a particular purpose. By contrast, the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, as we can already see—and as we shall no doubt discuss tomorrow—provides a power that has a much wider application and that can be used in a far greater range of circumstances. Clearly, Ministers are seeking to use that legislative procedure in a range of circumstances, as shown by the consultation papers that have already been issued.
It is important that the House should examine the procedure under which such orders are to be scrutinised. I must confess that I am surprised by the Minister's contention that the motion is necessary to avoid such debate being talked out. I share entirely the Minister's view that it is important to protect the subsequent private business tomorrow, but I have no reason to suppose that my hon. Friends in the Opposition do not intend to see it through.
Mr. Eric Forth: I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that if the motion had
754
not been moved, we would have the debate on regulatory reform, which would be interrupted at 7 o'clock. Private business would take place from 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock, and we would then resume debate on regulatory reform. There is no question of that debate being at risk; as I understand it, it is protected by the existing procedures of the House.
Mr. Lansley: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. As always, I should have deferred to him in such matters of parliamentary procedure, and I am sure that he is right. There is no question of the subsequent private business being imperilled. However, it may prove necessary for debate to continue in order to scrutinise the procedure, which is different from that which applies to orders made under the 1994 Act, and a range of additional factors will have to be taken into account by the relevant Committee.
Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lansley: Yes, but then I must make my remaining one or two points.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because he is, I imagine, being his usual restrained and gentlemanly self. Will he nevertheless confirm that the Government's intended circumscription of debate on the orders represents nothing more than a fig-leaf to cover their embarrassment about the fact that they were woefully short of Back Benchers who were ready to speak on the Bill?
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As many hon. Members will recall, he was an assiduous attender in the House during consideration of the 2001 Act on Report and Third Reading. He knows that there was a signal lack of support expressed in speeches from the Government side, although I suspect that, in at least one example, the amendments that we tabled would have been widely supported by Labour Members had they had the chance and the discretion to provide such support.
As we are so close to consideration of tomorrow's business, I am surprised that the Minister did not take the opportunity to assure the House that the time specified on the Order Paper will not be further reduced by the making of ministerial statements, which would have a bearing on the time available for discussing the orders. Therefore, we are considering the motion despite being ignorant of the extent to which time will genuinely be available, and I regret that the Minister did not further inform us on that point.
3.47 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to express my concern about the motion, which, as I understand it, will have two consequences: first, debate on the motion in the name of the Leader of the House must be concluded by 7 o'clock and, secondly, debate on the private business will be limited to three hours. I regret that the motion will impose such restrictions on both items of business.
I begin by discussing the Deregulation Committee, which is the matter that the Leader of the House will deal with tomorrow. We must deal with whether the motion before us provides the House with sufficient time to discuss that business. I do not believe that it does.

755
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made an important point about business statements and other interruptions. If the Question has to be put at 7 o'clock, as I understand it has, and if there are one or more statements, as there may well be, time will be taken up and the period available for debate will be extraordinarily limited. In some examples, that does not matter, but in the example of the business to be discussed tomorrow, it does, because we are to set up a Select Committee.
It is a good thing that we are establishing a Select Committee. However, whenever one is involved in such a matter, questions both particular and general have to be addressed, and it is right that there should be proper time available in which to address them. First, who will be responsible for selecting its members? It could take a long time properly to debate that matter, because my hon. and right hon. Friends may want to point out that Members of the House more generally should be involved in that selection.
There is absolutely no merit in choosing members of a Select Committee if the exercise of that choice is confined to the usual channels. While the hands may be safe, they may not reflect majority opinion, and we need ample time in which to express our anxieties about the way in which Select Committee members are chosen. There will be an opportunity for us to do so tomorrow, so I am extremely sorry that we are confining the debate and that hon. Members from all parties will have only a limited opportunity to express their anxieties about the way in which Select Committees are chosen.
The chairmanship of Select Committees is also a concern. I want them to be as free as possible of party manipulation, so that they can enhance the independence of the House. I think that we need a ample time tomorrow to discuss in detail how we can choose Chairmen who fully and properly reflect the House, who are not to be regarded by the Government as safe pairs of hands and who will supervise the Executive.
The Select Committee reports are a further issue. The motion to be discussed tomorrow sets out requirements on such reports, but I cannot find in it any obligation for the Government to provide time in the House to discuss them. I suspect that that is a matter of concern not only to me, but to other hon. Members who want to ensure that the reports are fully and properly debated. Tomorrow's motion provides an opportunity to raise and ventilate those matters, so I very much regret that time is to be constricted.
The private business is protected in the sense that three hours will be devoted to it. That is good news as far as it goes, but that is not very far. The City of London (Ward Elections) Bill is a private Bill that has been brought before the House on many occasions, and its progress has been frustrated many times by Labour Members. I do not complain about that, as hon. Members are perfectly entitled to express their opposition to such Bills. I have done so myself and I make no complaint about it. However, if we confine a debate on a Bill that is of considerable importance to the City of London, we must bear in mind that that will prevent it from ever being enacted.
I think that the House needs a greater opportunity to discuss and consider private business. The motion should provide more than three hours of debate. I regret that it
756
does not do so, because that time is not nearly long enough. If we confine the debate, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill will never make progress. Let us be clear: its passage will have been frustrated by Labour Members. I do not object to the process, provided that we know that it is happening and that no hypocrisy is involved.
Mr. Bercow: I do not cavil at anything that my right hon. and learned Friend says, but does he agree that the proposed truncation of debate is especially inappropriate and, I would go so far as to say, tasteless, as we have just had an Easter recess, as we are about to take Monday off for ourselves and as another event is likely to intercede before long? Should not hon. Members be prepared to do a little work?
Mr. Hogg: That is a telling intervention, but I am entitled to make another comment: this Parliament could run for another year. We could take all the time in the world to discuss the business, but for particular reasons—I am bound to say that I think that they have nothing to do with national interests—the Prime Minister has decided to call a general election 12 months early. We are entitled to ask why. I strongly suspect that he thinks that his electoral lead—if he has one—will be frittered away. That does him no credit and it tells us an awful lot about the way in which the Government operate.
I know that the motion is not earth shattering, but by confining the debate the Government are shutting out the House from an ability properly to discuss important questions about Select Committees, both in particular—I refer to the Select Committee on Deregulation—and in general, and are ensuring that important private business will not make progress. I regret both of those things.
3.54 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I echo the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). As the debate progresses, the motion appears increasingly otiose. As I said in my intervention, in the normal course of events, we would first discuss the motion. If our discussion did not conclude, it would be interrupted at 7 pm. Private business would be tackled between 7 pm and 10 pm, and we would resume the debate on the motion after 10 pm. That gives us an inkling of what the Government are up to and what they fear.
The Government are paranoid about the House of Commons doing anything after 10 pm. I understand that; the delicate babes on the Labour Benches do not want to be here late. They find it difficult to concentrate for long and objectionable to be here after 10 pm. A debate on that should properly be held at another time. By tabling the motion, the Government aim for the usual regrettable combination of truncating debate and dismissing hon. Members as early as possible, thus minimising Government embarrassment. As long as we recognise that, we can take a proper view of the matter.
By restricting time for the debate on the Standing Orders to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, we will not only limit the possibility of debating my modest amendments, if they are selected. Such action has wider implications. For example, should we simply endorse the existence of a Select Committee, albeit in a slightly different form? Is not it time to debate whether the number of Select Committees is already excessive?

757
There are far too many Committees, and the number only increases. I cannot remember when we last did away with a Select Committee. In our eagerness to create more chairmanships and travelling opportunities for colleagues, we miss the point of Select Committees, which are supposed to be focused, serious and serve some parliamentary or wider purpose. The Government, as ever nowadays, are trying to restrict the amount of time for debate. You, Mr. Speaker, and other occupants of the Chair would not deny us the opportunity to make the odd passing reference to the number of Committees and whether they are appropriate. I appreciate that the motion does not increase that number, but endorses and slightly changes the number.
The motion states that you, Mr. Speaker,
"shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett".
I do not know whether that is a broad hint that the Leader of the House might slip a few more motions on to the Order Paper between now and tomorrow. The motion allows for that. If that happens, we are being asked to endorse limited debating time without knowing the total business before us. That is disturbing.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to guarantee that no further motions in the name of the Leader of the House will be tabled for tomorrow? I cannot understand the reason for the wording unless it is to allow some dubious business to be surreptitiously slipped in at the last minute and encompassed by the restricted time that has been allowed for the business.
The motion bears the hallmarks of the Government and their attitude to the House. It is necessary only if one accepts two propositions, which I shall outline. First, it is desirable, nay, essential to restrict debate on all matters so that the Government are embarrassed as little as possible and their delicate supporters get to go home early. Secondly, good, long-standing arrangements that are well understood in the House must be disturbed. The Parliamentary Secretary has not explained the reason for that.
We are left with a dilemma: do we accept unnecessary nonsense and roll over yet again?
Mr. Bercow: In the absence of any helpful response from the Parliamentary Secretary on the Government's intentions tomorrow, would not it be instructive for the House to hear either from its Deputy Leader, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, or from the Deputy Chief Whip, either of whom would be in an ideal position to advise the House as to exactly what the Government have got up their sleeve?
Mr. Forth: If this debate were to allow the Government Deputy Chief Whip the opportunity to come and enlighten us as to the darkest innermost thoughts of the Government, that would be a breakthrough indeed. I am not overly optimistic that that will happen, although the right hon. Gentleman looks remarkably relaxed and cheerful about the prospects surrounding the motion. He obviously feels that he has the situation under control, as well he might.
The difficulty here—as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), with his usual perception, readily identified—is that the Government are tightening
758
their grip on the House and on parliamentary procedure in such a way as to make meaningful debate, meaningful opposition and meaningful holding of the Government to account and questioning of their actions next to impossible. This is yet another small but significant example of that phenomenon.
All in all, this is another sad little moment for the House and for Parliament. I somewhat regret that my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench do not seem inclined to oppose the motion or divide the House on it. At this stage, there is probably not much point in doing that, although I regret to say that. As we seem to be heading towards an unnecessarily early general election, it would appear that fewer and fewer people are concerned about what happens here. However, those of us who continue to be concerned will continue to have our tuppence worth whenever possible, and await events.
4.2 pm
Mr. Stringer: I shall be extremely brief, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) took the debate much wider than the terms on the Order Paper.
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman's point of order will be, but I shall let him speak.
Mr. Bercow: I just want to be sure. I might have misheard what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but I understood him distinctly, at the start of his oration, to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham had gone well beyond the terms of the motion. That, of course, is impossible, is it not, Mr. Speaker? Had they done so, you would have been on your feet rebuking them.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister was expressing an opinion. The best thing to say about the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is that they were borderline cases.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) said that there would be insufficient time to deal with the change from a Deregulation Committee to a Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. He will remember from the many debates that we had during the passage of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 that we recognised that the debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 had been very contentious and highly emotional. It was opposed by the Labour party on three-line Whips. At the end of that process, when a similar debate to today's arose in the House, Conservative Members, who then formed the Government, allowed a full two hours debate for a brand new procedure—the super-affirmative procedure—which has now become accepted by both sides of the House as a procedure that works on consensus.

759
The Government are proposing that the terms of reference for the Select Committee be changed along the lines originally given for the Deregulation Committee, to take account of the fact that we now have a Regulatory Reform Act. That is changing something in detail. Indeed, there is a wider power in that Act, but there are also greater hurdles to be overcome before a regulatory reform order is passed.
Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister please respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked him? It related to the fact that the motion is drawn in such terms as to apply to any motion relating to regulatory reform that might be before the House. Will the Minister be good enough to give a guarantee that the only motion relating to regulatory reform to be discussed will be the one now on the Order Paper?
Mr. Stringer: The motion will clearly relate to the Regulatory Reform Act and the establishment of a new Select Committee with extended terms of reference.
I ask the House to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That—

(1) at the sitting on 2nd May the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Regulatory Reform not later than Seven o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and

(2) if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Fraud Bill
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we begin proceedings on the Bill, may I extend orally an apology that I gave the House yesterday in a written answer? I repeated an error in a written answer at Question Time, on the Floor of the House, and I feel that I should correct both answers.
  I gave a written answer yesterday, which can be found in column 518W of Hansard, relating to departmental advertising. Towards the end of the answer, I corrected a written answer that I had given on 7 March to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which can be found in column 233W. I have also written a long letter to the hon. Gentleman, explaining how that came about. The letter, which is long and convoluted, has been placed in the Library.
  During Social Security questions on 2 April—this can be found in column 11—I effectively repeated the same error relating to advertising expenditure. It is only proper, according to the terms of the code of conduct, for the error to be corrected and apologised for in both written and oral form, and I do so now. There was certainly no intention to mislead the House; I am as annoyed about this as anyone else, and I am glad to have been able to set th+ record straight both in writing and orally.
  Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

New Clause 2

  DISCLOSURE OF BENEFIT DETAILS
  'The Secretary of State may require, by amending any benefit application form, that all benefit applicants shall give consent in writing, as a condition of receiving benefit, to the provision of some or all of their benefit details by an authorised officer to—

  (a) any person falling within section 109B(2A) of the Administration Act; and

  (b) any other person whose principal duty s to counter fraud;

  provided that the benefit recipient has a conviction for fraud or the officer has reasonable grounds for belief that the benefit recipient may be committing, or intending to commit, fraud.'.
  Brought up, and read the First Time.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
  The new clause is billed as "Disclosure of benefit details", but it could have been entitled "Joining CIFAS"—or indeed, given its genesis, termed the "wish list" of the Minister of State, who has expressed the wish that the Government could join the credit industry fraud avoidance system.
  Although I doubt that any Member present does not know what CIFAS is and who belongs to it, I shall say a brief word about it before trying to explain what the new clause does. CIFAS is a fraud avoidance system, which, as I shall demonstrate later, has proved effective. As we all now know that we can wear glasses safely, I shall put

  761
  mine on—they are not as expensive as some people's, but I hope that they are as effective—and read a list of the organisations that have voluntarily united to try to counter the fraud that their firms and other bodies suffer. The membership of CIFAS includes banks, building societies, insurance companies, credit card companies, share dealers and finance houses. The roll call includes more than just representatives of what we normally think of as the traditional finance industry.
  The aim of CIFAS is to build up a register of those suspected of, or known to be, committing fraud against members and, therefore, against their customers and shareholders. What we must ask today is, "If this works so well for the private sector, do we not want the public sector to be fully involved in it?" CIFAS is about beating fraud and spreading the good practice that arises from attempts to beat it. Its latest press release could have been taken from any of the Green Papers that have been published during this Parliament on how best to go about protecting taxpayers' money.
  Although in a previous debate on the Bill there was some questioning of the extent of social security fraud and how the total was arrived at, CIFAS has no problem working out what is saved in countering fraud. At its annual general meeting last week, it was able to register that about £203 million had been saved by member organisations as a result of their collective action—action not merely to protect each organisation itself from fraud, but to share information with other organisations, so that they are best equipped to counter fraud against them. Those who have had e-mails about last week's AGM or were there themselves know that the members reported that the fastest growing form of fraud is giving false identities. The position that the Department faces cannot be dissimilar.
  In its response to the Bill, the private sector has welcomed the Government's attempt to get a better grip on countering fraud, but has expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the way in which they are approaching the issue. Although the Government talk about data sharing, the private sector views it as data raiding. The Government are not doing any sharing at all. They ask CIFAS and other organisations for information on what is known and on membership but return nothing in its place.
  CIFAS and its members—the private sector—argue that while the Bill may be effective in shifting fraud around, it will be ineffective in countering fraud. The more successful the Government are in protecting taxpayers' money—something that we all wish to be pursued as effectively as possible—the greater the chance that the Bill will just push the fraudster out of the public sector and into the private sector.
  There are costs for the private sector. The costs are, as required, listed in the Bill, although no one in the private sector believes that the cost will be limited to that level. New clause 2 attempts to fulfil the wish that the Minister expressed in a previous debate: that if we could join CIFAS, we would. The new clause would allow the Government to do precisely that.
  One of the arguments that came up in that debate—it may or may not be advanced today—was that there was a difference between people claiming benefit and,
  762
  for example, people opening a bank account: people are free to open a bank account, but, if they are eligible, and particularly if they are poor, there is no freedom about drawing benefit. I wonder whether that argument holds because the Government are intent on moving benefit payments to banks. The checking that banks will do to ensure that they are not enrolling known fraudsters will involve all the people who currently do not have bank accounts, but whom the Government wish to persuade to open them, so that benefit payments can be made much more efficiently, cheaply and, we hope, with much less fraud. The major argument for there being something special—something ring-fenced—about drawing benefit that separates it from other activities that people voluntarily undertake and prevents the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, from joining CIFAS therefore falls to the ground.
  I hope that when we have had our debate and the Minister replies, we will all be delighted and hear not only that he wishes to join, but that he has now, with the help of his colleagues, found a way of doing precisely that. It is clear to those of us who have visited CIFAS members—I know that he has been to some of those that I have visited to see how they operate—that they probably already have in place a more effective way of countering fraud or preventing fraudsters from entering the system than the Department has. That is not to denigrate the importance of what the Department does, but CIFAS membership would be another effective string to the Government's bow in helping to counter fraud. Given that the new clause has support on both sides of the House, I hope that the Government, who are serious about dealing with fraud, will take this opportunity—late as it is in the Bill's proceedings—to ensure that after the general election whoever forms the next Government will become a full member of CIFAS.
  We should use CIFAS's techniques alongside our own in protecting taxpayers' money and show that we are not merely about raiding the private sector for information or trying to shift fraud from the public to the private sector. We should also demonstrate that we do not wish merely to shift fraud around, but to limit the amount of fraud committed.
  4.15 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It gives me great pleasure to support new clause 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I also thank the Minister of State for his fulsome apology, which was much appreciated.
  In previous debates on the Bill in both Houses, an issue that arose time and again was the need to reduce fraud while ensuring that people's privacy is protected as much as possible. In fact, Conservatives regularly cited the concern of organisations such as Liberty, which many people would not expect from us. We did not raise CIFAS in Committee, partly because it had been raised in the other place. We were also told that one of the problems that the Government had with CIFAS was the potential for footprints to be left in the private sector's records. That appeared to be a good reason not to pursue the issue, and there were other fears, which may be further expressed later, that the broad nature of the inquiries that the public sector would need to make of the private sector would be invidious for the individual.

  763
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead explained the work of CIFAS so effectively that I need only say that I agree whole heartedly with his comments. It is a most effective organisation. It was the first in the world to be set up to try to eliminate private sector fraud in the financial sector in its broadest definition. From information supplied to me by CIFAS, it appears that in February the number of cases with which it had dealt had increased by 50 per cent. over the year before, so it is clearly gaining force as an effective organisation.
  The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that CIFAS had its annual general meeting last week at which a question was put to the Data Protection Commissioner, Mrs. France, that made me feel able to support the new clause. Mr. Peter Hurst, the executive director of CIFAS, told me that at the AGM, in response to a question from a senior executive in the insurance industry about why the Department of Social Security could not share information about identified frauds with members of CIFAS, Mrs. France said that she considered that to be possible, provided that it was approached in the right way—possibly making use of section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998. That section exempts crime prevention and prosecution of offenders. She went on to offer CIFAS members the assistance and involvement of her staff in any discussions about sharing such information to prevent fraud. I went so far as to track down section 29 of the 1998 Act and, as a non-lawyer, I would not challenge Mrs. France's conclusions.
  There seems to be a good case for the Government to join CIFAS, having dealt with the concerns about footprints. We certainly support the right hon. Gentleman's new clause. As we did not debate it in Committee because of our concerns about footprints, we wish to have a vote so that it is on record that the official Opposition support the proposal for the Government to join CIFAS.
  Mr. Steve Webb: This is one of those rare occasions when one listens with an open mind to the reasons for accepting a new clause. However, so far, I am not convinced about adding new clause 2 to the Bill. Perhaps I can describe my reactions to the new clause, and if I have misunderstood its purpose, I would be grateful for clarification.
  My understanding is that under new clause 2, the Secretary of State could change all benefit forms and require, as a condition of payment of benefit, the person applying to give permission in writing. The permission would say that henceforth, whatever information had gone on that form—which could be very personal, such as income, who was living in the household and how many children they had—could be passed to anyone falling within section 109B(2A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That, as we know from the Bill, applies to a range of private sector organisations such as banks, the student loan company, the gas board, the water board, and so on. Do we want information that people put on their benefit forms—some of it sensitive—to be passed to those organisations?
  Mr. Field: As I am anxious that no one in the coming general election campaign accuses the Liberal Democrats of being soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud, I should like to answer the question. One would have to have grounds to suspect that there was fraud. Names
  764
  would not necessarily be checked, because of false identities, but there would be a check on whether the address was being used.
  If the hon. Gentleman has not yet had a chance to visit any of the organisations that are part of CIFAS, I hope that he will do so after the election. They would not have time to exchange all the information to which he refers. They want to know whether they have to be careful with a customer and whether they have to ask more questions. They merely check whether other organisations have also marked out that person. They have to think that there is something fishy about a claim and then check on the name and address. It is not a case of sharing all personal information. The system would collapse if all that information were transferred.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that intervention, although I am not entirely reassured by it. However, I shall pursue my point and will happily give way later.
  The amendment refers to an authorised officer providing information to external organisations. In general, in the Bill, the authorised officers come from the Department of Social Security or the Benefits Agency. That is what I assumed was meant in this case.
  I am puzzled about the sequence of events that would give rise to the exercise of the new clause. It says that the authorised officer—the person in the DSS—can give information to the third party provided, for example, that the benefit recipient has a conviction for fraud or the officer thinks that they might be intending to commit fraud.
  Let us suppose that a bank is considering a loan application from someone. It would not know that that person was the subject, for example, of a fraud investigation by the DSS. Are we to assume that the authorised officer would initiate contact with these third parties? The bank could not make fishing telephone calls, to use our analogy, and would not know that there was a question mark over that person. Is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead proposing that when a bank has vague misgivings about a person applying for a loan it should ring DSS offices to ascertain whether an authorised officer has a concern about the person? If so, I am not clear how that process would work in practice.
  If there is a reasonable suspicion that a person claiming benefit is committing fraud, what that person has put on the claim form can, in principle, be passed to external organisations. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no need for information on the benefit form to be passed on, but that would happen the second that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person had committed fraud. The information would cease to be confidential in the Department, and would be available to all the external organisations with which an applicant might have dealings. Even if an applicant were proven to be completely innocent, his or her personal details would already have been passed to the external organisations.
  In the event that an applicant were convicted of fraud—and conviction is only one of the three categories specified in the new clause—it is perhaps arguable that other organisations would have a right to know details of a person's circumstances, as they would need to prevent any possibility of fraud against themselves. However, I do not see why suspicion of fraud should be a sufficient reason for people to lose their right to privacy. My worry

  765
  is that such provisions risk breaching the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. People suffer when privacy and confidentiality are lost. Passing on personal information is almost a punishment in itself, even if people are eventually found to be innocent.
  Mr. Field: Part of me wishes that officers in the DSS had time to undertake such activities. I fear that life is much more pressured than that. I give the hon. Gentleman the example of a benefits applicant who puts on the benefits claim form a false national insurance number. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to check into that person a little more to ascertain whether there is a history of wrongdoing in other areas. The question is whether it is worth pursuing such matters with the private sector to eliminate possible frauds.
  Mr. Webb: I apologise for being slightly dense, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of a person who puts a dodgy national insurance number on a benefits claim form. Is he saying that that would alert the authorities to the possibility that the person could not be trusted, and that the Benefits Agency should be proactive in contacting all the categories of people or organisation with whom the person might have had dealings? I presume that the agency would tell those people and organisations, "We've got a dodgy one here, keep an eye out," or, "If you've had any dealings with this applicant you might be about to get stitched up."
  Mr. Field: Liberal Democrat Members may vote against the new clause, but the wish of the House is that the Government should have the power to get that information from the private sector. The new clause proposes that, to some extent, relevant information might move in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Webb: The Government certainly can get information from the private sector to establish whether a person is committing benefit fraud, if there are reasonable grounds for that suspicion. Under the Bill, authorised officers of the Benefits Agency may obtain that information to verify—or otherwise—any suspicion that they might have about a claim. Under the new clause, authorised officers would not use information gained in that way only for internal purposes, but would pass it on to interested external organisations. Those organisations could not initiate the transfer of information, as they would not know that there was a suspicion of fraud.
  I shall not drag this matter out. If a person has been successfully prosecuted, there might be a case for alerting other organisations to the fact. However, I am worried about alerting other organisations before anything is proved, especially if the person involved is found to be innocent in the end. I believe that private information given to the state should remain private, unless there is a good reason why it should not, and that suspicion is not a good enough reason. That is where I would draw the line.
  4.30 pm
  I mention in passing that in a written answer earlier this week the Minister of State told me that 15 per cent. of benefit recipients will not have their money paid into a
  766
  bank account even when the Government have finished the move to automated credit transfer. The Government's target is 85 per cent., not 100 per cent. Therefore, one in six benefit recipients will still not be subject to the sort of checks to which the Minister referred. It will not be universal that, in applying for a benefit, one is subject to all those checks. For a certain category of person, there would be additional checks, beyond those that they face at present.
  While I understand the view of the private sector that the traffic is one way, the role of the public sector is special. The relationship between the individual and the state is different from that between the individual and the private sector. The information that we provide to the state should be treated with respect and privacy. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause.
  Mr. Rooker: First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), without the benefit of my written notes. The Government's objective is to pay all benefits by automated credit transfer. My written answer made it clear that in our public service agreement, by which we will be measured by 2005, the initial hurdle is 85 per cent. That does not mean that we will stop there, or that we expect to achieve only 85 per cent. Our objective will be to achieve more, but at that point in time the public service agreement that the Department has with the Treasury is to meet that benchmark. The transfer is taking place between 2003 and 2005 and it would be unreasonable to expect us to achieve 100 per cent. by 2005 in terms of that agreement. I do not want people to run away with the idea that we are writing off 15 per cent. of benefit claimants as regards ACT—far from it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will know from what I said on Second Reading and in Committee that, by and large, we are sympathetic to sharing information that we are able to share with the private sector to do a better job to help both sectors root out fraud. Fraud in the private sector is as bad as fraud in the public sector and it is important that the two sectors work in partnership.
  The Government are taking statutory powers in the Bill to obtain information from the private sector. We cannot reciprocate by being members of CIFAS—the credit industry fraud avoidance system—for reasons that I have explained. I am not sure whether we could get the legal authority of the House to join CIFAS in a clause with the wording in my right hon. Friend's new clause 2.
  The clause would give the Department carte blanche to release any information that it holds about claimants who are convicted or reasonably suspected of fraud. There is no restriction. Obviously, there has been correspondence and there have been parliamentary questions on the matter since the Bill was put before the House. I shall reiterate some of the issues and refer to the annual meeting of CIFAS, which has been mentioned.
  We are constantly examining the data that may be released to the private sector and we are holding—and have held—discussions with that sector. However, there are legal considerations. I listened to the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Northavon. We need to distinguish between the bulk transfer of information and giving information on a case-by-case basis. Different rules apply, as will be apparent from my remarks. It is important to take on board that distinction.

  767
  We have never envisaged a complete exchange of information. The Department's legal advice remains that making entitlement to benefits conditional on claimants consenting to the release of their personal data would not constitute genuine consent because there is nowhere else to get the benefits if one does not consent and, therefore, we would have real trouble with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998, let alone human rights legislation. Claimants have no choice but to claim from the Department of Social Security.
  We are trying to be helpful: by sharing with the private sector information that would be useful to it, but also by protecting information gathered about people who have no choice but to use the DSS. We have to strike a balance—the Bill is the striking of that balance. It is a modest step—although it could be seen as a major encroachment in some ways, so we are being extremely careful about its content. There will be no fishing expeditions and reasonable grounds will have to be given if it is thought that fraud might be being committed. That is crucial. All those checks and balances have been included, so in this Bill the new clause would be a step much, much too far.
  We have to protect individuals and we want to assist the private sector. We take our data protection responsibilities very seriously indeed. We are discussing with the financial sector what information we can divulge without breaching those responsibilities. For example, we have been considering items such as information on people who have died. That is a matter of public record; if we have the information, we have stopped paying their pension. Sometimes the private sector does not know that a person has died and carries on paying an occupational pension, in which case fraud is obviously committed by other people.
  We are looking at whether we can help with the verification of addresses when the DSS requires people to open a bank account. Information on stolen blank birth, marriage and death certificates is also under consideration, as are details of people convicted under the "two strikes" provisions. That matter was raised in Committee and we may debate it briefly later on.
  The provisions are a deterrent that will not affect more than 500 people a year. "Two strikes" mean convictions in a court of law—in a public place; the proceedings are not secret and are not held behind closed doors, yet according to the legal advice that I have received, it is not currently possible for the DSS, which would know the names and addresses of the 500 people affected by "Two strikes and you're out", to pass that information to the private sector. That would not be possible and we have legal advice to that effect, yet the information is clearly in the public sector—diffused around the country—in various courts. However, the mere act of the DSS gathering such information and handing it over to a third party breaches the legal framework under which we operate and we are, therefore, still holding discussions on that.
  We expect and hope to resolve outstanding legal and operational issues about information that we can share with the private sector by the end of this month—so the matter should not be dragged out. We do not want to drag it out because there is no incentive to do so. In any case, we need the good will of the private sector, even though we are taking statutory powers. Where we have the legal
  768
  authority to share information, we want to do so. Thus, it is in everybody's interest that we get on with that as quickly as possible.
  Mrs. Lait: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the Bill was published, the Data Protection Commissioner expressed significant reservations about it, although the right hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that she had subsequently withdrawn them. Was CIFAS part of the negotiations? Are the right hon. Gentleman or his officials holding discussions with the commissioner about section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998? The commissioner has given us to understand that that section covers the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and the legal advice that he has taken.
  Mr. Rooker: The answer to the hon. Lady's first question is—to the best of my knowledge—no. There were no prior discussions with the commissioner when the Bill was being planned. That has now changed because, given that we have only heard reports of what was said at the annual meeting of CIFAS by the information commissioner, we have written to her to sound her out more fully on what she said and on the legal advice underpinning it. It is crucial that such legal advice is correct.
  Obviously, I cannot state categorically what the commissioner said last week, because I was not present. I understand, via her office, that she was answering a question, but that she was referring to cases in which the private sector prosecutes an individual. In such a case, there may be scope for the DSS to give relevant information to the company concerned. We are happy to discuss that further with the commissioner, but she seems to be talking about providing information on a case-by-case basis, which is a wholly different matter from the bulk transfer of DSS information to the private sector.
  We have discussed with the industry only information routinely issued in bulk, for which we have not found a legally workable solution, but I understand that the commissioner was discussing information provided on a case-by-case basis. So as long as there is no breach of the legal framework within which we work, such as the data protection legislation and other relevant statutes, clearly, we would seek to provide such information. However, we are seeking further and better particulars from my learned friends and others and to open a conversation with the data protection commissioner.
  There is good will on both sides; we want to work in partnership with the private sector. This is not a criticism of the drafting of new clause 2, but it would represent a step too far if included in the Bill. Nevertheless, in the fight against fraud, the more we can transfer information, compatible with the protection of privacy and data protection legislation, the better for everyone all round. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will not press new clause 2 to a Division.
  Mr. Field: Even if I do not press new clause 2 to a Division, it appears that others may well do so. I am still slightly puzzled about what is meant by the quantity of information being exchanged. No one thinks that anyone is asking for bucket loads of information to come from the DSS into the private sector arbitrarily, without relating to any real problems. We are trying to locate information

  769
  on people who may be committing fraud against the taxpayer, who are probably committing fraud against the private sector as well. Indeed, we have said in previous debates that it is inconceivable that the biggest of all Government budgets is somehow immune from attack by fraudsters, as we know that smaller budgets are under attack in the private sector.
  I do not wish, at this late hour, to wind up the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—the Liberal Democrat in this debate—but I shall provide the House with the information that, on 30 April of this year, the Government gave in their press release, headed, "DSS Assists in the Fight Against Crime", on the agreement that they have drawn up with the police. It states:
  "The revised DSS policy on disclosure is that all personal information held in social security records will continue to be regarded as confidential. Information will not normally be disclosed to third parties without the consent of the person concerned."
  Then comes the key point:
  "However, information may be disclosed without consent to assist in the prevention or detection of crime or to aid the apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
  The notes to editors in the press release state that that would be done in trying to prevent vandalism. New clause 2 is about whether we are striking the right balance.
  Mr. Rooker: I do not want to protract the debate, but we were talking about information given to the police. The memorandum of understanding between the Association of Chief Police Officers, the DSS and the Home Office deals with information given to the police, not to the private sector.
  Mr. Field: I merely quoted the press release because the Liberal Democrats were understandably concerned that the information that must be supplied to claim benefits may be needed and could be handed over. The new clause is about trying to strike a balance in exchanging the information that would be of real value to the private and the public sectors. At present, the private sector feels that all the demands will be made one way, that it will bear most of the costs and that a major opportunity is being lost, not merely because, by sharing information, we could stop people moving from the public to the private side of fraud.
  4.45 pm
  Let us think ahead to the next Parliament and consider how we shall draw up measures to be more effective in countering fraud and other forms of unacceptable behaviour. Surely, there is a need to establish a means of exchanging information about criminal records, fraud against the Department of Social Security and fraud in the private sector. Once someone begins to behave in a way that is unacceptable to the community, all parts of the community should be able to pool their information to determine what sort of charge sheet should be drawn up against that individual.
  Earlier in this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that police should have the powers to apprehend yobbos, take them to cashpoints and make them hand over a fine. If a yobbo were apprehended for bad behaviour in Birkenhead, one might find that that
  770
  person had also committed credit card fraud, mortgage fraud, housing benefit fraud and a few other frauds. Therefore, the different groups involved might wish to pursue collectively in the courts their case against that individual.
  Once a person has behaved unacceptably, a general check should be available. Information could be collected and a collective charge—with the costs being shared between the public and private sectors—could be pursued. Although we cannot pursue that aim through an amendment to the Bill, my new clause is a modest measure that is designed to fulfil the wish of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As the Opposition say that they will press the new clause to a Division, I will join them because it stands in my name.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 312.

  Division No. 200]

  [4.46 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Alan

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Malins, Humfrey

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fraser, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Norman, Archie

  Garnier, Edward

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paice, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Prior, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Randall, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  771

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Walter, Robert

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. James Gray.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Coleman, Iain

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Colman, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cranston, Ross

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Crausby, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blizzard, Bob

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

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brake, Tom

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Breed, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burnett, John

  Efford, Clive

  Burstow, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gapes, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Casale, Roger

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chidgey, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  772

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hain, Peter

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Harvey, Nick

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hill, Keith

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Oaten, Mark

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pond, Chris

  Joyce, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rendel, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Linton, Martin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livsey, Richard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Salter, Martin

  Lock, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  773

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Snape, Peter

  Tynan, Bill

  Soley, Clive

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Watts, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Webb, Steve

  Steinberg, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wilson, Brian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Worthington, Tony

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  ADDITIONAL POWERS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
  Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 11A, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
  '(2BB) Prior to the exercise of the power conferred on an authorised officer to obtain information under this section, that officer shall obtain in writing the consent to carry out an investigation.
  (2BC) Consent must be granted in writing or (if not in writing) in a manner that produces a record of its having been granted; and it must—

  (a) describe the conduct and data in relation to which it is authorised; and

  (b) specify the office, rank or position held by the person granting the authorisation.'.

  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
  '(2BD) Requests for information made by authorised officers to any of the bodies falling within subsection (2A) shall be made through a central organisation, and a notice requiring data to be disclosed or to be obtained and disclosed—

  (a) must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;

  (b) must describe the data to be obtained or disclosed under the notice;

  (c) must specify the office, rank or position held by the person giving it; and

  (d) must specify the manner in which any disclosure required by the notice is to be made.'.

  774
  No. 15, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
  '(2G) A person to whom a notice is given under subsection (2A) above may, by notice in writing given to the authorised officer within thirty days after the date of the notice under that subsection, object to that notice on the ground that it would be onerous for him to comply with it; and if the matter is not resolved by agreement, it shall be referred to an official of seniority within the relevant department, who may confirm, vary or cancel that notice.'.
  No. 16, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
  '(2H) An authorised officer who gives a notice to a person under subsection (2A) above shall also give to that person a written summary of his reasons for applying for consent to the giving of the notice.'.
  No. 19, in clause 2, page 6, line 48, at end insert—
  '(8) In this section and in sections 109B and 109BA an 'authorised officer' means an individual holding such offices, ranks or positions with relevant public authorities as are prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State who is designated by the Secretary of State as an authorised officer.'.
  Mrs. Lait: The amendments all deal with outstanding concerns about the Department's power to acquire information under the Bill. A number of amendments tabled in the House of Lords addressed some of the concerns that many organisations and companies have expressed, but concerns still remain about certain issues relating to fundamental aspects of the Bill. Amendment No. 11A deals with the lack of independent scrutiny of authorised officers' requests for information. From the outset, organisations as diverse as the British Bankers Association and Liberty have, for obvious reasons, expressed concern about the lack of independent consent from a higher authority to requests for information.
  The BBA feels that an officer could convince himself that he had reasonable grounds when, in fact, he was acting on gut instinct or worse, as the system is used more, as a matter of routine. Liberty believes that the provision means that a rogue investigator cannot make inquiries about all and sundry. Therefore, there are still concerns about the lack of an independent check, which are strengthened by the existence in the Taxes Management Act 1970 of a procedure, similar to our proposals, to ensure independent scrutiny. As there is an exchange of information across government—with which we do not have any problems—we are anxious that there should be a consistent system and level of approval of requests for information.
  Although the Government do not believe it, the development of social security benefits depends partly on the introduction of tax credits—including, of course, the working families tax credit, which replaced family credit. Already, there appear to be a number of problems with fraud in respect of the working families tax credit, and I understand that the extent of fraud in the Canadian working income supplement system is so great that Canada is moving back to a benefits-based system. In other parts of the world, therefore, tax credits seem to be prone to fraud, and the difficulty that we all face is that the system of checking is different as between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. That is why we want to achieve a much greater strengthening of the independent scrutiny.
  Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 16 are linked to what we all know as a single point of contact and the potential for trawling or fishing. We seem to have been hung up on the

  775
  fishing industry in many of our debates. Amendment No. 12 would limit the number of bodies from which an organisation could receive a request for information. As the Bill covers local government and Departments such as the DSS, many people could contact an organisation for information about a possible fraud.
  Amendment No. 15 provides that, because of the sheer number of people who could make contact, organisations should have a specific point of contact through which the Government should channel requests. There is no single point of contact in the Government or in local authorities, but the code of practice might be amended to make it easier for companies to be made aware of the fact that they will be dealing with fewer people.
  I understand that, following debates in Committee, negotiations have been taking place between the DSS and affected organisations in the private sector. It has been agreed that requests for information will be addressed to a nominated single point of contact, where one has been specified. To try to tighten up on the unknown number of requests that could be made by the public sector, it will make requests only in writing by post, fax, e-mail or electronic password-controlled database access. Telephone contact will be made only by arrangement and only to clarify or query information already provided under a written request. Authorised officers will not make inquiries by means of a personal visit to any corporate premises. That provides reassurance, but I would be grateful if the Minister of State confirmed it. It is important that we are able to reassure the private sector.
  I understand from the telecoms fraud group that there are still issues outstanding. The DSS has agreed that only a proportion of DSS officers authorised to use the information powers in the Bill will be allowed to contact telecoms companies. However, that does not apply to the local authorities, of which there are 409. I agree with the group that the Government tend to ignore the sheer number of local authorities and concentrate on their own offices. That is understandable, but it makes it more difficult for the private sector to know with whom it is dealing.
  Mr. Webb: May I take the hon. Lady back to amendment No. 11A? I apologise for interrupting her flow of thought and for not intervening sooner. The amendment states:
  "Prior to the exercise of the power … an authorised officer… shall obtain in writing the consent to carry out an investigation."
  Authorised officers will be empowered by the Bill to carry out searches and they are deemed senior enough do so, but it is not clear from whom they would get that consent. Of whom is consent being asked?
  Mrs. Lait: In order to build in an element of independent scrutiny, we seek to involve somebody further up the system who will not necessarily be part of the organisation from which the investigating or authorising officer comes. If we persuade the Government to accept the amendment, I shall obviously be happy to negotiate on the correct language. We want to build in a firebreak that can pull people up short and make them ask whether they need the information and, if so, why they need it.
  Amendment No. 19 has a similar purpose, as it seeks to ensure standardisation across Government in respect of those who can make inquiries. We want to explore the
  776
  issue of the authorised officer and the need to meet the same standards as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which most of us probably know as RIPA. The acronym sounds more like a river than an Act of Parliament, but never mind. We are also concerned that there are difficulties in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the draft code of practice, which outlines the Government's proposed system of authorisation. The authorised officers are of executive officer grade, and, despite many debates in Committee, the Government have not changed that arrangement.
  British Telecom, which is significantly affected by RIPA, has pointed out that the grade of authorisation is at variance with the higher grade of management controls that are expected to be introduced under subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of RIPA for exactly the same type of communications data. Telecommunications companies will be dealing with two levels of officers across government in respect of similar information. BT remains very concerned and continues to hope that the government can deal with its anxieties. We have heard on many occasions about the Minister of State's view that training will deal with that discrepancy in the seniority of the authorised officers, but the problem is more fundamental, as it concerns the provision across companies of similar, sensitive data to very different levels of authority.
  We feel strongly about the amendments and believe that the Government still need to negotiate with the companies and organisations that are involved. I would be grateful to hear about the progress that is being made, as I hope that the outstanding concerns will be addressed and that those companies and organisations will get some comfort from the Government.
  Mr. Webb: I have much sympathy with the spirit of the amendments, which reflect many of the concerns that the Liberal Democrats have expressed about the lack of independent scrutiny, the advantages of a single point of contact and the seniority of the authorised officers. I am, however, anxious about some of the specifics. As I mentioned in an intervention, amendment No. 11A is problematic. It states that the officer needs written consent, but it says nothing about the people who should provide that consent or their seniority. Interestingly, it was suggested that such people could come from outside the organisation, but if the amendment is to achieve its desired goal, it should be much more explicit. One can imagine implementation through forms of written permission by another authorised officer. I am not sure where that would lead us.
  5.15 pm
  I am sympathetic to the idea of a single point of contact, partly for the convenience of those from whom information is obtained and partly because of the concept of an audit trail. If matters go wrong, and there is some suggestion of abuse of the powers, we need thorough records of their use. The amendments try to achieve that.
  Amendment No. 19 seeks consistency about seniority. That is sensible. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a good point about a telecommunications company being contacted by different Government officials under different Acts, which require different levels

  777
  of seniority. There is no good reason for that. I am therefore sympathetic to the amendments, but worried about aspects of their implementation.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Perhaps the Minister of State is about to shoot my fox and say that, unknown to me, progress has already been made on reaching agreement with banks and others who will receive calls from Benefits Agency or Department of Social Security staff.
  I especially support amendment No. 12, which proposes a central point of control. That could be the only method of preventing the system from spreading to the extent of allowing officials to go on fishing expeditions to find material about individuals. It would therefore be sensible to route all calls through one control centre to an appointed person in the banks or utility companies who understood the system.
  People who work in banks or utility companies are busy. If a phone rings and the caller claims to be Joe Bloggs from the Benefits Agency, the person who replies is more than likely to look up the details on the computer and provide the answer without checking the caller's precise identity. Private detectives and similar individuals can be extremely clever at passing themselves off as officials when trying to glean information. Providing for a central point of contact is therefore sensible. I am interested in finding out whether the Minister of State has made progress with the industry on that.
  We are slightly ill at ease because we have reached the final stages of considering the Bill, yet one or two matters do not appear to have been resolved to our complete satisfaction. They raise serious questions about individual liberty and privacy. It was ever thus with such measures and we must ultimately rely on Ministers to hatch the best deal possible and hope that it works. However, I share my hon. Friends' anxieties. We remain ill at ease about the clause.
  Mr. Rooker: I remind hon. Members that we have a draft code of practice, and we have said that after Royal Assent it will be issued for full-scale consultation with the industry and all other relevant bodies. By full consultation, I mean a normal three-month consultation with all interested parties. The code will be quotable in courts of law and govern the use of powers in the Bill. I emphasise that passing the Bill this week is not the end of the matter. The guidelines for its powers will be governed by a code of practice about which we will fully consult. If Members in both Houses wish, they can use the time available to debate the matter. The code is not subject to affirmative or, indeed, negative procedures, but there is nothing to stop issues relating to the consultation or the code being debated in the House.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned various agreements, but I did not make a list of them. The note that I have tells me that all the points that she raised have been agreed with the private sector. I also remind her that they were agreed with the private sector at the time we issued the present draft code of practice. Since the Standing Committee, there has been nothing new for me to report back to the House.
  We have dealt with the hon. Lady's list of points. I shall deal with the amendments in chronological order in a moment, but I want to get a further point out of the way
  778
  so that I do not forget about it. The hon. Lady raised the issue—this was a theme in Committee as well—of comparing the grades of the civil servants authorised to operate under the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 with those who will operate under the Bill. Those who operate under the Act are authorised to obtain traffic data from telecommunications companies. Department of Social Security officers will not be interested in traffic data; they will be interested in who pays the bills, for example, or who lives at the address to which the bills are sent. They will be limited to obtaining that kind of information; they will not be interested in who spoke to whom. There will be no authority for DSS officers to check on traffic data. We are not interested in that. With respect, therefore, it is not fair to compare the civil servants operating under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act with those who will operate under the powers of the Bill.
  I shall briefly go through the amendments in order. I promise the House, by the way, that I shall not use all the notes available, of which I have 21 pages. Amendment No. 11A would create an unnecessary further layer of bureaucracy, and we do not want to do that because it would incur extra cost and time. We have already explained at some length in Committee why we do not think it necessary for officers to obtain consent before making inquiries, but let me spell it out again, because it is important so far as the staff in my Department are concerned.
  The Bill already provides safeguards to prevent the powers to obtain information from being abused. The powers may be used only when their use is reasonable for purposes set out in the legislation. Secondly, the officers who use the powers will not have the responsibility for making decisions about benefit entitlement, or about whether fraud has been committed. So, already, on the second of my seven points, we have reached a further check up the hierarchy.
  I noticed that the hon. Lady gave a quaint definition of "independent" by saying that it would refer to someone else in the Department. I thought that "independent" meant independent, as in outside the Department. Perhaps I have misunderstood. The fact is that the people making the inquiries under these powers will not be the people who decide whether someone is entitled to benefit. That is important: they will be removed from the decision-making process. That should give the House confidence that the officers conducting the inquiries will take an objective view when doing so.
  Furthermore, one cannot just dismiss the fact that I have said that the officers will be trained by saying, "Oh, they are going to be trained. Well, that doesn't matter; we are not interested in that." The Department is training more officers in anti-fraud and security than ever before, and they are of obtaining professional qualifications accredited by outside bodies. The testimony to the quality of the training in the DSS now is that the private sector advertises for PINS—professionalism in security—trained and qualified staff. The private sector is seeking to poach my Department's trained staff because it knows that they have gained a qualification through quality professional training.
  The officers will have to record the details of why the inquiries were made. It will not be possible for them to make inquiries without making such records. Also, if they abuse the powers, they will be found out and punished.

  779
  That could involve a prison sentence. If DSS officers were to go trawling through computer systems with no good reason, perhaps because a friend or family member had asked them to look into what someone was getting, or to find out where someone was living—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is trying to say something from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I merely wondered how common this was. Does it happen a lot? How many prosecutions take place each year?
  Mr. Rooker: I am trying to be as helpful as I can. What I am saying is that these things happen, and have happened in the past. The numbers involved are small but we catch them, because we police the system. No system is perfect, and people must be confident that officers using the powers in the Bill will be checked out.
  In 2000—I believe that I gave these figures in Committee—there were 18 prosecutions, three downgrades, 21 resignations and 30 dismissals among 80,000 staff in the Benefits Agency. Those are small numbers, but I am not suggesting that the situation is not serious: there have, after all, been prosecutions, resignations and dismissals. We are policing what our staff are doing in using their powers, which may be intrusive in terms of access to personal information. We have the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Data Protection Acts. Prison sentences may be imposed following prosecutions carried out successfully under those Acts. Before the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asks me, however, let me say that I do not know how many people were sent to prison last year.
  The number of authorised officers will, as we have said, be limited. We do not expect the Secretary of State to need more than 300 officers, and we propose to authorise only 175 initially. The Benefits Agency has 80,000 staff, fewer than 0.5 per cent. of whom will be authorised to use the powers in the Bill.
  The work of authorised officers will be supervised, and subject to regular management checks. We are talking about normal operational factors and arrangements, and about people who are undoubtedly highly trained specialists, with managers who are also trained specialists. We do not want more checks and red tape than we have already. It could be argued that we have gone too far now, but we need this provision because we are dealing with sensitive information.
  I remind the hon. Member for Beckenham that it was the previous Government who consolidated provisions into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It was also the previous Government who extended those powers and made them available to local authorities in the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. I am not making a major point about that; I am merely expressing the hope that there is some consensus.
  It may be said—although this is a banal way of putting it—that the same group of officials advised both Governments, and that both Governments have soaked up what they said. We have not soaked it up, however; we have subjected it to our own questioning. When planning the Bill, we removed a lot of material that existed in early drafts. My ministerial colleagues and I asked ourselves whether we could stand at the Dispatch Box and feel
  780
  comfortable about saying that we were satisfied that we were doing only what we considered necessary to police the system further, and that there would be no fishing expeditions and no intrusion on people just because they were claiming benefit. As a result, the Bill has been pared down to become a modest technical adjustment to combat fraud.
  Amendment No. 12 relates to centralisation. I know that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has raised the issue before, and I do not criticise him. Ours is a large Department, responsible for spending—I think—a third of all Government money. Our budget for benefits is £100 billion a year—£2 billion a week. That is big money, and a good many people are needed to manage the operation successfully—there are some 600 offices around the country. We have said, however, that all inquiries related to the Bill will be routed through the 13 administrative areas over which the Benefits Agency is spread, in addition to the headquarters of the national intelligence unit, which deals with organised fraud. Therefore, we have cut the number of sites from 600 to 14. I honestly think that that is reasonable. It is not reasonable to route all inquiries through one central office.
  5.30 pm
  We will limit the number of authorised officers to 175 to start with. Ministers—other Ministers; not me—will be subject to questions on how the Bill is working. The code of practice will guide the way in which it operates. The House can revisit the matter any time it chooses if issues are raised that do not conform with the promises and commitments that we have given during the passage of the Bill.
  Mrs. Lait: The right hon. Gentleman mentions that inquiries will be routed through only 14 DSS sites, but there are 409 local authorities. Will it continue to be 409 local authorities?
  Mr. Rooker: I certainly hope not. It is worse than that because there are 409 local authorities and each of them probably has more than a dozen departments, but Ministers at the centre cannot dictate to local authority chief executives how they organise their affairs. In Committee, I gave examples of good practice, particularly in Gloucester, where all inquiries are routed through one department. There is nothing to stop local authorities—it would be good practice—from making a combined effort on anti-fraud measures; regions, or local authorities that are grouped together could combine. They could share anti-fraud measures and activity. There could be a central point for one or more local authorities, but we cannot—it is just not possible—tell chief executives how they will organise.
  I accept that that may look like a cop-out. Time will tell whether local authorities are sensible in the way they operate the powers. As I have said, they are not completely analogous with those of the Government. They will not have online access to data in the private sector unless they have specific sanction and authority from the Secretary of State. They are not being given that authority. We are not prepared to say that we have that much confidence in local authorities that we are prepared to make their powers analogous to those of the Government from day one—far from it; we will not do that.

  781
  There are excellent local authorities that are efficient, that are good value for money and that have good anti-fraud operations. Other local authorities are at the other end of the spectrum. We well appreciate that there are different practices, but we cannot give an absolute commitment on the basis of all 409 authorities.
  Amendment No. 15 provides that organisations can object to a request for information on the ground that it is too onerous. May I briefly remind the House of the position? Businesses expressed concerns that inquiries should be centralised. I have already said that we will get the number down to 14 units from 600. Businesses expressed concerns that they would be asked for information that they did not normally collect. We have made it clear that we will not ask for such information. They expressed concern that they would have to develop new software and new ways of storing information, and to store information for longer. We have given reassurances on all those points. They will not be required to buy new software and to change the way they keep information. At every turn, we have made it clear that we are concerned to keep burdens to a minimum; we have made many commitments to do that. I repeat them on the Floor of the House today.
  We have made it clear at paragraph 1.7 of the code of practice that businesses may contact authorised officers if there are problems in meeting a particular request. The code makes it clear that the authorised officer must consider the organisation's objections and amend the request where that would be reasonable. There must be a test of reasonableness. It will not be done on the basis of a hunch or a whim. The code is admissible in court proceedings. That is a further back-up.
  I am a little surprised about amendment No. 16. If authorised officers had to give their background reasons for making a request or even a summary, that would let the cat out of the bag. The request might involve a collusive employer, yet the request would be made to the employer. It may be a bank or a financial institution. I am sure that the Opposition are not really serious about amendment No. 16 and therefore I will not spend any more time on it.
  In some ways, I touched on the subject of amendment No. 19 when I referred to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the rank and position of officers. It is not for the private sector to decide which rank of civil servant it is prepared to deal with when the civil servant is exercising powers conferred by statute and agreed by this House. We will not be told that by the private sector, because the law decides that issue, and Government management will decide the rest through executive responsibility. However, we will not be unreasonable. Executive officers cover a range of management in the Department and we are satisfied with the way in which they operate their present powers, which they have used since 1948, to contact companies every day across the country.
  I do not accept the telecommunications industry's point about inconsistency between the grades of officers. The nature of the information required is different: we will not be looking for traffic information. It will be made crystal clear that the inquiries made using the powers in the Bill will be made under social security legislation and
  782
  exclusively for social security purposes, by a named authorised officer working for a DSS intelligence unit or a local authority. Information providers will have a duty to check that the inquiry is from a source known to them as being an authorised officer. They will not hand out information about their customers willy-nilly, because they are not stupid. Companies know that it would be bad public relations, because one bad case could lose hundreds, if not thousands, of customers if they think that their information is not being properly looked after.
  I have not used all my notes, and I hope that the House will not invite me to do so, because we debated the issues in Committee. However, that is no reason why they should not come back to the Floor of the House and, in some ways, it has been a useful exercise. I hope that I have been able to put on record a summary of the commitments that we have already given, so that the private sector knows that we seek to work with it and not against it.
  Mrs. Lait: I was interested in the Minister's comments, some of which—like our comments—have been made before. I am reassured that the code of practice is genuinely open for consultation and, I hope, negotiation. I hope that problems will be negotiated, rather than solutions being imposed at the end of the consultation, because it is in the Government's interests—not to mention those of taxpayers—to ensure that the system works well and effectively. If difficulties arose between the private sector and the public sector, including the 409 local authorities, it would make it difficult to ensure that the legislation worked effectively.
  I hope that the consultation on the code of practice will include all 409 local authorities, and will give rise to suggestions on how they can reduce the number of points of contact. It would be horrendous to try to keep records up to date for so many local authorities.
  Mr. Rooker indicated assent.
  Mrs. Lait: I see that the Minister shares my concerns. Although he unfortunately will not be with us in the next Parliament, we will be able to call in aid his words.
  Mr. Rooker: In that case, and without the benefit of advice, it would be my view that the consultation should include every concerned body, including local authorities. As a result, the code of practice might include advice on how even local authorities use their powers under the Bill. Given that the Government have reduced the number of units from 600 to 14, it is not unreasonable to ask local authorities to designate one point of contact, and if neighbouring authorities can combine their fraud work, so much the better. I shall watch with interest to see whether my words have any effect.
  Mrs. Lait: I just hope that the Minister's words are not informed by a touch of demob happiness. We will also watch the situation closely and keep in touch with those organisations that have expressed concerns. I hope that we will hear that those concerns have been addressed, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 31, leave out "has committed,".
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 2, line 37, leave out—

  783
  'who is an official of a Government department and'.
  No. 14, in page 3, line 1, leave out "or described".
  Mr. Webb: Amendment No. 11 might seem a minor amendment to tidy up the Bill's drafting, but there is an issue of substance behind it. Under clause 1, an authorised officer cannot require information
  "unless it appears to that officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person to whom it relates is—
  (a) a person who has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence".
  Let us suppose that the criteria did not include the phrase:
  "is committing or intends to commit"
  and that the House had simply decided that these powers could be exercised only in the case of people with a conviction for benefit fraud. There is no way that the clause would have been drafted in that way, because removing that phrase would mean that the clause read that the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the person had committed such an offence.
  The test of reasonableness cannot apply to history. People have either committed an offence or they have not. So it is odd, and no more than that, that the test of reasonableness in the Bill is applied to three things—whether a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence—because on one of those criteria there is no test of reasonableness. That is what first alerted me to wonder what was going on with regard to inclusion of the words "has committed".
  When I queried this in Committee, the initial response of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), was to tell me to go back and read the Bill—which I did—where it says that an officer must have "reasonable grounds for believing" that the person has committed fraud and is about to commit fraud again. That is not what the Bill says—it says:
  "has committed, is committing or intends to commit"
  fraud. So the Minister's remarks were not, in my judgment, accurate. The condition is that once someone has committed fraud, they fall within the scope of clause 1, whether or not they are committing or intend to commit an offence.
  The Minister went on to say, and this offered me some reassurance:
  "If an authorised officer was dealing with a case in which a claimant had previously committed fraud he could not make inquiries unless he had reasonable grounds to believe that fraud was about to be committed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 April 2001; c. 28.]
  It was spelled out in Committee that not only must someone have committed an offence but they must be about to commit one. That contradicts the Bill, which refers to someone who has committed, is committing or intends to commit an offence.
  If the Bill should read "and intends", why does it not do so? If having merely committed an offence is not a sufficient condition, why is it mentioned at all? That is the nub of the amendment. The phrase "has committed" adds nothing to the Bill if the Minister's assurances are correct. If "has committed" is not a sufficient condition and there must be reasonable grounds for thinking that someone is committing or will commit an offence, the phrase "has committed" does not need to be included.
  784
  It could be argued that if the phrase is not doing anything it does not matter whether it is taken out or left in. My worry is that leaving it in provides scope for authorised people to say, when challenged, that the Bill allows them to use these powers because someone has committed fraud. If that is not the Government's intention—and the Minister has made it quite clear that it is not—why are they giving themselves that power?
  The wording of new clause 2 is better than that of clause 1. New clause 2 refers to a benefit recipient having a conviction for fraud or the officer having reasonable grounds for believing that the recipient is committing or will commit an offence. In the light of our debate in Committee, it has become apparent that if we were to write such a provision from scratch we would probably use the wording in new clause 2 rather than that in the Bill. In new clause 2, the test of reasonableness does not apply to the past, but only to the present and future.
  5.45 pm
  I do not want to be accused of nit-picking, as my intention is to do more than that. As drafted, the Bill does not make much sense. The test of reasonableness cannot be applied to something that happened in the past, but I am worried that that poor drafting leaves open a possibility that the Government say that they did not intend. The Government say that the fact that a person did something in the past does not give an authorised officer an automatic right to seek that information. However, the fact that the Bill uses the word "or" rather than "and" means that it will be sufficient for a person to have done something in the past.
  If the Government agree that that is not what they intend, they should accept the amendment. An authorised officer could take the phrase "has committed" as one of the considerations for deciding whether a person was likely to commit a fraud, but the distinction that I want to make, through the amendment, is that that would not be a sufficient consideration.
  The amendment would help the Government achieve what the Under-Secretary assured me in Committee was their intention. The present wording of the Bill would not achieve that.
  Mrs. Lait: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are very different from the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
  Amendment No. 13 would ensure the efficient transmission of data between the Government and local authorities. Both have authorised officers, and clause 1(2)(d) enables them to detect more types of fraud. However, there is a limitation on the exchange of information between the Government and local authorities. The Local Government Association has said that it has
  "been advised verbally that it is the intention of the Department to cross check against benefit records and to provide information"

  785
  to the Benefits Agency and local authorities. It also states that it
  "welcomes that clarification of how the Government intends to make use of the power to obtain bulk information from utilities".
  However, the Bill maintains the Government's ability to obtain bulk information from utilities, and that has given rise to continuing concern about trawling. The LGA states that it would be
  "grateful for confirmation that the results from the data matching process will be made available to local authorities free of charge where there are grounds for considering whether a claim is fraudulent."
  However, if the Government's express aim is to use the transfer of information to aid the fight against fraud associated with property addresses, it would be most beneficial if that information were readily available to those at the heart of the system—after all, it is local authorities that deal with housing benefit. Although the extent of housing benefit fraud may be the subject of debate, there is agreement across the House that there is a lot of it. Part of the Bill's purpose is to tackle that problem. Amendment No. 13 would allow authorised officers in local authorities to source the information direct.
  Amendment No. 14 is also related to trawling. It would ensure that any information sourced from the utilities related to a specific address or location. The amendment would tighten the provisions in the Bill, whereas amendment No. 13 would widen them somewhat. The purpose of both amendments is to tease out from the Government their thinking on these matters.
  We are still concerned that access to bulk data from utilities will be based on addresses rather than individuals.
  The Under-Secretary said in Committee that the intention was to look for evidence such as high or lower use of utility services. The search is on not individual names but addresses. We accept that. However, the Minister of State focused our concern by pointing out that there are 27 million dwellings in the country. The thought of trawling through 27 million addresses just in case one might find someone committing fraud gives everyone cause for concern. We want to hear from the Government that that is not how they envisage their requirement of "reasonable grounds" as specified in clause 1, subsection (2C). I seek reassurance.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I am somewhat perplexed by the reading of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of the wording in the Bill. We had an interesting exchange in Committee on that very matter. However, what he thinks of as a modest change—to take out "has committed" from section (2C) as part of the definition of those people on whom we will be allowed to check up—would blow a gaping hole in current powers to check on those who commit benefit fraud. It would make the powers that we seek the permission of the House to take in the Bill useless. What would seem to be a pernickety, or even nit-picking amendment, as he called it, would have serious practical consequences if it were agreed. I hope that our exchanges will reassure him and leave him satisfied that the present wording of the Bill does not do as he fears.
  786
  The hon. Gentleman fears that the Bill would allow any authorised officer to look at the record of any benefit claimant and, if they had ever committed fraud, to use that as the grounds to search for information on an individual basis. Whatever his interpretation of the Bill, I can assure him that it would not allow that to happen without further tests that would protect the individual.
  The best way to explain it is to describe the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's amendment for present powers. He is concerned that the words "has committed" mean that we would be able to make those inquiries and that we would need no further justification. I hope that I can reassure him.
  First, I will explain why the words "has committed" are crucial. It is not necessarily the case that the frauds that we investigate are current. For example, at the first sign of interest from the Department—even if it is only a routine review of a claim—a fraudster may sign off benefit. He then goes from committing a fraud to being someone who has committed a fraud, which means that we would not be entitled to continue to investigate the unsolved fraud that we had suspected. That is why the phrase "has committed" is in the Bill.
  For example, with jobseeker's allowance, it is a requirement to sign every two weeks to say that one is available for and actively seeking work. If one is not in that situation, one is committing a fraud when one signs to say that. As soon as someone has finished signing, the offence is in the past.
  The words "has committed" ensure that we can pick up people who are in the process of committing a fraud and who may realise that we are interested and so allow the benefit claim to lapse or who make other arrangements to put what they have done into the past tense. If the hon. Gentleman's version of the Bill became law, it would stop us investigating any individual who went from committing to having committed an offence by signing off.
  I shall attempt to explain why the powers about which he is concerned cannot be interpreted as he suggests. The test of reasonableness that he said did not apply, does apply because we are talking about the same claim—it is not necessarily a claim that is way in the past, as the individual may have let it lapse because he has realised that we are on to him. An authorised officer must be satisfied before using the powers in section (2C) that the tests apply. It must appear to him that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person about whom he is inquiring has committed—perhaps only a day ago—is committing or intends to commit a benefits offence or is a family member of such a person.
  Secondly—this is where the Social Security Administration Act 1992 powers come in—he must be satisfied that his inquiry is reasonable for explicitly set-out purposes. I will not go into those as they have been an obvious part of benefit-related powers for some time.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment would damage our present powers and that the powers that we are considering allow us only to make inquiries about individuals whom we suspect—not any individual in the country who may have committed benefit fraud 20 years ago, but someone whom we suspect of being involved in something in the two areas that the authorised officer has to consider. That has to be done reasonably.

  787
  If the hon. Gentleman needs further assurances, he should reflect on the fact that the terminology used in the Bill is not new. The words "has committed" appear in all the legislation and have always been interpreted as I have outlined rather than in the way he suggested. I hope that he will accept that the law has tended to support my interpretation rather than his worries. In other words, the words simply refer to the fact that there is an unresolved crime that is under investigation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would check out section 20C of the Taxes Management Act 1970, which states that there must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence involving serious fraud
  "is being, has been or is about to be committed".
  The same considerations apply. Obviously, the offence is the one that is under investigation. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned two issues when speaking to amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I hope that I can reassure her about those. First, I suspect that there has been some misunderstanding—she mentioned this—on the part of the local authorities about whether they would be allowed access to the data matching work that may be done for housing benefit purposes. I repeat my assurance that the way in which that works is that we do the matching and pass the information on to them, free of charge.
  Amendment No.13 would bring about a less efficient method. We would not pass the information to local authorities—they would have to make their own arrangements to do their own data matching for housing benefit, which would be costly and less efficient. We have records of all those claiming social security benefits and that includes housing benefits. We will do the bulk utility data matching against housing benefit records as well as our social security records and we will pass details of inconsistencies to officers in the Benefits Agency and to authorised officers in local authorities for further investigation.
  That means that local authorities do not need a power to obtain the bulk data themselves because we shall do it on their behalf. It explains the drafting of the provision, which limits those powers to officers from Departments. However, I reassure the hon. Lady that we shall not keep to ourselves the results of such data matching in respect of housing benefit. We shall pass it to the appropriate local authorities and—I am happy to confirm—it will be free of charge. I hope that disposes of the need for further action on amendment No. 13.
  6 pm
  We had some discussion in Committee about how we might use the powers under amendment No. 14 for data matching on addresses. As I said then, the first step will be to conduct a pilot exercise. We have not yet held detailed discussions about the pilot, but I suspect that it will not involve all 27 million dwellings in the UK—I think we should want to begin with something smaller.
  Our experience of data matching within Departments is that it throws up inconsistencies. That does not necessarily mean that fraud is going on, but such inconsistencies have to be further investigated. For example, in utility bulk data matching, we may find an address at which there is minimal use of electricity, water or gas, yet our records
  788
  show that housing benefit is being claimed and that six people are supposed to live at the address, so there is an inconsistency. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation for that inconsistency, but it could be sought out only by further investigation. That is what we need to do—to throw up a series of inconsistencies and pass them to investigating officers so that they can check why they might have occurred.
  I confirm to the hon. Member for Beckenham that we shall treat sensitively any matches that are revealed by the pilots. If little electricity had been consumed, that might have been because someone had been in hospital for a long time, so we should not send fraud squad people crashing in to break down the door. We would check our records to find out whether there were innocent explanations and, if there were not, we would investigate further to discover whether fraud was being committed.
  We have five or six years' experience of general matching across our system in the DSS, which has successfully saved £314 million of benefit expenditure. We have seen how that works and we want to try out a pilot scheme. The phraseology in the Bill allows us the maximum leeway in conducting a pilot to try to establish abnormally high or low utility use. That is why I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured and will not press her amendment.
  Mr. Webb: I may take the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security by surprise when I say that I found her response generally helpful. My understanding of "has committed" in this context is that it refers to people who have, for example, been convicted of an offence. Clearly, I have no intention of preventing the Department from pursuing a past fraud even though it is no longer current.
  When the Under-Secretary responded to my intervention in Committee, she said that it was not enough that people had committed fraud and that they must also be suspected of committing it—there was an "and". However, it turns out that there is no "and"; people merely need to "have committed" the offence, so that further confused me.
  None the less, the hon. Lady's comments this afternoon are convincing so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF INFORMATION
  Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 8, line 21, at end insert—
  '(g) any person not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) above but who falls within one of the categories of section 109B(2A) of the Administration Act.'.
  The amendment relates to payment for compliance with obligations to provide information. Throughout our debates on the measure, the Government have constantly underplayed its potential cost to business. The Secretary of State for Social Security said that he thought that the annual cost of providing information to a bank was estimated as just over one hour of its profits. Indeed, that was reiterated in Committee by the Minister of State. That was a rather light-hearted approach to a serious problem.

  789
  The provisions on payment for the supply of information are that the Secretary of State may make payments for information obtained from credit reference agencies. It is a shame that the provision will not include CIFAS, but we may get around to that. There is discretion to make payments to telecommunications providers in cases where they will be asked to perform a unique processing service. Payments may also be made to utility companies for bulk information—they are the only organisations that will be required to provide such information.
  There is also a provision whereby the Secretary of State may make payments where he considers that reasonable, but need not do so if he considers such payments inappropriate. Several organisations have expressed concerns to us about that provision—some of which relate to estimates of the actual costs that they are likely to face. The British Bankers Association stated:
  "Banks found it possible to scope the cost of performing individual searches".
  That is a ghastly use of the word "scope"; I always thought that it was a noun. The association notes that the cost
  "would depend on the quality, the accuracy and the amount of information provided by the DSS. One bank estimated … in excess of £500,000."
  There are signs that the DSS and local authorities will enter negotiations with telecom service providers to decide when payment is appropriate and how much will be paid. We welcome that. However, there is still concern in the telecoms industry that payments to reimburse the cost of providing information manually have yet to be agreed. That remains a worry to many small and medium-sized telecoms companies. I should appreciate reassurance that the Government have taken that point on board.
  Amendment No. 20 tries to provide a system whereby any business or organisation that may be required to provide information can claim financial redress.
  Mr. Webb: I support the amendment. The categories of information provider to whom payment may be made seem somewhat arbitrary. Reasons have been given, but seem to have been plucked from the air. It is reasonable that people who help the Government by providing information should receive compensation for the cost of doing so, especially if there is little reciprocal flow of information—although there may be more than we expect. The hon. Lady has picked up an unfortunate omission in the Bill, for which no good excuse has been offered, so I support her proposal.
  Angela Eagle: We debated this issue in Committee, so it may not surprise Opposition Members to hear that we have not changed our mind about it. Obviously, we keep an open mind, and after the Committee debate we re-examined extensively all our thinking on the matter but, funnily enough, we came to the same conclusion that we reached when the Bill was drawn up.
  I understand the worries of organisations about Government-imposed costs, but we need to put the provision into perspective. For some of the largest banks, the estimated cost is £7.6 million—that is less than an
  790
  hour's profit for one of them. There are some reasons for banks to co-operate with us regardless of whether they are reimbursed.
  First, they need to demonstrate that they are good corporate citizens. That is certainly a good thing for them to do, given their profits and public image. Secondly, all companies benefit from operating in a well-regulated society, with the rule of law, where obligations are placed on organisations. I should have thought that, today of all days, it is important for us and the banks to make that point.
  It is in everyone's interest as taxpayers—corporations pay taxes, as well as individuals—to take responsibility for ensuring that we minimise the chances of fraudsters being successful in their attempts to rip off the private sector or the public sector. We all have an interest in ensuring that loopholes are closed and that circumstances are created in which we can chase the fraudsters as effectively as possible.
  We shall not ask for unreasonable amounts of data. I hope that we have reassured organisations that we will not make unreasonable demands. We shall seek to make our inquiries in such a way as to minimise their costs. We have given commitments that businesses will not be required to invest in special software, except in the extraction of bulk information on the utilities, where we shall meet the cost. They will not be required to obtain information especially to meet inquiries, or to store information differently or for longer than they do already.
  I should like to reassure businesses that they need not fear the powers and to emphasise that it is right and proper for businesses that enjoy the advantages of trading in this country to help to defend taxpayers' money and to assist us in our fight against fraud, which may spill over from the public sector to the private sector.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the reimbursement for information inquiries be covered in the consultation on the code of practice?
  Angela Eagle: The Bill states that there are circumstances in which we shall pay. For example, we shall pay when we require information from organisations, such as credit reference agencies, that exist to sell that information. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, we have been able since the 1940s to require information in certain cases, and have never paid. We will always listen to those organisations that want to make representations to us, and they can clearly do so as part of the consultation on the code of practice.
  I hope that, throughout the debates on the Bill, we have explained how we envisage the system of payments for information. Basically, we shall pay those who sell the information that we require. However, we do not expect to pay those from whom we have received information—for example, on collusive employers—in the past, nor do we expect to pay for information from banks, but we shall not make unreasonable demands of them or increase their costs by the way in which we operate the system. Of course, we are always happy to listen to the arguments and observations of those in the private sector with whom we wish to co-operate.
  Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her assurance that those who still have concerns about the cost

  791
  of compliance can include them in the discussions. I am somewhat concerned that the Government think that they should not pay for the extra burdens that they have put on business, but that is typical of this Government. One of the main complaints that I receive from businesses in my constituency is about the increase in the burden of red tape and the costs of compliance. However, on the ground that they will have the opportunity to be consulted and, I hope, to negotiate a solution to the problems, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

  EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITH OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES
  6.15 pm
  Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
  '(1A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain and publish a list of countries with whom there are arrangements in force for the exchange of relevant information under this section.'.
  We decided to table this amendment, under which a list of countries with whom the Government are prepared to exchange information would be published, largely because the Under-Secretary gave us a complicated and unclear answer in Committee, which is most uncharacteristic. She started by saying that the countries with which the Government would wish to exchange information would comply with the
  "European convention on human rights and a European Union data protection directive, which govern what can be done with information held by a Government".
  She also said that the Secretary of State would
  "be satisfied that the other country is subject to the ECHR and the directive or to similar enactments … We would also consider other factors such as whether the other country has a stable, democratic system of government. We would not transfer information to a police state or a country with a bad human rights record".
  That all sounds reasonable and sensible, but it represents a blanket acceptance of countries.
  The Under-Secretary went on to mention:
  "The only country with which we have a bilateral agreement is Ireland, as our social security systems are similar".
  We do not argue about that; it is absolutely correct. However, she then went to say:
  "Arrangements would not be considered with countries that have bad human rights records and inadequate protections for the privacy of the individual, or which lack agreements in law that largely conform to the European convention on human rights and the data protection legislation".
  Finally, towards the end of her contribution, she said:
  "We intend matters to develop bilaterally from country to country as we pick up particular problems in our anti-fraud work."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c. 66–69.]
  I am afraid that I became confused at that stage because we had gone from a blanket acceptance provided that everyone had signed up to the ECHR and the EU data protection directive, through the bilateral agreement with Ireland, to each country having a bilateral agreement. I thought that it would be more sensible if the Government were to publish a list of countries with which they were prepared to share information.
  I dug out the list of countries that have ratified the ECHR and its consequential protocols. I noticed that, interestingly, countries such as Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the
  792
  Netherlands, Portugal and, indeed, the United Kingdom have not signed protocol 7, so will we share information with them? However, Albania has signed all the protocols. Turkey, which is applying to join the EU, has ratified only the original convention and protocol 1. Russia has signed the convention, but not protocol 6. Macedonia, Romania and Ukraine have signed the entire convention and protocols. Poland has not signed protocol 7.
  Czechoslovakia has signed them all, as has Hungary. Czechoslovakia is applying to join the EU and Turkey is on the list of applicants. [Interruption.] I apologise; I mean the Czech Republic. I deliberately did not refer to the Slovak Republic and Slovenia for obvious reasons. However, the Czech Republic has signed the convention and all its protocols and is applying to the EU for membership, as are Poland and Hungary. I hope that if the Under-Secretary is suggesting that we shall automatically exchange information with Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and, indeed, Turkey, the Secretary of State will carefully investigate the robustness of the information that they supply.
  To reduce my confusion, it would be useful if the Minister could agree to our suggestion—she does not have to accept the amendment—that a list of countries with which the Government are prepared to share information is produced. That would reassure us that it is unlikely that private information will get into the hands of people who should not receive it.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I made a very modest contribution in Committee and I have followed these proceedings with care and interest. I notice that we still have three and a half hours in which to debate the Bill and that gives me an opportunity to develop some thoughts on this amendment. As those on the Government Benches showed great enthusiasm about learning which countries signed the European convention on human rights, I would be very happy to go through all 40-plus signatories and give them the full details if that is what they would like. I suspect, however, that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not let me go that far.
  Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his contribution. I hope that he will be very reassured by what I shall say in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and to the amendment. A mistake has been made. Signing the European convention on human rights is not the only condition that must be met if we are to share information. Before the hon. Gentleman lists all 40 countries, I hope to reassure him on that point. Clearly, I will go into much more detail when it is my time to reply.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, and I assure her that I will allow her a few moments before 10 o'clock in which to respond to some of the points that I will make.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, the amendment seeks to clarify an issue that was left vague in Committee. We also need to examine the subjective judgments that were outlined in Committee, because I worry greatly when subjective tests are applied to who should or who should not receive sensitive information.
  The Government and the Opposition accept that sensitive information can be passed only to those foreign countries that have adequate safeguards. There is no

  793
  dispute between us on the need to have such safeguards to prevent the misuse of information. Although the Minister will be helpful in her reply—she has been in the past—she will find it difficult to provide an exhaustive list of the safeguards and to list the countries that possess them. I accept her point that there is more than one safeguard and, in Committee, the Government offered two factual tests that could apply. However, they then added some subjective views on issues such as stable government.
  The first test with which the Government appear to be happy—I do not object to it in principle—relates to the European Court of Human Rights. In the Committee's third sitting, the Minister said:
  "For it to appear to a Secretary of State that the other country has adequate safeguards against abuse, he must therefore be satisfied that the other country is subject to the ECHR".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c. 66.]
  Although the Minister said that that is not the only safeguard, she made it clear that it would be a fundamental test of what is an adequate safeguard.
  We need to consider closely the ECHR and I think that I am able to do so because I serve on the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe. We meet representatives of the countries that have signed the convention and, at the last count, I believe that 41 had signed it and that two were in the process of doing so. However, the target is moveable and the numbers may have changed.
  It is not just the convention itself that matters. Although 40-plus countries have signed the convention, as my hon. Friend said, it has been found necessary over time to create additional protocols. It seems to me that protocols 1, 4, 6 and 7 are relevant to providing the adequate safeguards that we need. Therefore, we must know not only whether a country has signed the convention itself, but which protocols it has signed.
  If we use the protocols and the convention as criteria, we must be careful. If we say that a country must sign the convention and the relevant protocols, I am sorry to tell the House that that would rule out the United Kingdom. We have not signed all the protocols, so such an arrangement would put us in an awkward position. I am sure that the Government agree that the convention is not sufficient and that the protocols are necessary to provide an adequate safeguard. Therefore, we have to consider the matter country by country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham did.
  Let me explain why the convention is not adequate in itself. Just before Christmas, I was an election observer in Azerbaijan and it will not be long before Azerbaijan passes one of the Government's tests. In the past few weeks, it has been formally admitted to full membership of the Council of Europe, having ratified the convention. As an election observer, I saw at close quarters Azerbaijan's administrative system. I call it a "system" to be polite, but it would be better to call it an administrative shambles. I saw how it used computers to doctor election results, so heaven help us if we were to use the convention as a safeguard in the case of Azerbaijan and its administrative system and computer safeguards. All that we shall have is a leaky sieve and information will go all over the place. Therefore, we cannot use just the convention.
  794
  As the Government rightly say, we must go at least one step further. In Committee, they made it quite clear that one of the tests would have to be compliance with the European data protection directive. That is sensible, provided that we know what the directive will do. When it was introduced in 1995—as is often the case with that thing over there in Brussels, which puts out paperwork saying how grand something will be—a press release said that the directive's purpose was:
  "To prevent abuses of personal data and ensure that data subjects are informed of the existence of processing operations".
  It went on in that vein saying how marvellous the directive would be.
  I have done what I can to check whether the directive is being enforced in every country. I am something of a cynic when it comes to the European Union, its directives and how well they are enforced and, more often than not, I get the impression that this is the only country that enforces them properly. I will not digress but, if one examines the agricultural sector or any other issue that captures the headlines, one will discover that some members of the European Union look at directives, smile sweetly and put them in the wastepaper basket.
  If that is what is happening to other directives, how can we be sure that this directive—which has been trumpeted as something that will protect British citizens from the misuse of information—will provide a proper safeguard? If it is enforced like the other directives, it will not be much good at all. I am certainly happy to support the Government in using the directive as one of the tests, but it would be helpful to know who checks that it has been enforced in this country and elsewhere. We need to know how rigorous the checks are, but how are we to do that? Is information on checking published anywhere? When my hon. Friend's list appears, information on whether the other countries of the European Union comply with the directive should perhaps be attached to it.
  6.30 pm
  It would also be helpful to have on the record an assurance that the provisions comply with the directive. I am not aware that that has been confirmed publicly, but I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I missed something. I look forward to her spelling out, beyond all doubt, that they have been checked against the European directive and that she is satisfied that they comply fully with it.
  The Government also want us to accept that it is sensible to make subjective judgments to determine whether other countries are suitable. In Committee, the Minister said:
  "We would also consider other factors such as whether the other country has a stable, democratic system of government. We would not transfer information to a police state or a country with a bad human rights record, where such information might be abused."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c.66.]
  Again, I suspect that hon. Members would say "Amen" to all of that. It is a laudable comment. However, subjective terms need clarification. What is a stable Government? What would happen if a general election in this country produced a hung Parliament with a majority of one or two and we faced another election? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mutters "Austria", and I am grateful for that example. Is the Government of the Former Yugoslav

  795
  Republic of Macedonia considered to be stable in its current state? We must have tests and definitions of a stable Government; a bland assertion is not enough.
  What is a democratic Government? That is another subjective test. [Interruption.] I am getting an enormous amount of help as my hon. Friends explain that this Government is not democratic. I shall let that pass because the debate has been friendly and I do not want to agitate hordes of Labour Members when they read about that in the morning.
  There are questions about democracy, even among members of the Council of Europe. Would we want to exchange information with Romania and Albania, both of which would pass the other tests? Would we define their Governments as democratic? That is debatable. I do not want to pass slurs on those countries without knowing a great deal about them, but I am sure that we could question whether Romania has a democratic Government as we understand it in this part of Europe. Subjective judgments are not necessarily a good idea.
  The Minister also said that we would not want to swap information with a police state. I have a huge admiration for the Metropolitan police, but tomorrow morning we will be able to get pictures from the television and photographs from the newspapers on what has taken place in London this afternoon that portray, even us, as operating a police state. Before I get a lot of letters about that, let me make it clear that I am not criticising the actions of the police or suggesting that that assertion is true, but if people want to make mischief, they can use a subjective test, such as a police state. We must make that definition clear so that someone does not drag in the actions of a police force, such as those seen today. It is not enough to say "a police state"; we want to know what that means.
  The other test is a country with a bad human rights record. We would need to go beyond 10 o'clock to get to the bottom of what on earth that might be. However, the first test is that a country should be a signatory to the European convention on human rights. Turkey's position—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I need to remind him that this is not a stand part debate on clause 5. We are discussing an amendment that deals purely with whether the Secretary of State should maintain a list. The hon. Gentleman's remarks fall well outside the scope of that narrow amendment.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I understand your ruling.
  I have a final concern, which is highly relevant to the amendment. The implication in Committee was that the Government should publish a list of independent sovereign foreign countries. If the Minister accepts the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, she might want to reflect on whether the list should contain at least one organisation—Europol—in addition to the countries. Will the Government consider transferring information to Europol, which was established as the European Union's law enforcement organisation with a mission to help to combat organised crime? We need to transfer information because fraud is often serious organised crime.
  796
  Europol facilitates the exchange of information between member states. That is one of its jobs. We have a ready-made tool to help the Minister to achieve her aims. Have the Government considered using Europol and, if so, how? If the Minister accepts the amendment and agrees to publish a list, will she be prepared to put Europol on it? It should include not only those countries that are deemed to be suitable for the exchange of information, but the tests that were applied to them. That would allow us to know what decisions were made and to which countries the tests were applied. We would also know why it is considered safe and sensible to transfer information to them.
  Angela Eagle: I am glad to be able to respond to the debate. It appears that by giving examples to assist the Committee, I gave the wrong impression and sent the Opposition off on a tangent that does not have much to do with how we intend to operate the powers in clause 5. I hope that I can make amends by explaining how they will work and the process by which we will reach individual bilateral agreements with countries.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was mistaken—it was probably my fault—when she assumed that being a signatory to the European convention on human rights would allow us to exchange bulk information with a particular country. Had that assumption been right, she and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) would have pertinent points to make. However, the powers will not be used in that way. I hope that I can reassure Opposition Members about that.
  We will facilitate bulk exchange of information on a bilateral basis. We will not do that in secret; there will be a list of the countries with which we have reached bilateral arrangements. As I take hon. Members through the process, I hope that I will cast more light on the powers and put their minds at rest. The list will be public knowledge, but I do not intend to accept the amendment because that does not need to be stated on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that hon. Members understand that we do not want to keep secret the countries involved in bilateral exchanges. That would not be appropriate.
  Clause 5 is not an "open sesame" that will allow us immediately to start sharing a wide range of information with any overseas social security administration that takes our fancy. I said that in Committee. It is a three-stage process, and this is an enabling provision that begins that process. The clause says clearly that information sharing can take place only where
  "it appears to the Secretary of State … that there are arrangements in force for the exchange of relevant information between him and any authorities in a country outside the United Kingdom ('the overseas country'); and … that the arrangements and the law in force in the overseas country are such as to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place against any improper use of information disclosed by the Secretary of State under this section."
  Those arrangements are the second stage of the process. They mean that we would have a bilateral arrangement with any country with whom we were considering information sharing before any data changed hands, other than data that can already be exchanged under existing law. For example, we can exchange data for the administration of contributory benefits such as pensions. Indeed, this country exports nearly 1 million pensions overseas every year. However, that is wholly different from a bulk exchange.

  797
  That arrangement would take the form of a memorandum of understanding, and it would be detailed and specific about what information could be exchanged, when, for what purposes and with what safeguards. One bilateral arrangement may differ slightly from another. As I said in Committee, we have only one in place at the moment, and it is a specific memorandum of understanding with the Republic of Ireland signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his opposite number. To exchange any information under clause 5, therefore, a bilateral memorandum of understanding with the other country would be required. It should be obvious that the overseas Government and the UK would not go to the lengths of negotiating any such bilateral agreement unless there was value in it for both parties.
  The aim of exchanging information in that manner is to combat transnational benefit fraud, so there would have to be cogent evidence, based on intelligence and research, that a problem existed between the two countries before we would set out on that road. Hon. Members may well conclude that any list of countries affected by the powers in clause 5 would be reasonably short.
  In Committee, we were asked what we planned to do with countries that do not have satisfactory arrangements to protect human rights and to safeguard exchanged data. Clearly, we would not enter into a bilateral arrangement for a free and full exchange of information with such a country. However, there would be no impediment to our co-operation with the authorities in that country to obtain information on a case-specific basis. No new legislation is needed for that; it already happens. We would certainly not entertain the prospect of bulk exchange of information with such a country, and nor would clause 5 allow it.
  Transnational benefit fraud is a problem that we need to take seriously. On 22 April 1999, the representatives of the Governments of the European Union member states, meeting in the European Council, passed a resolution on a code of conduct for improving co-operation between authorities of the member states in combating transnational social security benefit and contribution fraud, undeclared work and the transnational hiring out of workers. The problem is not peculiar to the United Kingdom. The German and Dutch authorities recently detected 30,000 offences of transnational working and claiming as a result of one data-matching exercise. There are gains to be made if we can come to the appropriate arrangements.
  We issued a press release on the memorandum of understanding with the Government of Ireland last October when it was signed. When the list extends beyond one, we will maintain it and publish the details. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Beckenham that this is a deliberate, staged process with proper safeguards.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked whether the provisions comply with the EU directive on data protection, and I take great delight in telling him that they do.
  Mrs. Lait: We got almost as close as it is possible to get to having an amendment accepted. I am sorry that we will not have a published list, short though it might be. Obviously, by trawling through the House of Commons
  798
  Library in due course we will all be able to work out with whom the Government have bilateral agreements. In fact, we may add to the cost to the public purse and table questions, which would probably be a more expensive way to get the answer. On the basis of the Minister's reassurance and clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

  Loss OF BENEFIT FOR COMMISSION OF BENEFIT OFFENCES
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 30, leave out clause 7.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 12, leave out line 20.
  No. 18, in page 12, line 24, after "any", insert "state".
  No. 4, in clause 8, page 13, line 3, leave out clause 8.
  No. 5, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, leave out clause 9.
  No. 6, in clause 10, page 15, line 18, leave out clause 10.
  No. 7, in clause 11, page 15, line 36, leave out clause 11.
  No. 8, in clause 12, page 16, line 18, leave out clause 12.
  No. 9, in clause 13, page 17, line 1, leave out clause 13.
  No. 1, in clause 20, page 23, line 11, at end insert—
  '(1A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) to bring section 7 into force before a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which this Act is passed.'.
  No. 10, in clause 21, page 23, line 20, leave out—
  '7, 10, 11, 12(3), 13'
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the other main part of the Bill, which relates to benefit sanctions. It may appear that we have gone a little crazy in tabling amendments to delete clauses, but essentially we want to remove clause 7, and as it is referred to throughout the remainder of the Bill, it would not have made sense if we did not seek to delete the rest of the Bill too. Clause 7 is the nub of our concerns, as hon. Members present will know well.
  I shall deal first with the amendments that make more modest changes. Amendment No. 2 is the most modest and deals with our desire to remove the threat of sanction from those who are successfully prosecuted twice for war pension fraud offences. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delay the implementation of clause 7 and, by implication, the remainder of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will be hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak to that amendment. Amendment No. 3 is obviously our preferred route, which is to remove clause 7 from the Bill altogether.
  The House will be aware that we discussed briefly in Committee the matter dealt with in amendment No. 2. I expressed the concern, which had been voiced in the other place, that war pensions are on the list of benefits for which a fraud offence committed twice leads to a

  799
  sanction, but retirement pensions are not. When I raised that point on Second Reading, the Minister of State, who has kindly explained why he cannot be with us, chose to imply, tongue in cheek, that I wanted to bring retirement pensions within the scope of the clause. Of course I want war pensions to be removed, and that is what the amendment would do.
  In our Committee deliberations on 9 April the Minister of State gave some information about war pension fraud that we had been unaware of, when he said:
  "I may be undermining my case, but I want to be as open and frank as possible: six cases of fraud were detected, but there were no prosecutions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c. 79.]
  Hardly anyone ever gets done for war pension fraud—there are only six cases in recent memory and none of those led to a prosecution. Yet the provision on war pensions would be enacted only if a person were prosecuted twice. Something that seems not to happen at all would have to happen twice if the provision were to come into force.
  One might say that although such prosecutions never happen, it does no harm to have such a provision in the Bill, but it is clear that war pensioners' organisations took offence at the suggestion that there was war pension fraud. As the Bill includes war pensions but not retirement pensions, there is some suggestion that retirement pensioners are deemed to be above fraud but war pensioners are not. Our judgment is that if a provision gives offence to a group who deserve our respect and achieves no practical purpose whatsoever, it should not be included. It achieves nothing.
  Ministers are fond of saying that such measures send signals, but it is far from clear to whom this provision sends a signal. Presumably, it sends a signal to the six people who have committed war pension fraud, although none of the cases was considered sufficiently serious for the person to be prosecuted. To give offence to a significant group to whom this country owes a great debt for the purpose of sending a signal to, at best, six people, none of whom would be affected by the provision anyway, seems absurd. I hope that, in an end-of-term spirit, the Minister will look sympathetically on this modest change, which is unlikely to have any effect on the Government's finances or on benefit fraud but which will remove a source of offence to Britain's war pensioner community.
  Amendment No. 3 deals with the substantive issue, as it would delete clause 7 from the Bill; the other amendments follow from that. I do not want to go over old ground again and repeat the debate that we had in Committee. I shall, however, summarise the key distinction between us, the Government and, probably, the Conservatives. We are far from the position that the Minister of State sought to parody when he introduced the notion of benefit fraudsters as lovable rogues; we have not used that term, and would never use it. All three parties are united in the view that benefit fraud is serious and needs to be reduced and stamped out. Indeed, that is why we shall not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. There is no difference between us on that.
  I hope, though, that we can have a mature debate in the House on sentencing policy. When different parties debating a home affairs Bill agree that something is a crime, but do not know how severe a sentence should be,
  800
  I hope that nobody says that one party is a friend of the criminal just because it thinks it appropriate to have a longer or shorter sentence. It is a matter of appropriateness, and that is what we are debating now. We are not debating whether something is right or wrong; the question is: what is the appropriate sentence?
  The Government believe that, in cases of two strikes—two convictions for benefit fraud—it is appropriate to deprive people of part of their income. The biggest problem with that, however, is that it impacts not just on the individuals themselves, but on their dependants, including their children. An unanswered question from our earlier deliberations concerns the fact that the Government have pledged to abolish child poverty. I submit that any child living in a sanctioned household is, at the very least, at risk of poverty. An innocent child, whom we do not hold responsible for the actions of his or her parents, will be living below the poverty line in such a household. How can the Government's stated aim of abolishing child poverty be consistent with putting a child's household below the poverty line? We have not had an answer to that point and I do not suppose that we will, as there is none.
  The second problem is the effect of the sanction. The Under-Secretary will say that the Government do not really want to use the sanction because, in practice, there will probably be a few hundred cases. She will say that the Government want to send a signal; they do not want the sanction to be used. Clearly, however, it is envisaged that it will be used in, say, 500 cases. What effect will forcing people below the breadline have on their subsequent behaviour? Is it clear that it is in society's interests for people not to have enough money to make ends meet? If someone has already transgressed the law not once, but twice, what effect will it have if we then find them stealing or doing something like that to make ends meet? It is not clear that that form of punishment is in society's interests at all. We object to the clause for the way in which it affects those incidental to the crime.
  Mr. Pickles: I read the hon. Gentleman's contribution in Committee and have listened to him most carefully. So that I am clear, will he say whether Liberal Democrat Members believe that everyone has a right to benefit, regardless of behaviour?
  Mr. Webb: We believe that an appropriate punishment for misbehaviour should not deprive people of subsistence. Obviously, we do not oppose putting people in prison for serious offences, but when they are there, they should not be deprived of food, clothing and shelter. Indeed, prisons provide all those things. People can be deprived of their liberty for something extremely serious, but are granted food, clothing and shelter. It is therefore anomalous that, if they do something else that we object to, but which does not warrant a custodial sentence—or, at least, in many cases does not get one—we should think it appropriate to deprive them of money needed for basic subsistence.
  As members of society, people have a right to basic subsistence. For society to punish people by depriving them of basic subsistence is inhumane; for their dependants, it is particularly inhumane. If, for example, community service were used to penalise repeat offenders, that would penalise individuals without penalising their dependants or forcing households below the poverty line.

  801
  If a custodial sentence were deemed appropriate for a serial offender, one could debate whether its effect on dependants was better or worse than getting by with no money. However, a humane society should not respond to what, admittedly, is serious crime by depriving people of the basics of life.
  Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the only people who are going to commit benefit fraud are those with no money whatever?
  Mr. Webb: No, of course not; that is an absurd suggestion. We are suggesting that the sanction policy will leave people below the breadline. In any given week, people already have fixed costs that they cannot avoid. For example, people have to pay their housing costs or else they lose their home, and they have to pay for their gas, electricity and so on. Once all those necessities have been paid for, the amount of discretionary spending may be extremely limited and it gets squeezed.
  We have all heard stories of parents on a tight budget who forgo their meals to make sure that their children can eat. Basics such as food get squeezed because many household bills must be paid, come what may. I am therefore rather puzzled by the Under-Secretary's intervention. The intention of the policy is that people will be left below the benefit line, which—especially bearing in mind the children—is not an appropriate way for the state to punish people who transgress. Other forms of punishment are more humane and appropriate for that sort of offence.
  In a moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will seek to explain our thinking in trying to delay the provisions—if that is possible—and will look at the effects of other sanctions in the benefit system. Naturally, our preference is for these measures not to be in the Bill at all, and we wish to persuade the Government that the offence given to war pensioners through the inclusion of the measure in the Bill achieves no useful purpose and only gives offence. It would be to everyone's benefit if it were removed.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that very little would be achieved by clause 7, which was largely symbolic. That is the entire purpose of the Bill. I do not think for one moment that very much will be achieved by clause 7. The rhetoric of the Under-Secretary and the Minister of the State is quite different from the rhetoric that we heard when the Bill was first announced; the Prime Minister made great play of the clause and the policy of "two strikes and out". I recall that the departmental press release led with that item. However, the hard truth is that the provision is not likely to hit more than 500 people a year. Frankly, I doubt that the figures will ever reach that level, as the problem of reoffending is relatively small.
  We support the clause on the basis of the assurances that the Under-Secretary has given. On Second Reading and in Committee, she was pressed on a number of occasions to say whether the provision conformed to the European convention on human rights. We are now a signatory to various ECHR protocols and it is part of our law. The Under-Secretary said consistently that we should put our trust in her; she had taken legal advice,
  802
  and she could give us an assurance. The Opposition remain remarkably unconvinced by that argument. We do not believe that the provision will pass scrutiny in the courts, and we are worried about that because, in a few years' time, when we have been in government for a couple of years, we will get the rap. We will find ourselves having to go to the High Court to try to defend those systems. Those who introduced them will either have retired or be in opposition. We shall wait and see.
  7 pm
  I very much agree with the hon. Member for Northavon on war pensions. There is more than a tinge of post-modern irony in wishing to include them in the Bill. I cannot see the logic in applying the provisions to war pensioners and, frankly, it makes the Bill seem ridiculous. There is exactly the same logic in excluding war pensioners as there is in excluding state pensioners—very few of either category commit fraud. The hon. Member for Northavon said that there have been no prosecutions in the past six months and that there have been only six cases, but he did not say—out of charity, I suspect—that the Government do not know the figures.
  The Under-Secretary has said that no study has been undertaken to ascertain the number of people involved, so let us assume that it is ludicrously low and that there is much more war pensions fraud than we think. Instead of six, the figure might be eight or nine, or it might even reach double figures. We are discussing not "one strike and you're out" cases, but repeat offenders whose involvement might run to 10 cases a year, although I doubt whether there would be even one. Why include the provision?
  I doubt whether even the most low-brow television soap opera with flagging viewing figures would develop a story line suggesting as credible a repeat fraud offence by a war pensioner. There is no reason to include the provision, which demeans the Bill by its very presence, so I have a lot of sympathy with amendment No. 2, which has been tabled by the Liberals.
  Our amendment, No. 18, would clarify the retirement pensions issue by inserting the word "state". I am sure that the measure is intended to cover state retirement pensions, but I would like an explanation of why that word is not included.
  In reply to the question whether the Liberal Democrats support a universal right to benefit, the hon. Member for Northavon gave me a number of examples. In fairness, I think that he was saying yes. It does not seem to matter to the Liberal Democrats how the recipient has behaved or how much and how many times he has defrauded.
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: I am about to tell a rather good joke at the hon. Gentleman's expense.
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Mr. Pickles: I shall take the intervention first.
  Mr. Webb: I do not want to ruin the hon. Gentleman's timing, but to clarify the point I should say that we are certainly not querying punishment for benefit fraud.

  803
  Indeed, I referred to community service and imprisonment. Clearly, people who are in prison lose their benefit, so we are not saying that entitlement should be retained come what may, but we are questioning whether removing benefit from someone living in the community is the right penalty.
  Mr. Pickles: That was most helpful. I read the exchanges in Committee between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State, which at times seemed a little bad tempered. The hon. Gentleman is a very reasonable man, so I cannot understand why the Minister of State was so beastly to him.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I can.
  Mr. Pickles: No doubt the Whip can, but I am a more tolerant chap.
  I would not want to put words in the mouth of the Liberal Democrats, but they seem to be suggesting a strongly worded reprimand as a sanction—a cup of tea and an inquiry as to whether the recipient is getting enough benefit. In truth, I can see the Focus headline: "Liberal Democrats wag finger at fraudster", or "Fraudster told by top Lib Dem that he has been very, very naughty". Their response is wholly inappropriate.
  I recall the hon. Member for Northavon quoting on Second Reading Mr. Paul Cavadino, director of policy at the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. He was wise to do so, because those remarks sum up the objections to the Bill. The quote runs to only three sentences, so I shall read it into the record:
  "Any change should be based on improving the likelihood of those on community sentences turning their back on crime and leading law-abiding lives. Withdrawing benefits from those not completing a community sentence order would be counter- productive. Without some other means of income, it is inevitable that some will fall back on crime to make ends meet."
  There is nothing inevitable about people committing crime—that is the politics of Danegeld. Why offer bribes to fraudsters to prevent them from committing crime? We should not say, "Here's a nice handout. Take it, and please don't commit crime."
  I see the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on the Government Front Bench. He and I know areas of the north of England that are racked with poverty, but we also know that people in those areas do not habitually commit crime. They do not commit crime because they have pride in their neighbourhoods, their lives and their families. Nobody is forced to commit crime; the Government are right that no one has an automatic right to benefits; and we agree with them that there is a contract between the state and the recipient.
  For the sake of time, I shall risk oversimplifying the matter. Some people may seek work or offer continuing care as part of that contract, but riding through it all is an obligation to be honest in order to qualify for benefit. The argument about serious crime and providing clothing and food for murderers is spurious, and I do not accept that the measure represents double punishment.
  If a person applied for a grant to defraud the taxpayer, we would rightly refuse it, so why should fraudsters have their life style rewarded with continued full benefit? After all, the measure will apply for only 13 weeks; it is only a part-provision and other measures exist. Allowing people
  804
  to continue to receive benefits when they have openly defrauded the benefits system—not once, but twice—represents laughing in the face of that system.
  The measure may be symbolic, it may not have vast effect and only a few people may be affected by it. Nevertheless, I believe that it will continue the establishment of an important principle: there is no automatic right to benefit and there is a contract between the citizen and the state in respect of honesty.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1, but I must first pick up on a couple of comments made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He referred to the exchanges in Committee on 9 April and, in particular, to the Minister of State's attempt to parody or caricature the position taken by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman did his best to do the same.
  We are not in the business of rewarding cheats. Like Labour and Conservative Members, Liberal Democrats believe that we have to bear down on benefit fraud, but we also believe that the punishment should be appropriate and targeted on the offender. It should not be so indiscriminate as to impact on the family, as if guilt by association justifies applying a sanction that will result in difficulties and hardship not only for the individual, who may deserve to face hardship, but for his relatives. We have therefore tabled amendment No. 1, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, we would much prefer the clause not to see the light of day.
  We believe that a delay is necessary because the Government should surely take time not only to reflect, but, better still, to gather the evidence on which they want to justify their policy. There is a lack of evidence to sustain the case that the measure represents an effective means not only of sending a signal, but of genuinely changing behaviour. There are questions, which my hon. Friend raised in Committee and on Second Reading, as to the knock-on, collateral damage that will be done to the families of benefit cheats. It is wrong that families and children should be made to suffer for the sins and omissions of parents who are tempted to defraud the system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon referred in Committee to the limited research that has already been done on the matter by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. That work is set out in research report No. 86, which evaluated jobseeker's allowance. I believe that Ministers have relied on that report at least as evidence to show that they have researched these matters, but the important thing is that it was based on a sample of only 30 people. That is the basis on which their policy is being built. When one considers what those 30 people said and the change of behaviour that was involved, one sees that the evidence does not support the Government's policy.
  That is why we propose a novel idea to the House and to the Government: evidence-based policy. There should be some evidence before the Government act in a way that will do harm. That is why we are saying that they should delay the measure for two years. Why two years? We believe that, if the matter is to be investigated effectively, time will be needed to set up the necessary research and to track the impact of the policies and

  805
  sanctions that are already in place in respect of jobseeker's allowance and the Child Support Agency. We must track their impact over time to investigate their effects on families and so on. Finally, at the end of such a project, there must be a proper evaluation.
  As I said, we believe that benefit cheats should be punished, but that the children, who will be innocent of the crime, should not be punished with their parents. That is why we have said that benefits sanctions are about seeking retribution. We do not believe that that is the role of the state, although we think that it does have a role in seeking restitution and rehabilitation. That is the proper balance, but the Bill is unbalanced and is unfair and unjust as a result. It is entirely right to demand that people who defraud the system should repay the money, pay fines and give community service, and to ensure that habitual fraudsters serve time; but it is wrong of the House to agree to an unfounded, unresearched and ill-conceived measure without even having the grace to pause and conduct proper research. I hope that the House will consider accepting amendment No. 1, even if it is minded to reject the other Liberal Democrat amendments.
  Angela Eagle: The amendment would either remove the two-strikes provision or delay it for two years. In effect, the delay would be longer, because the two strikes must be built up. It is reasonable to assume that it would be unusual for somebody to receive two convictions for benefit fraud in a single year, so the amendment would delay the biting of the two-strikes sanctions even further, and it will not surprise the House to learn that the Government oppose it.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) almost argued in his welcome last-ditch appearance in our proceedings that the Bill was modest. He seemed to hint that he wanted us to go further. However, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was almost apocalyptic about the poverty that the two-strikes sanction would cause to innocent members of the families of benefit fraudsters. I do not underestimate the effect of sanctions, and the hon. Gentleman might have had a point if the sanctions involved in the two-strikes process, which is set out from clause 7 onwards, removed all benefit, but they apply only to the personal elements of benefits and are designed specifically to operate alongside a hardship scheme, which ensures that innocent members of a family unit whose head has been involved in benefit fraud are appropriately protected. He was guilty of the grossest exaggeration in his portrayal of some of the effects of the two-strikes sanction.
  7.15 pm
  Last year, more than 22,000 people were sanctioned for cheating the benefit system, and almost half of them were subsequently convicted of benefit fraud. On the hard core of repeat offenders, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar rightly referred to 500 people; indeed, about 500 people a year would fall under the two-strikes provisions. The intention of the provisions is to deter those who persist in repeat defrauding of the benefit system, but never come across any sort of sanction.
  I can give some examples of the sort of cases that are involved, some of which are mind boggling. For example, one person was prosecuted for working while claiming
  806
  and was then done for stealing and cashing a relative's child benefit book. Undeterred, that person was then prosecuted again for attempting to claim jobseeker's allowance to which he was not entitled. The people whom we are targeting steal vast sums of money that could be better spent elsewhere on more deserving causes such as the alleviation of child poverty.
  Two people were recently convicted because of their part in a ring involving stolen girocheques, which caused an estimated loss to public funds of £670,000. In another case, a woman admitted making false benefit claims after 11 benefit order books and documentation relating to several other different identities were found at her address. The overpayment was calculated at more than £140,000.
  At the other end of the scale, a man was recently convicted of stealing from a blind friend a disability living allowance order book and girocheques worth £1,200. In another case, a man who had previously been convicted of order book fraud admitted on arrest to obtaining his ex-partner's order books and advancing the dates on them. He also admitted to a series of irregularities covering a further seven order books and a girocheque.
  Mr. Pickles: Those examples illustrate the utter callousness of people who defraud the state, but surely the Under-Secretary's remarks do not apply to war pensions. Is not it better to concentrate on fraudsters such as those whom she describes and not to establish powers for war pensions that have not been taken in relation to state pensions?
  Angela Eagle: I shall deal with the war pensions aspect of the amendments in due course. I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I would prefer to do so when I am speaking about the relevant aspects of the amendments.
  The Department does not prosecute in cases where there is no public interest in doing so. The people whom the sanction will hit are the cheats who systematically abuse the system for their own gain, not only once but again and again. It is intended not only to provide a deterrent, but to send a signal saying that such repeat behaviour will not be tolerated in the system. I hope that it works as a deterrent. Paradoxically, one of the signs that suggest that it might be working is that there are few repeat offenders. People realise that the game is up and that they cannot continue cruelly and callously to milk the system. They must realise that cheating the benefit system and stealing money from the most vulnerable people in society, who rely on the welfare system, ensures that there is less money to go round for those who are needy. That is why we must consider a viable deterrent. The Government believe that the two-strikes sanction is an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
  The hon. Member for Northavon expressed in exaggerated terms his worries about the effect on the families of people who have committed the offences. The Government intend that the sanctions should hit the people who were responsible for the fraud, rather than their innocent family members. The sanctions affect 40 per cent. of the personal allowance, or 20 per cent. of it if there are vulnerable people in the family, which is the case when the claimant or a family member is pregnant or seriously ill.

  807
  Those sanctions are not new; they have been a feature of the benefits system for a long time. However, we are extending them to those who systematically defraud. Housing and council tax benefits will be unaffected when the claimant has an underlying entitlement to income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. If there is no such underlying entitlement, we intend to reduce housing and council tax benefits by an amount equivalent to 40 per cent. of a single person's allowance or 20 per cent. if the claimant or a family member is pregnant or seriously ill.
  The opposition of the hon. Member for Northavon to sanctions is well known. I know that I will not persuade him to change his mind, but I should like him to consider and accept that child benefit will never be withdrawn, that housing and council tax benefits will continue to be paid even when jobseeker's allowance or income support is sanctioned, and that premiums payable for the family and children will not be reduced. Only the personal allowance will be affected. Free prescriptions and school meals will remain available even when a benefit is sanctioned. All those protections will ensure that innocent members of families, about whom the hon. Gentleman is so worried, will not suffer.
  The hon. Gentleman must accept that benefit sanctions are designed to deter persistent defrauding of the system. They therefore need to be tough. However, I hope that he will also accept that we have attempted to strike a balance and provide protection by granting access to hardship schemes. Those affected will, after all, have been convicted twice. I expect us to revert to those matters in future, but I cannot accept amendments that would tear the Bill in half and remove the sanctions.
  I expect us to repeat some of the discussions that we held in Committee on war pensions. However, the amendments would have the unintended effect of preventing war pensions from being a disqualifying benefit. That would mean that fraud against it would not count as a strike under the two-strikes provisions. The amendments would also stop war pensions being a sanctionable benefit. If that happened, people could target war pensions for fraud. I suspect that the hon. Member for Northavon did not intend that.
  War pensioners are decent and law abiding, and the money that they receive reflects the debt that society owes them. I can therefore understand the reasons for some hon. Members' reservations about their inclusion in a fraud-related provision. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate to exclude them. Opposition Members will not agree with me, but I shall explain why we remain of that opinion.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Northavon argued that if there was a good case for excluding retirement pension on the ground that there is almost no evidence of fraud, that also applied to war pensions. However, we are considering not merely numbers but whether a benefit should be sanctionable or has the potential for fraud.
  The retirement pension is not a sanctionable benefit, and the majority of war pensioners are now over pension age. However, there are big differences between the rules for the two benefits. Those for the retirement pension are simple. Anyone who is over a certain age and has paid contributions receives it. It is difficult for someone to
  808
  commit fraud against it. However, that does not apply to war pensions, and entitlement depends on other issues, such as income.
  Mr. Burstow: I am listening closely to the explanation for retaining war pensions in the measure. Have the Government considered using regulations instead of specifying war pensions in the Bill? Such an approach permits the addition of benefits over time. If the Minister accepts that there is little fraud against war pensions, why not consider using regulations and removing the provision? The Government would thus not insult war pensioners.
  Angela Eagle: We are not insulting war pensioners by stating in a measure that it is possible to commit fraud against war pensions. I agree that only a trickle of war pensioners have committed fraud, none of which has been sanctioned. We have been open about the figures in our debates. We do not prosecute when it is against the public interest. However, it is possible to commit fraud against war pensions. Including that possibility in the measure does not mean that the Government claim that all war pensioners defraud the system.
  Mr. Pickles: The Minister is right to say that the clause is symbolic and conveys a message. However, including war pensions conveys a bad message for the Government. I am confident that she has examined the figures, so will she answer a simple question? How many war pensioners in the past five years, or the past year, have committed the offence twice?
  Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman asks a question to which, like those in referendums, he knows the answer. In the past year or so, there have been six cases of war pensioners defrauding the system. None has been prosecuted and none has so far repeated the offence. As I said earlier, we have been as open as possible about the figures. However, that does not mean that the provision should not be included in the Bill. I emphasise that the Government do not claim that war pensioners are fraudsters, but we want to allow the Bill to extend as far as necessary in case there is a problem in future.
  Amendment No. 18 uses the term "state retirement pension". It is widely used but has no meaning in law. The reference to "any retirement pension" may appear too broad, and I suspect that that led to the amendment. However, it should be considered in the context of "disqualifying benefit" in clause 7(8). It defines sanctionable benefits as
  "any disqualifying benefit other than"
  and lists the exceptions, including "any retirement pension".
  Subsection (8) defines a disqualifying benefit as
  "any benefit under the Jobseekers Act 1995"
  or its Northern Ireland equivalent, or
  "any benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992",
  its Northern Ireland equivalent or "any war pension". The Bill therefore refers to any retirement pension that is paid under the 1992 Act.
  We commonly describe those pensions as "state retirement pensions". The phrase covers the basic pension, the new second-tier pension or the old state

  809
  earnings-related pension scheme. Other pensions, such as private and public sector occupational pensions, are not paid under the 1992 Act. There is therefore no need to tighten the definition because, perhaps despite appearances, the Bill makes the necessary provision.
  We strongly believe that clause 7 and the two-strikes provision are important. We therefore oppose Liberal Democrat Members' attempts to remove them. The two-strikes requirement sends an important signal that we will not tolerate continued defrauding of the benefit system and that we will continue to search for methods of protecting public funds from people who believe that they can defraud the system indiscriminately. All the amendments are unacceptable and I hope that they will be withdrawn.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister, with her usual prescience, guessed right: we are unconvinced by the responses. The best that the Government can do on war pensions, which united the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, is to say that if we squeeze other parts of the system, pressure will be brought to bear on war pensions and that that will lead to a mysterious surge in serial, bogus war pension applications. That seems practically absurd. Regrettably, this is a case of a Department that, at this end of the building, does not accept amendments to its Bills—however flawed they may be—on principle, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
  7.30 pm
  On the question whether the sanctions provisions should be in the Bill at all, I am grateful to the Minister for making at least some attempt to respond to the question, "What about the children?" She mentioned hardship provisions, and said that the sanctions would affect only the personal allowance, not the other parts of the benefit. However, she seems to be holding two mutually inconsistent positions. The first is that the sanctions are going to hurt and will be a deterrent. She believes that they will put people off, because people will know that if they are bad boys, the sanctions will hurt. Then she says that they will not hurt the children because there will be hardship provisions.
  Those two statements cannot simultaneously be true. Either the sanctions are not going to hurt, in which case everything that the Minister claims for the Bill will not work; or they will hurt, in which case they will also hurt the children. It seems to me that, within a benefit unit, when the only income coming in is being paid to the claimant, about whom we are arguing—
  Angela Eagle rose—
  Mr. Webb: This is very exciting; I give way to the Minister.
  Angela Eagle: What I have tried to say is that there are protections for the children, and that there is also a balance to be struck between getting the deterrence right and indiscriminately hurting the innocent. The idea is that the provisions strike that balance, which is what I was attempting to get across to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady did, indeed, use the word "balance". However, the question is whether any
  810
  diminution of the living standards of a child is acceptable. Can we go any way down that road when trying to strike a balance with the other things that we are trying to achieve? The rights and welfare of the child should be inviolate in these circumstances, and the punishment should not leave a household, or benefit unit, below the poverty line.
  The Minister seemed to suggest that, because one part of the total amount of benefit was being sanctioned, it could somehow be ring-fenced and that the welfare of the child would not be prejudiced because the money intended for the adult would go down, but the money intended for the children would not. It is clearly an absurd notion that the flow of funds into a household can somehow be ring-fenced. Although one part of the money is nominally paid in respect of the adult and another part in respect of the children, in practice that money all goes into one pot in that household. As I said earlier, the first thing that happens is that the necessities are paid for. Necessities such as food and bills do not go away. What is left is then spent on what the household needs.
  Angela Eagle: Given that, after a first conviction, an individual will receive plenty of warning not to do it again, and be told what will happen if he or she is convicted of a second offence, does the hon. Gentleman think that that individual should take any personal responsibility for his or her future actions and the effect that they may have on his or her children?
  Mr. Webb: I absolutely think that they should take such responsibility. The question is if they breach that personal responsibility, who should suffer—the individual or the children? The Minister appears to be happy that the children would suffer as well as the parent. She has said precisely that. She has said that the appropriate penalty is a loss of income to the household. All the members of the household will suffer. They are not ring-fenced. A person who does something that we all agree is wrong, and who has committed the crime twice, is presumably not the kind of person to say, "Well, I'll keep the money for the kids and make sure that they are all right, while I take it on the chin." Indeed, the contrary would be the case.
  Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous and giving way again.
  All through the debate, the hon. Gentleman has said that he is happy for these people to go to prison. Does not he think that household incomes and children might suffer when that happens, probably in a far worse way than would be caused by a benefit sanction lasting 13 weeks?
  Mr. Webb: So far as I am aware—the Minister may correct me on this point—the spouse and children of someone in prison retain full benefit entitlement proportionate to the size of the family that remains to be supported. [Interruption.] An intervention from a sedentary position suggests that prison would impose a bigger financial penalty.
  Let us assume that a person—to make life simple, let us say a father—is in prison and has gone out of the household. The benefits system determines how much money the mother and children need to live on. Unless the Department of Social Security is saying that the benefit rate for what is left under the provisions is enough

  811
  for a family to live on, that family will have a better standard of living than if it had an extra mouth to feed and a less than proportionate increase in benefit. Hon. Members have not grasped the point that a family whose father is in prison will have one mouth fewer to feed, but under the provisions it will have lost the sanctionable part of the money. Materially, its living standards would, therefore, be higher in the former case.
  Imprisonment is an extreme penalty. I mentioned community service. Assuming that we consider community service to be a penalty—there might be those on the Conservative Benches who do not—why would not it be an appropriate response? It would penalise only the person who had committed the crime, not their children.
  The Government have said that they want to abolish child poverty: they want no children—zero—in poverty. The measures, applied to a sanctioned family, will leave it in poverty, below the benefit level. So long as the legislation remains on the statute book and is being applied to families with children, the Government will never achieve their stated goal of abolishing child poverty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) suggested that we should delay the implementation of the provisions. In a slightly convoluted argument, the Minister suggested that a delay of two years would be a delay of more than two years because it would take time for things to get going. However, even if the Bill became law tomorrow, it would take time to get going, so my hon. Friend's proposal would entail implementation two years later than the Government's implementation and no longer. That time could be better used to examine the effect on children, for example, of sanctions that are already in place, before introducing any more.
  The Government have cited one piece of research that they have carried out. There is no evidence that that research has informed the way in which the sanctions are structured. The Minister has not tried to argue that. The Government have done some research and, so far as I can see, ignored it. The evidence is that families, and particularly children, suffer in these circumstances.
  There is clearly a fundamental difference of principle between ourselves and the other two parties. It would probably be fruitless to divide the House on this issue, but we shall certainly continue to campaign—in this Parliament and beyond—for the principle that punishing an innocent person for the guilt of another is not a humane punishment policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I apologise for my absence during the last part of the previous debate. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the reasons. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), for dealing with the last group of amendments.
  This is a short Bill, which I described earlier as a technical adjustment of the Government's anti-fraud measures. It is a modest measure, but a necessary one. Each year the Department loses at least £2 billion through benefit
  812
  fraud. That is more than the cost of administration of the Benefits Agency, which is part of the Department of Social Security. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that that level of fraud is unacceptable. The Bill will definitely help to reduce those losses and help the Department to achieve its targets for reducing fraud and error.
  The Bill contains a range of measures. It is not necessary to list them in great detail. The key measure will require banks, building societies and other institutions to provide information when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or intends to commit benefit fraud. The Bill contains strict safeguards to ensure that that power is not abused. The code of practice will be properly consulted on, as I said earlier. It will be the guiding light under which the powers in the Bill are operated and it will be able to be used in court cases.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said in the earlier debate, there is a balance to be struck. We could have left things as they were, although they were unacceptable, or we could have taken draconian measures. Instead, we have taken the modest measures in the Bill and will use our best endeavours to attack the level of fraud with which we have to cope.
  The Bill also contains a power to exchange information with social security administrations in other countries to combat transnational benefit fraud. This is a limited, modest measure that will rightly be curtailed by proper Government-to-Government agreements. The Bill also introduces the "two strikes and you're out" sanction.
  We make no great claims for the Bill, which is designed to be a deterrent. We do not think that it will affect more than 500 people a year. We do not know how many of those will have children, but the fact remains that it is designed to be a deterrent. We must be seen to be taking some measures, in the public interest, against the hard core of repeat benefit fraud offenders.
  The Bill contains a power to apply civil penalties swiftly when an employer has colluded with an employee's benefit fraud. Such collusion is serious, but we want to be able to offer the employers concerned a quick civil penalty as an alternative to prosecution. We think that that will be in their interests, while also—we hope—acting as a deterrent. The amount of evidence must be the same, and the case will be dealt with by means of either prosecution or acceptance of the civil penalty. There is no question of there being no proper investigation of collusive employers.
  We make no major claim for the Bill. We do not suggest that it will eliminate benefit fraud. As in all walks of life, there will always be crooks and fraudsters. We believe, however, that the Bill constitutes a reasonable attack on the current scale of benefit fraud in closing some of the more obvious loopholes that we have encountered in recent years. I hope that it will be given an unopposed Third Reading.
  7.41 pm
  Mrs. Lait: I was concerned for a moment, because I feared that we would not have a Third Reading speech from the Minister, and with it an opportunity to offer the ultimate valedictory wishes—or is it penultimate?
  Mr. Rooker: Final.
  Mrs. Lait: That means that there will be no social security questions on 14 May, which tells many of us many things. We are grateful to the Minister.
  Discussion of this Bill has been interesting, easy and amiable. The cast of characters has been similar to that of previous debates. Perhaps the only moment of excitement occurred during debate on the last group of amendments, when the words "benefits unit" were used instead of "households", "people" or "individuals". It struck me then that the social policy professor, rather than the politician, was coming to the fore.
  We have debated all the issues at some length. In one or two respects we shall still want reassurance in the form of Government action, although of course we never know: by 7 June it might be our action that is required rather than that of the present Government, in which event we might implement the Bill and ensure the provision of effective fraud prevention measures.
  I have just noticed that, according to the television monitor, I should be talking about NHS appointments and political bias—in Westminster Hall, moreover. The monitor is clearly very confused. I do not plan to talk about political bias in NHS appointments, although it is obvious that it exists; I shall talk about the Social Security Fraud Bill, and the various matters that we shall monitor to ensure that the Government's intentions are implemented.
  The Government have given me some reassurances about how closely they will listen to consultation, and about their negotiation—which we hope will take place—on the code of practice. As the Minister said, the code of practice is the key to many of the provisions relating to authorised officers, single points of contact, trawling and costs. We hope that a Government, or a Department, may be generous enough to produce a list of overseas countries with which contracts will be exchanged. We hope it might even be possible for the Government to see their way to becoming a member of CIFAS. We also hope very much that consultation will be productive, and that the fears and concerns expressed by various organisations will be dealt with. We trust that that will involve negotiation leading to agreement, rather than a stand-off.
  The Bill makes a mockery of the programme motion system. It has gone through its stages largely as a result of agreement, although there may have been disagreement on certain points. There has been no trouble at all. The fact that we should have been debating Third Reading between 9 pm and 10 pm shows that the programme motion system is far too rigid, and that we would be better off with the old system.
  I have no intention of opposing the Bill. We have supported its principles; we are just sad that it has taken the Government four years to produce them. We hope very much that, modest measure as it is—at this point I recall Winston Churchill's comment that Clement Attlee was a modest man with much to be modest about—the Bill will achieve what the Government want it to achieve.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Webb: I am not sure that I can emulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) by being in two places at once, but I shall do my best.
  814
  I think I am right in saying that the Bill we are discussing now is identical—apart from the reference to privilege—to the Bill that we discussed on Second Reading. However, the House will be relieved to know that I will not repeat my Second Reading speech.
  It is symptomatic and regrettable, as I said in Committee, that the Department's strategy on Bills does not involve seeing the contributions of Opposition parties as a chance to improve them. Once Bills have been to another place, where the Government are forced to listen to the other side, the strategy is to steamroller them through. Debates such as the one on war pensions illustrate the fact that this Bill could have been made better, even without the sacrifice of any great points of principle. It is a pity that the opportunity was not taken.
  As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats will not oppose Third Reading. Notwithstanding the parodies of our position that we have heard, we are as committed as anyone to the elimination of benefit fraud. As we see the passing of new powers for the Government, it strikes me that they have failed to use existing powers. The fact that they can use those powers to force local authorities to crack down on fraud but have done so only once in the past 12 months, in the case of Northampton borough council, suggests that when seeking new powers Governments might be asked to use the powers that they have rather more effectively. Why that has not happened in this case remains a mystery to me.
  We hope that the obtaining of third-party information will help to identify fraud. We have yet to be convinced that the seeking of some three quarters of a million bits of information each year can be policed very effectively, even if only a limited number of people are doing it. If I were an authorised officer, I could cover my tracks fairly effectively in the midst of a blitz of requests for information, with one or two rogue ones. I am still not convinced that we shall not have to return to the supervision of authorised officers. Fresh in our minds is the debate about sanctions, which I will not rehearse but which constitutes our principal misgiving about the Bill.
  My colleagues and I wish the Minister well in his retirement. I am sure that long before I was a Member he had contributed a great deal to the procedures of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  That the draft Broadcasting (Subtitling) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.
  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft Advisory Centre on WTO Law (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  CRIMINAL LAW
  That the draft Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Ordered,

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  That the Education Standards Fund (England) Regulations 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  That the Financing of Maintained Schools (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Motorway Construction (EU Policy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
7.49 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am sure that the House will be pleased that this important Adjournment debate has begun so early. It is good to see that we have a quality Minister here to reply: I assure him that I shall give him plenty of time to respond.
I once secured an Adjournment debate on English wine, which began at 4 pm. It ran for six and a half hours, and I think that Members who were present learned quite a bit about English wine, including the wines on the House of Commons wine list. They come from various parts of the country, and some excellent wines come from my constituency.
This debate is a little later than the English wine debate, but there is plenty of time—I think that there are two and a half hours or more—to amplify on the extraordinary misfortunes of my constituent. I am sure that when the Minister hears about the case, he will wish to do all that he possibly can to help my constituent. More important, the debate raises national and international issues, on which he will perhaps need time to reflect in considering what steps the British Government can take: if not before the general election, we will have an opportunity after it to deal with some of the issues that I shall raise.
A well-established principle of British law is that, when a state sequestrates land or buildings through compulsory purchase or otherwise, it pays compensation to the affected party at market value. Everyone in this country accepts that, and rightly so. However, I am advised that in France, planning permissions go through very quickly when the state wishes to carry out major infrastructure works because it offers more than the market value in order to get cracking. Roads, airports, railways, reservoirs and the like get built in record time as landowners fall over themselves to encourage the development that the Government wish to have on their property.
The payment of compensation to those affected by state-funded enterprises does not work so well in all European Union countries, particularly in some Mediterranean ones. Portugal, Spain and Greece do not offer the same protection or compensation to residents affected by infrastructure programmes that the state wishes to carry out. The idea of restitution—putting the affected party in no worse a position in monetary terms than he was in before the development—is a well-established principle in Britain. If a Government choose to drive a motorway through someone's garden, they are committed to restoring not the garden but the value of the property to which the garden is attached, providing recompense to its unfortunate owner for giving up his property. I am not sure that there is quite the same arrangement in Roman-Dutch law, or in the current laws of Romania, the Czech Republic or Estonia, but they are all new entrant countries that will inevitably apply for large tranches of EU money to modernise their infrastructure when they join the EU.
This debate is about compensation for individuals adversely affected by EU-funded projects in other member states; whether it should be paid; if so, who should pay it; the level at which it should be paid; and the

817
method of claiming. In Britain and other developed EU countries, the assets of individuals are protected against state sequestration, either under compulsory purchase provisions or other legislation. When roads are built, under section 282 of the Highways Act 1980, the highway authorities are empowered to fund the construction of noise barriers. The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 prescribe that residential properties exposed to levels of traffic noise in excess of 68 decibels as a result of the construction of new roads should be provided with noise insulation.
In Europe, EC directive 337/85 states that the environmental effects of public works such as new roads, including increased levels of noise, should be assessed and published as an environmental statement with legislative orders for schemes to allow public comment. I cite the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. John Wood of South Brent in the Dartmoor national park, to illustrate how the EU has stood by and allowed EU nationals and British subjects to suffer damage and loss. They saw the value of their property in Portugal nearly halved without any compensation.
The way in which Mr. Wood conducted himself in making inquiries regarding the purchase of the property in Portugal in 1987 was exemplary. He carried out inquiries with the best possible firms and spent much time there. There were no plans for any motorways at that time. The house that he bought was known as Quinta da Madeira, a 100-year-old farm house in Portuguese style set in a peaceful and tranquil idyll with wonderful views to the south taking in the coast. It was a perfect spot to retire to. Today, Mr. Wood's property is positioned like one of those castles between England and Wales that the marcher lords built: it is high on the embankment directly over the motorway, with a sheer 100 ft drop to the carriageway below. He is very careful when he opens his front door.
In January 1991, Mr. Wood received a letter from the experienced agents that he employed, Abreu and Marques, in which the senior partner stated that no developments were planned regarding building a motorway. Two months later, the director of roads stated that the motorway was already under construction and mentioned something about lost correspondence.
The IP1 motorway, as it is now known, is constructed with pre-stressed concrete, which generates far more decibels than a Bakerloo line train coming into Piccadilly Circus. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ever been on a platform at Piccadilly Circus when a Bakerloo line train has come in, you will know that it is pretty noisy, but it is less noisy than the IP1 motorway when cars travel on the pre-stressed concrete, which went out with the ark in Britain. Hearing is believing: the noise is continuous and ever growing. I am told that, in Portugal, on warm summer evenings, as lorries pound over the surface at the speed limit or above, the noise can be heard 12 km away or more. The peace and tranquillity of the area have been shattered.
The failure of the Portuguese Government to choose an appropriate surface, such as porous asphalt—with which the Minister will be familiar—which dampens sound, or whisper concrete, as it is known, cries out for explanation. Was it to save money that they put that pre-stressed concrete down—the slabs of concrete that we saw on
818
bypasses in the 1960s and 1970s? Did they take the European money and say, "We will use the money we have from Europe, but we will only top it up with very little more"?
In 1991–92, the Portuguese Government told residents that the motorway would be a garden highway. Perhaps the Portuguese have a different idea of gardens because there are no trees by the motorway, and no plants by its sides. There are no flowers. As there are no sound barriers, the garden highway gives off a piercing noise day and night.
After the motorway was constructed in 1994, the noise levels were so appalling that Mr. and Mrs. Wood decided to put the home on the market. Their haven of tranquillity had turned into an unmitigated nightmare. Quinta da Madeira is a most beautiful property by all accounts. It is just the place that any of us would love to retire to, but the sound from the motorway, which is directly underneath the house, was so great that the Woods, in their retirement, could not face the prospect of living there. Therefore, they approached Hamptons International—there is no better estate agent in that area—which said that it was
"a 100 year old property renovated in 1989 to a very high standard preserving many original features. Magnificent sea and country views"—
that was, of course, before the motorway had such a devastating effect.
During 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, many people viewed the house, but not one person made an offer. In July 1999, a new agency was appointed, which placed the property on the market at the 1995 price. More than 25 people viewed the house and, in January this year, the Woods received their first and only offer. Before I reveal what it was, and to keep the Minister in suspense, I shall quote the agency's words. It is an exclusive property consultancy, known as Lifestyle Properties, affiliated to none other than Sotheby's International and it reached the following conclusion:
"all clients have a major reservation."—
the Minister will be able to guess what it is—
"The location right next to the IP1 motorway is definitely off putting as people with a desire for a home in the Algarve do not want to live next to a four lane motorway without any sound reducing elements. We have had around 15 clients that viewed your villa. The clients have been English, Dutch and German, but were all put off by the motorway location.
We still find the asking price of £395,000 very competitive in the current market, and as discussed … without the motorway, an asking price of around £500,000 would not have been unreasonable."
The price of the property has been reduced by about a third and, moreover the property has been locked up because it cannot be used properly—unless one likes viewing cars on motorways from the top of a hill, like a marcher lord in his castle. It is the last place in which to seek peace and tranquillity.
For the past six or seven years, the property has been a dead investment. After seven years, the Woods calculated that they had lost some £250,000 of taxed earnings through no fault of their own, and despite having taken every precaution before they made the purchase. Apparently, there were some rumours in 1992 that the trans-European motorway would be built, and although it is not yet connected to Lisbon, that is the intention.

819
I am told that the motorway is only the first in a series of trans-European motorways, so this is a test case, and I am delighted to have plenty of time to explore it with the Minister. Such motorways will be built not only by Mediterranean European countries, but—no doubt—by all the countries that join the EU through enlargement. Mr. Wood is a victim of the process, and I am sure that the Government, in the dying days of this Parliament, will note his case as an issue that needs to be addressed.
The Government will be relieved to hear that I place no blame on them at this stage. However, they can use their influence as one of the most powerful members of the EU to see that the situation is rectified—if not for the past, then for the future.
When the Woods heard about the rumours of the planned motorway, they tried to find out its exact route from the Portuguese authorities. The EU insists on a consultation process, but in this case, apparently, it was a shabby affair and was not a consultation process as we would understand it. The conduct of the Woods could be used to illustrate a good practice manual, but the Portuguese authorities failed to consult or to listen to local residents.
The motorway will eventually stretch across the Algarve from Lisbon to Spain. The authorities were anxious to build it quickly for Expo '92, and the concrete was probably laid for that reason. Thousands of people, including British, German, Dutch and Swedish people, will have had their investments badly affected by the motorway, and noise nuisance will have taken millions of pounds off the value of the properties affected, for the Portuguese and many other EU nationals.
I have set out the problem, and I now wish to explore what can be done. It is irrelevant that the Woods are successful and attractive people, with many friends in both South Brent and the Algarve. They are popular and generous, and it is worth noting that they are not sharks or harsh—they just wanted a little place in the Algarve to which to retire.
What can be done? The Portuguese Government have been a net receiver of EU funds since 1974. I do not begrudge them that, because the money has been necessary. The EU has done a good job, and the Portuguese recognise that. However, I doubt whether the Portuguese would have embarked on the construction of the trans-European motorway but for the injection of EU funding. I visited Lisbon recently as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we were well received by Portuguese Members of Parliament and officials. We were seen as a fair and popular country with which they would like to do business. That is why the Minister's reply, which will be beamed across the Algarve, will be of especial interest, as many people see Britain as fair in such cases.
I do not begrudge the Portuguese any EU money, because it has revolutionised—if that is the right term—that country. The Portuguese economy is now very strong, and I am advised that Portugal will soon become a net contributor to the EU. That is good news. However, in granting funds for the motorway in the 1990s, the European Commission must have been guilty of neglect, indifference or both. It must have failed to inquire about the materials that would be used in the construction or to satisfy itself that no individual would suffer financial loss as a result of the construction.
820
Did the Commission fail to ask the right questions of the Portuguese authorities? Did it also fail to take the necessary steps to ensure that the road surface would not infringe its objectives on noise and pollution? After all, those are buzz words for the EU and a series of rules, regulations and directives about noise have been introduced since 1970. The current EU legislation on noise deals with emissions at source, mainly cars, aircraft, generators, lawn mowers, food mixers and coffee grinders. A Green Paper was published last July that outlined the action that might be taken at Community level, and set out indicators and legislative proposals. A draft directive has since been published not on the question of compensation, but on noise. The Commission ducked the issue by saying that the matter had nothing to do with it, but clearly noise emanating from a motorway built with EU funds has an EU dimension and locus.
The argument may be that compensatory awards for the impact of major infrastructure works are a matter for the member state under the umbrella of the popular term "subsidiarity". Not many people know the meaning of the word, but it appears to translate as "the EU is not responsible". It is fair enough to argue that the member state was responsible, but the Commission was negligent in failing to satisfy itself that the Portuguese had appropriate legislation to cover the issue before it granted the funds. To ensure what is called a level playing field, EU grants should not be given to a member state that does not have legislative procedures to provide at least minimum compensation for those affected by infrastructure developments that are funded by EU money. However, it is not a level playing field and the money should not have been paid until the legislation was in place.
Once that condition had been satisfied, the trans-European motorway could have been constructed in Portugal, as the Commission would have been satisfied that no individual would be adversely affected financially by its construction without being able to claim compensation. The Commission has done that in other areas by attaching conditions to its grants, so why not here?
On 9 February 1990, an article in the Algarve Resident, a local newspaper, said:
"EC Suspends 10 million Destined for Trans-Algarve Highway".
This distinguished periodical goes on to say that Jacques Delors—that household name—
"president of the European Community Commission has confirmed that the commission has decided to suspend financial help for the construction of the Trans-Algarve highway.
The Commission had previously agreed to give money to the project, but this aid will be cut off because the Portuguese authorities responsible (i.e. the Ministry of Public Works) have 'infringed community rights in not having had sufficient regard for the likely impact of the work on the local environment.'
This Norm, (directive 337/85) should have been written into the Portuguese Legislature, but wasn't. Because of this there were no legal guidelines for questions such as expressways, airports, and industrial pollution in Portugal, and this has led to E.E.C."—
as it then was—
"intervention into this country's affairs."
In the words of the Minister of Public Works, Transport and Communications, there is "nothing for nobody" until Portugal complies with the directive.
Jacques Delors suspended the aid because Portugal did not have its house in order. Now matters have moved on, and he should not have allowed the motorway to be built

821
without recognising that there was a hole where the compensatory legislation ought to have been. I thought that the Minister would like to hear that interesting point.
As the EU relies on a difference basis of law from that which is applied in the United Kingdom, the Commission should have—and could still—take action in enlisting the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, to which Portugal is a signatory. The protocol deals specifically with the right of individuals to enjoy tranquillity and peace in their own property. I do not wish to limit the argument to the breach of the first protocol or to article 288/EC, which established that an individual could be successful when the Commission acted directly and caused him damage and loss as a result of its actions.
In the case of Mulder v. Council (1992) ECR 1–3061, milk producers in the Netherlands had agreed to stop milk production. As a result, the Council wrongly assumed that they had gone out of production and fixed a new levy scheme without taking them into account. There was a direct failure on the part of the Commission in that case, so compensation was paid. In this case, although the Commission is not directly responsible because it has channelled the money to Portugal, I argue that this is a question of the Commission not acting directly but employing agents—the Portuguese authorities—to act for it. Just as when our Government build roads they commission the county councils to carry out work on their behalf, I suggest that the Commission got the Portuguese authorities to act as its agent and gave them money to spend on a particular project. Although the Mulder case is not on all fours with this one, it indicates that when the Commission is found to be responsible for loss, as it was in the Mulder case, it pays what it should have paid in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that individuals in any member state should not find their lands or properties sequestrated or devalued by the actions of another member state using supranational funds. The Portuguese authorities siphoned off some of the superstate's funds to which member states had contributed. As matters stand, Mr. Wood has no way of being recompensed.
The Portuguese Government applied to the EU for money from our taxpayers. The Commission gave money from our taxpayers to the Portuguese to build a motorway. In so doing, and in not ensuring that the compensatory mechanisms were enshrined in Portuguese law, a British national has lost money that he invested in another member state. That has very serious ramifications for how the EU works and how it spends its money.
The Portuguese Government have thrown up their hands and said that it is nothing to do with them. The British Government, I am sure, will express similar sentiments, saying that they cannot look outside their own geographical boundaries. The EU, while recognising noise nuisance—and it was responsible for granting money to build a motorway in the first place—will no doubt deny its negligence, exalting the principle of subsidiarity in its defence. It cannot have it both ways. The EU can argue that this has nothing to do with it and that a member state is responsible, in which case it has a duty to ensure that by giving money the conditions should be in place that the compensatory powers exist in the member state. I am quite comfortable with the subsidiarity argument, but the
822
alternative is for the EU to argue that it got it wrong and was directly responsible for this through its servants and agents and now has to make good the loss.
This debate raises major constitutional principles and questions of legal responsibility. It is not really fair on the Minister, at this time of night—early though it is—suddenly to land him with a matter that is probably more suitable for the Prime Minister. However, I have great ambitions for the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that this is good training to see whether he can get out of this spot and deal with the matter as a future Prime Minister would. Clearly, he does not like to see injustice being done—he is a man of principle, well known for his sympathy and tolerance. I feel sure that now that I am raising a major constitutional principle, one of his first appointments tomorrow will be with the Prime Minister to say that in a fascinating Adjournment debate, matters of great concern were raised in a responsible, balanced and mature way.
In effect, the EU has raided its kitty—currently standing at £54 billion a year—because one member state wanted to accelerate the speed of its economic development without regard to the implications for the environment, noise emissions or individual properties. Surely it should do that only if the laws in the member state are up to speed in terms of pollution, noise management, environmental damage, accounting principles, value for money, public consultation procedures and the like. However, that can happen only if there is a new raft of officials, which I would be very reluctant to support. How can the EU enforce its rules and regulations unless it employs inspectors, enforcement officers and officials who are outside the responsibility of any member state?
We have a superstate giving out supranational funding to individual member states without sufficient monitoring. To have sufficient monitoring, the superstate would need inspection teams of supranational officials swarming around, checking, reporting, having endless meetings, occupying office buildings and administering budgets. That is what the British citizen was told would never happen, but it will happen if the case of Mr. Wood is to succeed.
If the EU is to avoid setting up another tier of bureaucracy, it has to use the bureaucracies of other countries, so that there is cross-border enforcement. Under that scheme, money given to the Portuguese would result in enforcement by the Germans, for example. Existing officials in member states could police each other. That would avoid having another layer of bureaucracy to enforce EU handouts.
There are two other possible ways to tackle the problem. First, a compensatory element could be included in all infrastructure grants to member states. That would cover claims made by individuals in member states affected by such developments. Once paid out by the member states, those sums would be recompensed by the EU, on receipt of proof of payment. A new EU law might be required to determine the levels of compensation available. However, whereas subsidiarity—under which member states pass their own laws—is delegation locally and regionally, power would be centralised if a compensatory element were added to the infrastructure grant. That compensation would then have to be accounted for.
I would go down the subsidiarity route, were it not for the fact that Mr. Wood has lost £200,000 or more. The relevant laws have not been passed. That option may be

823
available for the future, but what is to be done about Mr. Wood and his financial loss now? I should add that no additional money was added to the award from the EU for the motorway in Portugal, which was money only for its construction.
My second solution would be for Mr. Wood to go the whole hog: having lost as much as £250,000, why should he not lose the same amount again by resorting to the European Court of Human Rights? That is guaranteed to cost a lot of money, as top lawyers argue that his rights have been infringed.
Mr. Wood has recently retired, having sold a successful business—which, paradoxically, manufactures motorway signs, among other things—but I am not sure that Mr. Wood would want to throw good money after bad. That would no doubt be the result if he employed a fistful of lawyers to fight his case in Strasbourg.
What will the Government do? What can they do? No doubt, thousands of British nationals have been affected, or will be affected, by economic distortions resulting from EU intervention to fund public infrastructure works to be installed in a member state. which the member state could not fund without EU money.
Mr. Wood's case vividly demonstrates individuals' vulnerability against the superstate. As bureaucracy gets bigger, it will be harder and harder to pin down those responsible. Everyone will pass the buck, and the problem will be exacerbated by all the different languages involved.
I have given an example of an abuse perpetrated by the European superstate against an individual in one of its own member states. Britain is one of the richest countries in Europe, but we are ceding ever more authority to the supra-authority that the EU has become, and which is answerable to no one.
Last Friday, the National Audit Office reported on the level of bureaucratic waste and funding in the EU. The report should concern every taxpayer in the EU. Not only are we not getting value for money, but the supra-European state is failing to protect the interests of its individual constituents.
I am sure that the Minister will have read the main findings of the NAO report, which have been highlighted by NAO head Sir John Bourn. Those findings include significant weaknesses in the management of the budget and an unacceptably high rate of error in payment transactions—a rate similar to what had been found in previous years. There was also serious concern that little progress had been made since 1999. That huge bureaucratic monster has been allowed to deprive my constituent of the hard-earned cash that he had accumulated over the years to buy his retirement property. There is something very wrong about that.
Mr. Wood is not just a victim of the system. He is illustrative of the way in which assets can be sequestrated by state intervention, without anyone caring a toss about an individual's future welfare or health.
I lay down the gauntlet to the Government to take up Mr. Wood's case, and to make it a cause célèbre.
8.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes
824
(Mr. Steen) on obtaining this debate on European Union policy as regards motorway construction and noise pollution, and on his highly informed—indeed exhaustively researched—speech. The debate gives me the opportunity to set out the United Kingdom's position on this important matter, and to show how the Government are taking forward the transport agenda in this country in a way that respects and protects the environment.
Needless to say, I shall make frequent reference to the application of European legislation, and our British experience may well have valuable lessons for the unfortunate case of Mr. Wood, which the hon. Member for Totnes described so graphically. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of wide-ranging concerns; not least among them were matters relating to the funding of infrastructure projects in the EU. Such matters are complex, and the hon. Gentleman has offered many novel solutions.
Specifically, the hon. Member for Totnes asked me to consider compensation arrangements in the EU in relation to motorway schemes. I undertake to do so, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about issues raised in the debate on which it might be appropriate for the Government to take further action in the EU. I also assure the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced that the important constitutional issues to which he has drawn the House's attention will be considered at the highest levels. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the specific case in Portugal that he has set out.
We must not lose sight of the fact that well-developed and modern transport infrastructure is vital to the competitive strength of any economy. The hon. Member for Totnes does not dispute that, in western Europe, politicians have long recognised the need for an effective and efficient trans-European network. The demand for such a network comes from the citizens, as individuals and as economic agents. They wish to live and work in a sustainable economic environment that allows them to trade, communicate and travel throughout the EU, and into its neighbouring countries, as easily, quickly and cheaply as possible.
The importance that the EU attaches to good transport infrastructure is recognised in the very significant sums of money that it makes available to its development, particularly through the structural and cohesion funds. Such funding is a major element in the realisation of the key EU objectives of promoting economic and social progress and of gradually removing differences in living standards between the member states as well as between the regions. I note the progress that Portugal has made in that regard and, like the hon. Gentleman, I rejoice in that country's progress.
The European Union has also recognised growing concern about the adverse effects of new infrastructure. EU directive 85/337 made it a requirement for all member states to make public an assessment of the environmental impacts of major projects and their proposals for reducing the impacts. All EU member states are subject to the provisions of the environmental impact assessment. Annexe I to the directive lists those projects for which an environmental impact assessment is mandatory. Motorway construction is such a project. The 1997

825
amendment to EC directive 85/337, among other things required that the determination on whether fully to assess smaller projects should be made public.
Before a decision on consent can be given for a proposed motorway, the developer is required to prepare an environmental statement containing detailed information about the proposal, its likely environmental effects, the proposed mitigation measures to offset any adverse effects and an outline of the main alternatives that have been studied. There must also be a summary of all that information in non-technical language. This is important because the environmental statement is made available not only to environmental and other bodies with an interest, but to the public, who may make representations accordingly.
Consent may not be granted until the environmental statement, and any representations made about it, have been taken into account, although I should make it clear that the environmental information does not itself determine whether the application is accepted or refused. Projects whose environmental effects are likely to be adverse may still be approved if there are other overriding considerations such as improvements to road safety.
I have set out the clear requirements in terms of European Union legislation, which I assume were applied—or ought to have been—in this case. It will be important for the hon. Gentleman to peruse the official record in some detail to advise his constituent, Mr. Wood, as to the possibilities for recourse set against the criteria laid down in European legislation that I described. I shall explain how we are handling these matters in the UK.
Mr. Steen: Before the Minister moves on, is he saying that Mr. Wood might have a stronger case if the Portuguese did not follow the procedures? They cannot do away with the motorway, nor would he suggest that. Is he more likely to be able to make a case for compensation if the procedures were not followed, or is that only a matter for regret?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am no lawyer. I am certainly no European Union lawyer—a particularly arcane area of study and pursuit. I am suggesting, however, that at least some of the provisions that I outlined would have been in place at the time that the motorway construction was undertaken and, therefore, might apply in this case; and that there were procedures that should certainly have been pursued according to European law. It would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman and his constituent considered whether those procedures were applied, and then considered further action on the basis of that consideration. I will return to compensation later.
On the transport planning process in the United Kingdom, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government published their White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" in July 1998. That document set out the way in which UK transport infrastructure projects were to be short-listed, decided upon and taken forward. The key element of planning transport was to get a regional approach to transport problems and their potential solutions. Regional planning guidance and regional transport strategies would look at
826
where the problems were in the region and, after consultation with the relevant authorities and the public, put to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions their proposals for transport infrastructure projects. If those were agreed by the Secretary of State, they would then come forward for funding either as part of the targeted programme of improvements on the trunk road network, in local transport plans, or as part of the infrastructure programme from Railtrack or the train operating companies. That is part of the way in which we deal with such matters in the UK.
We recognised that that process could take some time and so we put in hand so-called multimodal studies that examine areas where there are transport problems and the various ways in which those might best be solved. They involve wide consultation. We now have the first of those reports and other studies will be reporting in the next few years.
Part of the comparison of the alternative solutions will be made using the "New Approach to Appraisal", which is designed to help to assess the implications of investment proposals against five criteria—safety, economy, environment, accessibility and integration. It enables us to compare different options for solving the same transport problem. In a number of instances, the most effective solution to a transport problem may be new or improved road infrastructure.
What do we do when we are dealing with new road infrastructure? Before those road proposals agreed by the Secretary of State are translated into projects on the ground, they go through processes set down in the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which provide an opportunity for those affected to register objections. If those objections cannot be resolved, a public inquiry may be held. Where road construction necessitates acquisition of land or property, the procedures provide for payment of compensation to owners based on market values. If the value of a property is reduced by the opening of a nearby road scheme, the owner may claim compensation.
Alternatives are investigated and the viable options narrowed down as a basis for public consultation about the proposed route and its environmental effects.
Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman says that compensation may be payable. Does that relate to the value of the property before and after building? Is that the compensation value?
Mr. Hill: I can answer that technical question with a little more confidence: I think that the answer is certainly yes.
After all responses to the consultation have been considered, a preferred route is announced and safeguarded from development. For those intending to buy a property in the area, the intention to build a scheme will show up in local authority searches. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there were rumours and whispers about the Algarve scheme—evidently they were not present in any local authority materials that Mr. Wood may or may not have considered.
The preliminary design is then worked up and draft statutory orders are published under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, together with

827
an environmental statement, as required by EU directive 85/337/EEC. Anyone directly affected by the proposals, and public bodies with legal responsibilities for protecting various aspects of the environment, have a statutory right of objection. If there are any unresolved statutory objections to the published draft orders, a local public inquiry will be held before an independent inspector. Once all objections, and the inspector's report if an inquiry was held, have been considered by the Secretary of State, a decision on the scheme is taken. The objectors are individually notified of the decision and a press notice is also issued. If the scheme proceeds, the land purchase orders are then made and the way is open for the construction contract to be awarded. That is the way we do it in this country. Clearly, EU directives impinge on our procedures—notably in respect of environmental impact.
I shall deal with noise policy and noise pollution—an issue of considerable concern in the case cited by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Steen: Before I mull over the points that the hon. Gentleman is about to make, I have some questions on environmental impact assessments. Are they not a bit of a red herring? I am familiar with them because a road at Slapton in my constituency was destroyed by the sea and, as it is a site of special scientific interest, an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out before a new road can be built. The assessment is a delaying tactic, is it not? It does not prevent anything from happening. The environmental impact statement is costly; it merely tells the Government, "You can go ahead, or you cannot go ahead". I may be wrong—I am not familiar with what such statements actually do. Can the Minister help me on that point?
Mr. Hill: In the House, the hon. Gentleman is famous as the hammer of bureaucracy and red tape—not least, of course, that which emanates from the European Union. However, I do not believe that he is right to describe environmental impact assessments as delaying tactics; sometimes, they are designed to meet precisely the type of problems that he outlines in the case of the unfortunate Mr. Wood—the question as to whether a proposed development will have an undesirable impact on the environment, not merely on flora and fauna, but on human beings as well.
Mr. Steen: I am all for them.
Mr. Hill: I am delighted to hear that my warm words have elicited the approbation of the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, he is pretty easy to persuade.
I shall say a few words about noise policy. Noise is one of the environmental issues to which we have given a great deal of thought. We recognised the benefit offered by quieter road surfaces—the hon. Gentleman spoke about those—and have promised that lower-noise surfacing will be used as a matter of course in all new infrastructure provision and maintenance work on the trunk road network. That means that lower-noise surfacing will be achieved without undue cost or disruption. In addition, we have undertaken to resurface all concrete roads within the next 10 years, including those that would not otherwise be due for resurfacing, because it is now recognised that such roads give rise to much greater concern about noise.
828
In total, we anticipate that more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road network will have been resurfaced by April 2011. [Interruption.] Again, I am glad that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman expresses his pleasure at that commitment, which is of significance to the A30, in an area not remote from his constituency. We have ensured that the Highways Agency will deal with particularly severe cases of noise arising from existing roads, where the road surface does not need early replacement, including the provision of noise barriers.
I turn now to compensation for noise. The adverse indirect effects of road construction, especially those built to motorway standards, on adjacent interests in land have been recognised for many years in this country. Before the 1970s, compensation was paid only in cases where land was compulsorily acquired for the construction. In the Land Compensation Act 1973, it was recognised that the noise, fumes and some other effects arising from traffic on a new road could have a significant effect on the value of properties some distance away.
There are inevitably some restrictions on the grounds for compensation. The adverse effects considered are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and the discharge of any solid or liquid substance. The effects must be attributable to a newly constructed road, not to the increased use of an existing road. The claim is judged on the situation obtaining one year after the road has been open, assuming that all intended mitigation measures have been provided.
Claims can be lodged by owners, occupiers or long-term tenants only between one and seven years after the road has opened. The compensation may be reduced where some benefit is derived from the new development. Claims are normally settled by negotiation, but cases in which agreement cannot be reached may be referred to the independent Lands Tribunal.
I should add that the Land Compensation Act 1973 also requires highway authorities to take action to reduce the effect of excessive traffic noise on people's homes. It provided the Secretary of State with powers to prescribe, in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, the circumstances in which it is considered appropriate for residential properties to be insulated against traffic noise.
Highway authorities were given further powers under the Highways Act 1980 to provide measures in road construction schemes to mitigate their adverse effects on the surrounding countryside. That included the power to acquire extra land to create features screening properties from the sight and other effects of new roads.
Techniques for assessing the environmental impact of major road schemes developed in the 1970s and 1980s were published in the 1983 manual of environmental appraisal. That included an assessment of traffic noise, based on the methods used to determine whether properties were likely to need insulation. The assessment also allowed for the consideration of the adverse effects at greater distances, based on the significance of changes in the noise climate.
Those are the sorts of recourse available to property owners, such as Mr. Wood, if such a fate were to threaten them or, indeed, befall them in the United Kingdom. Again, there may be lessons from the British experience

829
of the involvement of European legislation in many aspects of our domestic arrangements that may be of assistance to Mr. Wood.
Mr. Steen: As the Minister may know, I have corresponded with Commissioner Kinnock, and he was extremely receptive and very anxious to find a way to deal with such matters, but unfortunately the officials got the better of him. Despite clear indications that he would like to find a solution, Commissioner Kinnock has failed. He does not like to fail, but he has, and I wonder whether the Minister thinks that there is another route that I can take—because my track record is not to fail for my constituents.
Mr. Hill: I am certainly aware of the hon. Gentleman's excellent track record on behalf of his constituents. I dare say that explains his extremely long tenure in the House. If I may say it in a totally non-partisan spirit, we all rejoice in that.
830
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about his correspondence with Commissioner Kinnock. However, representations in the Chamber are of incomparably greater significance than written exchanges, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this important matter in the Chamber will add to the force of his case. I have also undertaken to consider his proposals carefully, and I shall pursue them if I think that there is any mileage in them. I shall inform him of any appropriate actions that I might take.
I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that the unfortunate problems faced by his constituent, Mr. Wood, in Portugal would be unlikely to have arisen in this country. We recognise that the infrastructure needed by a modern and efficient country may have some adverse effects on the people who live near it, but we believe that those people who suffer from the use of the infrastructure should be properly compensated.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Rail Investment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting he now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson]
9.30 am
Mr. George Stevenson: I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to debate rail investment. It is probably one of the most crucial issues that face the country and the Government. Given recent changes—what some may call developments—particularly in the Government's relations with the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack, it is a timely debate.
The Government are to be congratulated on having the courage and determination to publish their 10-year transport plan. Massive investment is planned for the railways; about £60 billion of public and private money will be invested during that period. The Government's main objective since the establishment of the SRA is to bring cohesion to the industry following the disastrous privatisation embarked on by the previous Government. It is in the public interest for the Government to oversee and direct that investment, if for no other reason than that enormous amounts of public money are involved. The public have an interest in the future of the railway network, and the investment that the Government are committed to making needs to be high on the agenda of the SRA.
Privatisation was a disaster, as it led to the fragmentation of the industry. It is beyond peradventure that that is the core of the problem that the industry now faces. It is not only I who say that; Railtrack and the SRA say so. Indeed, in its recently published document on strategy, the SRA unequivocally says that fragmentation was a disaster and that Railtrack has failed.
The other element that the Government need in order to develop the rail network over the next 10 years—and longer; we need always to think in the long term with the railways—is partnership. Partnership with the private sector, with the industry itself and with all the players is crucial. I shall return to that element of the Government's approach in a few moments. Partnership will deliver the necessary investment; it will enhance our railways, promote them and make them more efficient and effective. Crucially, it will increase passenger numbers and develop freight transport on the railways.
The Government's vision is shared widely in the House and throughout the country. Their courage and determination to put in place the necessary resources have been well received by the country. If we compare that with the previous Government's record, we can see how vital this Government's initiatives are. Some hon. Members in the Chamber know more about the industry than I ever will, and I have never quite understood how one can argue that we can have economic growth without the transport system to back it. The Government's approach is, therefore, critical.
160WH
The available resources and the Government's determination must be matched by confidence in the partners that the Government seek to bring into the 10-year plan and in their ability to deliver. It is crucial that the industry's structure is clear and cohesive; it must be simplified. In particular, the blight of the fragmentation that followed privatisation must be tackled. As a result of their policy initiatives, the Government have a golden opportunity to set a positive framework for the industry.
The SRA is a critical factor in that process, and progress has been made. More stability is being brought into the franchises, which now last longer. That means that the partners—the train operating companies—can see their way more clearly to embarking on vital investment. They can see that greater stability is emerging. The SRA is also involved in a determined and strong effort to develop the critical partnership to which I referred. That is the plus side, and the Government are rightly to be congratulated on their courage. Despite the carping criticism that one hears from time to time from different quarters both in the House and outside, I believe that the Government's initiative is welcome.
However, I fear that there is a downside. The crucial objectives that are set out in the 10-year plan can be fatally damaged by one of the partners in particular—Railtrack. I have read as much as I can put my hands on and have informed myself as best I can. It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that there is no confidence in Railtrack. That is true throughout the industry and the country, among many hon. Members and, I am sure, in the Government. It is equally true within the SRA, the train operating companies and even Railtrack itself. That is the bottom line. I fear that prospects are unlikely to get any better. The critical partnership that the Government must develop could therefore be fatally flawed.
The problems that we face as a result of the lack of confidence in Railtrack are starkly illustrated by the west coast main line. Railtrack's network licence sets the tone. It states that Railtrack is charged with

"(a) the maintenance of the network;

(b) the renewal and replacement of the network; and

(c) the improvement, enhancement and development of the network".

Railtrack looked at the west coast main line and said, "We'll do it, but it will cost £2.3 billion." That did not last long. Quite unilaterally—without consulting anyone, in particular the Government—Railtrack changed the specification of the signalling on the west coast main line, and the cost went up to £5.8 billion. Recent announcements suggest that it has gone up to £6.3 billion.
What has been Railtrack's attitude in the light of that situation? Pretty clear, going by evidence that it has given to the Transport Committee, of which I have the privilege of being a member. In questioning on 22 November 2000, Mr. Marshall, formerly finance director and now chief executive of Railtrack, said that the modernisation of the west coast main line would not go ahead if the Government, through the regulator, did not provide a grant of £4 billion. Railtrack will simply turn its back on a vital rail artery of the country, for which it is responsible under its licence, unless the Government and the public purse fund it all. It is not just

161WH
a matter of £4 billion. In further questioning, Railtrack admitted that if it did not receive that grant, not only would the scheme not go ahead, but it would have to raise the money on the capital market, and embark on a £1 billion rights issue. In effect, it was saying to the Government, "We want £5 billion from you, or you will not get the scheme."
Some people may think that that is a good illustration of partnership, but it is not one that I recognise. It gets worse. It is interesting, when we consider the Government's decision to hand over enormous amounts of public money to Railtrack, to look at the stock market valuation of Railtrack. The latest figure that I have—I think that the share price has gone down since, then staggered up a little—is about £5 billion. For one scheme, the public purse has to give a private monopoly company approximately the total value of that company. The net proceeds of privatisation, according to the House of Commons Library, were £4.6 billion. So we are giving this private monopoly company more money than the public purse received for the entire privatisation of the industry.
What do we ask in return? We ask—some might say demand—a number of things. The first is that Railtrack be better managed. We all subscribe to that. Railtrack has said that it is in danger of losing its A credit rating, which would compromise its ability to raise money. The Government have therefore decided to bring forward the first instalment of the £4 billion and to cough up £1.5 billion to prop Railtrack up. As a quid pro quo, they want to appoint someone to Railtrack's board to look after the public interest.
Mr. Marshall's response, as reported in The Times of 3 April 2001, was that such a
"non-executive director, to be appointed in a few months' time, was largely a symbolic gesture."
He went on to say that the company would not accept other people telling it whom to have on its board. What does Sir Alastair Morton, who chairs the SRA, think about that grant to Railtrack? In evidence to the Select Committee, Sir Alastair said that it was a gift and that Christmas had come early. It was not a Member of this House saying that; it was the chair of the Strategic Rail Authority.
So, the conditions are better management and a public interest non-executive director, which Railtrack sees as symbolic and wants to appoint anyway. Interestingly, and quite critically, the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority have said that one of the problems with Railtrack is that the company has too much to do. They think that, in future, Railtrack should manage and maintain the existing rail network, and the Strategic Rail Authority, in partnership with the private sector, should take on the development of new rail links—after the development of the west coast main line, if that ever happens.
To that end, the Government have unceremoniously dumped Railtrack from the second phase of the channel tunnel high-speed link. That is not a ringing endorsement by the Government or the SRA of Railtrack's ability to deliver.
Now the Government and the SRA are looking for another development plan for the east coast main line. However, the Government have not left matters there,
162WH
and I understand the difficulties facing them. The issues are so critical to the 10-year plan that they must be tackled, and I hope that, in the short time left to me, I can convince my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), at least to commit the Government to tackling them.
Lord Macdonald was worried because the share price of Railtrack was going down further. The shares had been sold at £3.90 and had gone up to £17, but they were back crawling along the bottom again. That was not good enough. Something had to be done to boost the price, so the £1.5 billion prop-up, bail-out grant was made, and Lord Macdonald made a speech at the Birmingham chamber of commerce, in which he said that the Government supported Railtrack and saw it as an important partner for the future. What happened? The shares blipped up in price.
It is an unedifying prospect. Every time a member of the senior management of Railtrack makes a speech, the share price goes down, and every time a Government Minister makes a speech, the share price goes up. That is a new experience for many of us in the Chamber. How can such a relationship be a basis for the crucial delivery and the partnership that are required for the Government's 10-year plan? It is not a partnership and it cannot form a basis for future action.
The evidence on fragmentation is overwhelming. With the greatest respect to the Minister, this is not an old Labour versus new Labour argument; it is about what is right and what is wrong. The argument is about public interest, delivery, confidence, public and private money and partnership. It is a matter of our ability to deliver and our confidence in doing so. The debate is essential to the Government's having any chance of success.
However, the SRA's new role is not very encouraging. The new development of rail is being transferred from Railtrack to the SRA and other partners—I presume with Government approval. That means another fragmentation of the industry. Railtrack will maintain the current rail network and the SRA's private partners will develop the new network. The industry needs further fragmentation like it needs a hole in the head. I am very concerned about the prospect of further fragmentation.
Nevertheless, if the SRA, with its partners, is to be responsible for development of new rail infrastructure, that responsibility should be significantly extended. As a start, the SRA should take shares in Railtrack on behalf of the public. Am I saying that, or is it someone else? In the evidence to the Select Committee to which I referred, the then chief executive of Railtrack and its current director, who was then the finance director, said:
"We have proposed that the SRA invest in preference shares in Railtrack"
as, effectively, a quid pro quo measure for the public money coming in. Railtrack said that, not me. Its representatives said that the mechanism would be
"the most efficient way o lever public money into the railway."
Railtrack's opinion has changed of late. I think that that is because its shareholders are upset about it. In any case, the Government are bailing Railtrack out. What

163WH
sort of message does that give? How much confidence can we have in a company that has to rely on ministerial speeches and the odd massive bail-out from the Government?
I was enormously encouraged on reading an article in The Guardian. It was not always correct, but was nevertheless interesting. According to it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is considering a British National Oil Corporation solution. That would be to take a 51 per cent. majority share in Railtrack, which would protect the public interest and mean a new direction for Railtrack. I think that the solution has much to commend it, with reference not only to my arguments today but to answers that my hon. Friend the Minister gave about the sum of public money put into Railtrack. He said:
"Some 85 per cent."—
I understand that the figure is nearer 90 per cent.—
"of Railtrack's income is paid to the company by TOCs in access charges, a substantial proportion of which are supported by Government subsidies."— [Official Report, 18 December 2000: Vol. 360, c. 7W.]
For the one scheme in which Railtrack is now involved, the west coast main line, 100 per cent. of the capital comes from the Government. A large proportion of the 90 per cent. of its operating revenue also comes from the public purse. As things stand, we intend to allow that situation to continue. That is a private monopoly that is publicly funded.
The majority of shares should be acquired by the Government, quid pro quo for public money. That is the only way to get out of this mess. The shares should be invested in the SRA, as a step in the direction of restructuring the industry so that the SRA is responsible for the infrastructure while the private sector operates the trains. That should be done as soon as possible. We are witnessing the dismemberment of Railtrack, so my suggestion is the logical next step.
Railtrack represents the dead hand of privatisation. It is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Some in the industry legitimately and sincerely claim that they do not want any more upheaval. I understand that, but can we afford to stagger from crisis to crisis as we are doing now, and as many believe that we shall do in future? The majority of the public know that something dramatic must be done. They are fed up. When they begin to understand how much public money is at stake, they will become even more concerned. It is not always the case but, in this instance, public instinct is right. I hope that the Government will recognise that and act accordingly, as they have a historic opportunity to do.
9.54 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on his customary trenchant and careful demonstration of his knowledge of this thorny problem. For many months, he has consistently obtained from members of the railway industry the information that is essential to understanding the tortuous and complex problems of that badly bedevilled form of transport. His success in doing that is a tribute to his sagacity and his complete understanding of how essential the railway industry is to the development of the United Kingdom.
164WH
The Government now face real difficulty. It is a long time since anyone seriously set about considering the connections between transport and the economy. The Government took a major step in preparing a 10-year plan for transport. Not only that, but because they were happy to pass primary legislation and commit large sums of public money, they were beginning to tackle a 20-year pattern of neglect. However, consideration of the implications of those plans reveals an immediate dilemma. Because of the fragmented nature of the industry following privatisation, there is little to suggest where the industry thinks that it is going.
As we have been told this morning, the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority and of Railtrack is set down in transport legislation and involves not only promoting but developing the industry. Those are essential and fundamental tasks, but confusion and lack of clarity are now creating a dangerous situation. The impact of the rail accidents on industry confidence has been great—some would say almost disproportionate—but that has not been taken on board fully by all the major players. Railtrack's responses were set out in considerable detail before the Transport Sub-Committee. The previous chief executive seemed to understand that the company had not done sufficient in the past and that it would be required to do much more. The incoming chief executive, who was previously finance director, appeared better to grasp some of the immediate problems.
Nevertheless, time is passing and Railtrack has still not begun to come to terms with some of the difficulties that it needs to confront. First and most important is the public perception of Railtrack. Railtrack is the core of the rail industry. If it gets things wrong, whether in the maintenance of facilities or the development of the railway system, everyone else will suffer. Its representatives appeared to understand that one difficulty was that the steady state system had not been maintained as it had been previously.
We hear a great deal about 20 years of under-investment, but one thing that British Rail did was to maintain the system. Sometimes it did so with love and bits of string, but railway men and women maintained that system so as to enable it to continue in existence. When Railtrack officials came before the Committee we pointed out to them that their failure in that regard had endangered the system. We said that it was clear that the problems were not only affecting old-style rails; often they concerned parts of the system that appeared to have been renewed. It should have been possible to be confident that those parts of the system could take the new pressures.
I am concerned about the lack of evidence that Railtrack officials, who appeared at the time to understand that it was their failure to confront matters that had led to complications, have taken major decisions essential to its future security. A new director with engineering experience was appointed to the board, but it is extraordinary that for so many years engineers were not on the board, and that there were 13 directors without such practical experience. After appointing the new director, Railtrack appeared to feel that it had dealt sufficiently with the practical problems of development. It is essential, however, that Railtrack admits some straightforward, important things. It must understand that it failed to deal with basic questions about its

165WH
contractors, about its acceptance of the fact that responsibility was passed down the line without sufficient monitoring, and about its inability to know whether the standard of maintenance that was required was being delivered by those who were paid to do that job. if it continues to get such questions wrong, it will simply go out of business, because there will be no way of maintaining its share price or the confidence of anyone in the City and in the general public in its ability to do the job.
So what has Railtrack done? Has it created an in-house engineering system, sought a new training system, asked the contractors to come up with a different way of working, or changed its way of awarding contracts? No. What it appears to have done is to decide that having one engineering director on the board will begin to confront its problems. As we demonstrated in our report, because it did not know how to handle contractors or have sufficient people to monitor what was happening, and because, from its commercial point of view, it was prepared to drive down the overhead cost of contracting by continually moving work from one firm to another—even moving it from one region to another—Railtrack contributed to the factors that led to the problems immediately after the bad accident at Hatfield.
I am very disappointed, because I believe that Railtrack was under an obligation to say, "Fine, we are under considerable pressure, but we are now prepared to take a number of basic, important steps." It must agree to look at training and at why it was not able to provide inspection without relying on someone else, and accept greater supervision from Her Majesty's railway inspectorate—an essential recommendation. It must also talk seriously to the train operating companies about how it can become more accountable to its customers. It is extraordinary that so many people can be required to work together in an industry with no obvious means by which they are accountable to one another for the quality of services delivered. That situation is reprehensible and dangerous.
Mr. David Drew: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Wessex franchise? The ridiculous situation arose a year ago when Wales and West announced that it was not interested in continuing the franchise. Confusion has now followed about who will take over the franchise and invest in that network.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I sympathise with the people affected in that franchise area. They must have considerable worries about the future of the service. This afternoon my Committee will question Sir Alastair Morton on the long-term plans of the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to franchises. Some time after the franchise process was supposed to have begun, considerable confusion still exists about who will get which franchise, under what conditions, and what will be delivered in return. If the SRA is not able to demonstrate a clear plan, it is difficult to see how it will award franchises. If it does not know what it wants of the railway industry, how can it say what it wants individual franchises to deliver?
166WH
When Stagecoach was re-awarded the franchise in the south-west, some of us felt that if that was the answer, it must have been a strange question. In many instances there is considerable confusion about the development of franchises. Railway companies and passengers are unclear about where we are going and what is required before a franchise can be awarded. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
Many passengers will be worried that those companies that have not acquired new rolling stock, improved their services or delivered good facilities will nevertheless be considered for franchises on the basis of arrangements that will be unclear to those of us who use the service. Such arrangements may leave the travelling public dissatisfied.
If I may digress for a moment, it is extraordinary that those of us who suffer on the west coast main line, where one is unable to catch a train that arrives anywhere near to timetable, will be asked to pay a 10 per cent. fare increase. There are few industries in the United Kingdom in which one could get away with cheerfully saying to one's customers, "I don't bring you the goods you want at the time you want in the way you want or in the place you want, but I shall now charge you 10 per cent. more for the privilege of using them." Virgin ought to bear that in mind. Some train companies have confronted that issue, but the west coast main line is still suffering.
So what are we suggesting? When the Committee examined the question of rail investment, it became clear that we have an extraordinary dichotomy at the centre of the system. Under the privatisation legislation, Railtrack was clearly never meant to be put into private ownership. It was meant to be the core of the system. All the private companies around it were supposed to operate on a different basis that allowed them to raise capital on the open market, which should have allowed them to deliver much higher standards than British Rail. However, the last-moment decision to throw the whole system open to private ownership caused enormous difficulty.
The only way in which Railtrack can obtain money is from the taxpayer. Although that money comes through the train operating companies, it is still our money. That is not a barrier to efficient working, but it does mean that train operating companies have special responsibilities, which they are not fulfilling. Following recent traumatic incidents, they have not shown sufficient vigour, clarity of vision or commitment to change to restore confidence in their ability to provide high-quality services. There has been no clear plan for training and no obvious confrontation of the fact that many of the plans that they put into operation did not provide the quality of service that was needed. There does not seem to have been clear monitoring of the management systems of their contractors or the people employed by their contractors. All those are essential if Railtrack is to operate effectively.
When the Committee pointed out that the Government must ensure that there is a genuine transfer of risk to the private sector in contracts reached with private sector partners, it was underlining something about which many people feel strongly. There is no logic in transferring assets to private companies on the assumption that they will shoulder the risk in the market and raise large sums of capital to provide better-quality

167WH
services if, when it comes to the point at which they need to do such a thing, it is found that they must return to the Government and say, "We are terribly sorry. We are unable to do what we promised to do in the first instance and we want you to underwrite all our losses."
Many of us believe that Railtrack would not be where it is today in the City if it did not receive such Government support. It is because City firms believe that it is the taxpayer who coughs up for basic services when real difficulties arise that Railtrack enjoys its current share price. Frankly, that leads to the worst of all worlds. Railtrack is not being supported by the private sector, but nor is it receiving input from the state sector. With such input, there would be no need for a large return on assets before money is put into the system. Railtrack is being reduced to an enormous, muddled compact between Government and private industry that is not working and seems incapable of providing the future that we demand of a truly modern rail system.
Wherever one goes in the European Community, and whether one considers high-speed trains or freight, one finds that large amounts are spent on transport. It is clear that most highly industrialised countries accept that an efficient railway system is fundamental to their economies. Without it, people and goods are not moved efficiently, profits are not made and countries do not develop as nations, yet many years after the creation of a railway system that is essential to our future, it remains unclear what the situation in this country will be in, say, 10 years' time. Although the Government have provided the opportunity and support necessary to produce a modern railway system, confusion reigns among companies, the Government and passengers. Frankly, that is not acceptable in the new century.
The general public are not prepared to continue to accept such chaos. They were told that, after a period of discomfort, there would be new rolling stock, new facilities and new and better railways. They will demand that those facilities be delivered, bat the point is that Railtrack is not delivering. It has not carried out even the elementary maintenance work for which it was created. It cannot expect to continue to enjoy the support of passengers and the Government unless fundamental changes are made. Perhaps the appointment of a particular director will have an effect, but in my view we have reached a rather more basic stage. The taxpayer is spending a fortune on a company that is manifestly not doing its job.
If Railtrack were forced to answer for its actions on the open market, in the manner of most private companies, it would be bankrupt. We must seriously consider alternative plans. If taxpayers are to pay, there should be delivery of goods and services at the level that they expect. If they continue to pay and pay and yet receive inferior service, their anger will increasingly be a matter for their elected representatives, rather than for the individual companies concerned.
This Government are the first to have sufficient guts and ability to try to confront the problems of the railway industry. It is no use stopping halfway along the line and saying, "We'd like to get to Crewe but unfortunately we've finished up in Birmingham."
10.14 am
Mr. Peter Snape: Hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) for the opportunity to debate this important subject, although the debate has not proved particularly enlightening, in that we seemed to have gone round and round in circles. Bashing Railtrack is dead easy. It is true that it is not undeserving of a good bashing, but a discussion that is long on problems and short on solutions will not take us much further forward. The only solution of which I have heard apparently involves the renationalisation of Railtrack.
I must declare an interest in that I worked in the railway industry for some years before being elected to Parliament, and I am still a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Until 31 December last year, I was chairman of a major National Express subsidiary. I therefore have some experience of the nationalised railways. Although I did not work on the railway side of National Express, my colleagues left me in no doubt about what life had been like trying to operate in a privatised—perhaps, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, it would be more accurate to say semi-Privatised—environment since the Railways Act 1993 was passed under the previous Government.
The flaw that I find in the debates that we have on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall is that we are bereft of any solutions other than demanding that the Government, having put money in, should assume control of Railtrack. I have bored the House on many occasions with stories of what life was like when the Treasury ran the railway industry. Whether under Conservative or Labour Governments, Treasury control did not lead to happy bunnies in the industry, and certainly did not create an industry of which the nation at large was massively proud. We are in danger of creating a myth that the publicly owned railway industry was part of a golden age in which all the staff walked round with smart uniforms giving cheery responses to members of the public, and all the trains ran on time. That was not my experience when I worked on the railways. Year after year, and decade after decade, the amount of investment that the Treasury decided to make available to the railway industry was always inadequate for the job that needed to be done, certainly in so far as modernisation was concerned.
There was one exception to that rule. In 1955, the Government—a Conservative Government, funnily enough—accepted a modernisation plan that was subsequently implemented by both Conservative and Labour Governments. We were rather distracted during the period of its implementation by the plans of Dr. Beeching, some of which came to fruition and some of which fortunately did not. Many of us who worked on the railways at that time were frankly incredulous at some of the decisions that were made when the investment tap was, for the first and only time, turned fully on. I remind hon. Members that with cash that is provided by the Government via the Treasury comes a certain degree of control as to how it must be spent. During the implementation of the 1955 modernisation plan—which was not completed until the late 1960s and early 1970s—a great deal of public money went into the industry, and the Treasury saw to it that everyone got to

169WH
dip in the gravy. Consequently—I speak from memory but, I think, fairly accurately—there were no less than 33 different types of diesel locomotives, none of which were compatible with each other and many of which ended up in the knacker's yard within a decade because they were no good. Conservative and Labour Governments were equally guilty. As a result of their desire to see the money spread properly around the country, many of the decisions that were made, apparently with good reason at the time, turned out to be disastrous—certainly from the taxpayer's point of view.
I cannot honestly think that renationalising Railtrack—as my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South apparently want to do—would lead to the kind of rail industry that they and I want to see. The one advantage of Railtrack being a private company is that it has access to money that is not from the Treasury. I realise that much of the money that it obtains, and plans to obtain in the near future, comes from the Treasury. Perhaps my hon. Friends believe that £1.5 billion will be sufficient to modernise the rail industry, but I very much doubt that. It remains to be seen whether Railtrack, given its new remit and new chief executive, will be able to accomplish the tasks before it. Continual attack on the present structure of the industry is not helpful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, the last thing that many of the industry's workers want now is yet another reorganisation.
A prominent railway manager, who was fired for writing a book on the difficulties of railway operation in the 1960s, Gerry Fiennes, made the immortal comment that every time we reorganise, we bleed. The railway industry has been reorganising and bleeding for far too long. Concentration on reorganisation at the expense of passenger and freight services is one cause of low morale, although the barmy privatisation rushed through by the previous Government did not help.
Mr. Stevenson: My suggestion that the Government, through the SRA, should be the majority shareholder in Railtrack, was first proposed by Railtrack itself.
Mr. Snape: I do not want to be rude to my hon. Friend, but he cannot have it both ways. He spent most of his speech, understandably, attacking Railtrack and its managers. Now, he has isolated one statement that those managers made and said that they were right on that occasion. I think that they were wrong, because they made that statement for all the wrong reasons. They handled the company extremely badly, and made that suggestion as an escape route from their mishandling.
I am not sure whether any Minister as talented as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham—albeit, if I may say so, a little unfortunate in the past few days—wants to accept responsibility for everything that goes wrong within Railtrack. Inevitably, things sometimes go wrong in a large organisation. If we are to get enough money into the industry to enable it to be successful, which we all want, a mixture of private and public cash is, in my opinion, the only way forward.
170WH
The debate is about railway investment, but I will spend a couple of minutes touching on other aspects of the industry that also give cause for concern. Many TOCs have arranged to lease new trains. We should not fall for the propaganda of some of them about how much they are spending on those trains because the vast majority of the trains are leased. Although that is relatively expensive, the cost of the trains is borne by companies such as Angel and other leasing organisations.
There is a problem in getting many of the trains into service. It is disgraceful that so many new trains are lying in sidings up and down the country waiting for safety cases while passengers struggle on old, in some cases, slam-door rolling stock. Others that have had safety cases have been so poorly put together that they do not work. We have heard understandable screams of anguish from TOCs throughout the country that have had to take such trains out of service a very short time after introducing them, because the trains were not up to the job for which they were designed.
I am tempted to say that that never happened when British Rail Engineering built the trains. It certainly did not happen as often. The total collapse of investment in the railway industry in the run-up to privatisation is now reflected in the infrastructure and in the quality of new trains being introduced. In the last five or six years of British Rail, nothing but emergency routine maintenance was done to the tracks and no new rolling stock was ordered. That resulted in the virtual collapse of our indigenous railway manufacturing industry and a dependence on rolling stock manufacturers based abroad. The fact that manufacturers are based abroad does not necessarily mean that they are not up to the job, but that hiatus in the supply of rolling stock led to many of our current problems.
Those of us who take part in these debates are a fairly restricted group, and those who listen to them either on the Floor of the House or here must be thoroughly depressed and sick of the sight of us. However, we have one thing in common: we all want to see a better railway industry in the future. How best to make that happen is a matter that only the Government, Railtrack and the train operating companies can decide.
The last anecdote that I shall probably relate during my undistinguished parliamentary career will be one that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard many times before. I tell it only because on Friday I shall be going back to the signal box where I started my railway career in 1957 with a TV crew who want to show how I have fallen badly from grace from being a railway signalman to being a Member of Parliament. When I went to work as a 15-year-old train recorder in 1957, I was told that the signal box was about to be swept away in the west coast main line modernisation programme. The fact that it will still be there on Friday will, I hope, do something to undermine the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, notwithstanding the respect that I have for him. If the Treasury could never find the money in 50 years to shift Edgely junction No. 2 signal box, which was built by the London and North Western railway in 1888, I cannot see it happening at any time in the future. The job of all of us who care about the railways is to get the best deal possible for the industry. Flawed and fragmented though the present structure may be, we should try to make it work properly.
10.26 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate. He set out the challenges facing the industry and suggested possible solutions to the problem. The past decade or so has been relatively good for the railways, in spite of one former Prime Minister's fixation with the motor car. Passenger journeys have risen from 738 million in 1986–87 to 892 million in 1998–99, which is the last period for which figures are available. Investment has involved big sums of money—a total of £34.3 billion in the period 1991 to 2001 and, it is promised, £54.5 billion in 2001–11. That all sounds very impressive, but it is worth looking at some historical background.
I shall not go back as far as 1955 because I have no recollection of what happened then, but let us consider what the Labour party said in opposition. In 1993, the current Deputy Prime Minister said that the Tory rail privatisation Bill was driven by ideological dogma and that it commanded no support from experts or the public. I imagine that that comment is still quite fresh in the minds of hon. Members. The Guardian reported the right hon. Gentleman saying that the proposed privatisation would
"make the railway system less safe…reduce services and investment, drive up fares and force freight traffic on the roads."
Mrs. Dunwoody: He was not wrong.
Mr. Brake: Indeed. The Labour party maintained that stance throughout the passage of the Railways Bill and during the first few years after privatisation, and the now Deputy Prime Minister pledged to take Railtrack back into public hands. The 1997 Labour manifesto admitted that rail privatisation
"made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer".
Despite that recognition, there was a policy U-turn, and the commitment to renationalisation was removed in favour of setting up the Strategic Rail Authority. The manifesto had nothing to say on the subject of safety, which was Labour's prime concern back in 1993.
I shall comment briefly on the Tories' position. I thought that the absence of any Tory Members at the beginning of the debate had to do with the shame that Conservatives felt about the state in which they had left the railways. Tom Winsor commented:
"Railtrack was privatised with a fantastically weak licence, weak contracts and a poor financial regime that did not give it an adequate regime for investment."
Hon. Members will know that Gerald Corbett, the former chief executive of Railtrack, said:
"The railway was ripped apart at privatisation and the structure that was put in place was a structure designed, if we are honest, to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury."
It is not exactly a good way of improving the railways to focus only on the proceeds to the Treasury. To give the Conservatives some little credit, it is true that they have now accepted that perhaps their railway privatisation has not been terribly successful. They have conceded that the
"system was made into too many different companies."
What Labour Members said in opposition is not nearly as interesting as what has happened since they came to power. We know that between 1997–98 and 1999–2000,
172WH
there was a 25.6 per cent. reduction in the rail subsidy paid by the Government to the train operating companies. That is projected to continue to fall in the next couple of years. The subsidies were set up under the franchise agreements of the previous Tory Administration. The 10-year transport plan, which I say now that I welcome, to avoid criticism that I am carping, outlines the £60 billion that the Government will be spending on the railways.
The franchise replacement programme will be underpinned by extra Government funding, which is necessary as everyone accepts that the franchises were designed to deliver a basic service, to enable bidders to come forward. If the targets were too stringent, no bidders would have applied. Money has also been set aside for a rail modernisation fund.
The plan for the Strategic Rail Authority was originally to be published in May 2000, and it is now likely to appear later in the autumn, having been delayed in the aftermath of Hatfield. There are delays in the review of franchises and track access charges, with only two of the 18 new franchises having been decided so far. That is causing major delays in the investment plans of rail companies. The award of the franchise to GoVia, which is due to take over from Connex South Central is a subject that is close to my heart as well as to the Minister's, as we are commuters using the same service. The franchise process is complete and GoVia is supposed to be running that service, but it has not taken over yet. Perhaps the Minister can say when that will happen. I understand that negotiations are still taking place. The staff of Connex South Central believe that the company will run the service right to the end of its franchise, which will last another two or three years, but I hope not.
It is claimed that more will be spent on the railways in the next 10 years, but it is clear that no more public investment will be made. The amount of investment will be lower than in the final years of the Conservative Administration. The crucial issue is how much private money the Government can lever in. It is only through private money that the promised investment of £54.5 billion will flow to the railways. Is there any evidence so far of a railways renaissance? Very little, according to the latest edition of Rail, which I suspect some Labour Members read regularly. An article entitled "A new railway? Sometime … we hope … perhaps … maybe …" contains interesting quotes that reflect the views of key players in the railways industry. The EWS, for example, says that
"40 per cent. of current railfreight is at risk of returning to road haulage"
because of
"44-tonne lorries, reduced excise duty and a standstill on fuel duty."
The chairman of the Rail Freight Group says that
"the SRA's Agenda for Growth"
is
"an 'upside-down approach' because the final document will not be produced until after the main passenger franchises have been agreed."
Everything referred to in the article is running late, and I am not talking about the trains. Railtrack's network management statement has been delayed; the

173WH
SRA is apparently not committed to delivering a single project before 2005; and the strategic plan, which is due in October or November, is running a year late. If we analyse Railtrack's network management statements, we find that the deadlines for the completion of urgent projects have been missed wholesale.
What is the solution to the crisis that the industry faces? First, the regulatory system must be simplified. The SRA is pushing the case for rail, and we would like the other aspects of transport to be integrated under a sustainable transport authority. We would ensure that that authority took the lead in using public investment to secure partnerships with the private sector. That would not necessarily involve Railtrack, and that model is beginning to emerge.
We favour a demerger of Railtrack. In practical terms, that would mean that a not-for-profit company ran the infrastructure—the track, signalling and power supplies. We and some Labour Members have suggested such a model for other modes of transport. We could achieve that by negotiating with Railtrack. Given the position that it is in, it must recognise that it is unable to do the jobs that are being asked of it, whether on-going maintenance or more innovative projects. If necessary, we could ask the Competition Commission to review Railtrack's activities. We certainly approve of simplifying the structure of the railway system and reducing the number of franchises. There are good grounds for encouraging Railtrack to pass on responsibilities for infrastructure renewal to the train operating companies, some of which have expressed an interest.
There must be scope within the newly negotiated franchise for further control over fares if we are to prevent dramatic increases such as those made by Virgin, which have, unfortunately, not been matched by any improvement in service. We support the recommendations of Lord Cullen's inquiry and would favour setting up an independent accident investigation body of the kind that exists for air travel. There is also scope for significantly increasing the amount of freight that goes by rail.
We have heard solutions from different quarters. We clearly agree on one issue. The system is not working, and the Minister will have to respond to that concern. The Government are under siege over transport—
whether it is rail, air or tube. The lessons that arose out of the privatisation of the railways do not seem to have been learned. The tube is due to be partially privatised, possibly within the next 24 hours, against the opposition of all Londoners—and, for all I know, even of the Minister. We all know what has happened to air traffic control. The Government have one more opportunity to make their mark on transport. Their success at levering in private money and improving reliability will determine whether the likes of the Minister will retain his ministerial limousine or have to swap it for a bicycle.
10.40 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing this interesting debate. It has already revealed division among
174WH
Government Back Benchers on the future management of our railways. The problems that we face today are partly the result of muddle and confusion having been translated into the Government's strategic thinking on how to run the railways.
Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his speech was one of the most sensible.
Mr. Snape: I am condemned now. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer us all to be obedient Blair babes, or should we speak our minds?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is here. He has huge experience of the railways and brings a great deal to the debate. I am not sure whether he is standing for re-election.
Mr. Snape: I am not.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: He will be sadly missed by the House; we need People like him with a depth of knowledge. His anecdote about the signal box demonstrates the failure of Governments of all colours to bring our railways up to a satisfactory, modern standard. I am sure that he will have seen privatised railways throughout the world working satisfactorily—for example, in Hong Kong. Such companies can lever in private finance and go from strength to strength.
The Government's lack of strategic thinking has led to confusion and muddle for Railtrack, which has not been able to retain the confidence of its investors and has lost share value. We should get away, once and for all, from the continual, bickering call to bring it back into public ownership. The Government have had four years in which to do so. The Minister may tells us differently this morning, but the Government obviously do not want to bring Railtrack back into public ownership. They should state that clearly, and concentrate on their 10-year strategic plan, so that Railtrack and the other parts of the railway industry can bring in more private investment.
The Government inherited a railway system in which passenger numbers, freight traffic and investment were all increasing. Public investment has decreased from £1.8 billion in 1997–98 to £1.6 billion in 2001–02, yet private investment has gone up during that period from £1.2 billion to £3.7 billion. We have heard a lot of criticism of the railways this morning, but some excellent things are going on. For example, Angel Trains, in conjunction with Stagecoach and Siemens, announced in March a £640 million deal for new rolling stock for South West Trains, which could eventually be worth well over £1 billion. That is a significant sum of money, and it should be welcomed by everyone.
We have had one or two unfortunate incidents on our railways, which have highlighted the confusion and muddle. The Prime Minister visited the scene at Hatfield, and said that everything would be all right in the new year, and yet even after Easter, we are still suffering chaos and are not back to normal. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that Railtrack's

175WH
price was going up and down like a yo-yo. That points to what has been going on in our rail system. He said that we should take part of the shares in Railtrack back into public ownership, but did not really explain how that would be done. I do not think that it is a sensible way forward.
The hon. Member for Crew, and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that we could not carry on as at present. She criticised several aspects of Railtrack's running of our railways but, with gnat respect to her—she has huge knowledge of the railways—I must point out that she did not suggest a strategic way forward. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) clearly said that we should not bring the railways back into public ownership. That must be right. Let us try to give Railtrack some hope and a strategic way forward. The Government, working with Railtrack, should come up with some proper targets, and should encourage Railtrack to meet them, rather than penalise it to ensure that it does so. Our infrastructure should be improved and run more safely. Signals should not be passed at danger and rails should not crack, because they should be improved and maintained to some of the best standards in the world, rather than some of the worst.
Since privatisation, the New York underground is considerably better than our public underground in London. That is the way forward. I wholly accept the plea made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that we should simplify the running of our railways. Since the Government came to power, all sorts of different regulatory, safety and other bodies have tried to tell Railtrack what to do. We have ended up with greater confusion than we had when we started.
We ask for clear, strategic thinking from the Government and their regulatory and safety bodies. We want to go forward into the 21st century with a modern railway system that befits the world's fourth biggest economy, not one that befits a third world economy and would be more suited to the century in which railways were invented. It is high time that our sophisticated country was able, with proper investment and infrastructure, to produce a railway system that can cope with a modern economy, that it transports many people swiftly around the country on time in reliable trains, and that carries an increasing amount of freight. We all want that, as it would befit a modern economy, and be good for the environment and our people. We look forward to the Government producing a plan to deliver those results, or giving way to a Government who can do so.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate and on the informed and reasonable way in which he made his case. I am also grateful for the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), and those of the hon. Members for Cotswold ( Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). They all provided insights on this important subject.
176WH
The debate has brought together great expertise, including that of both my mentors and gurus on transport as well as parliamentary matters. I pay an especially warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, as this debate is likely to be his swansong in the House.
I want to talk about the positive developments in the railway industry, the new beginning that we have made with Railtrack, and the exciting employment prospects opening up in the industry. First, I shall deal with specific issues of ownership that several colleagues raised. Directly or by implication, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the Select Committee's recommendation that the Government consider taking a majority equity stake in Railtrack, or taking Railtrack back wholly into public ownership. As they are well aware, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport explained the Government's reservations about such proposals to the Committee.
Renationalisation would probably take a couple of years and involve complex and controversial primary legislation. During that time, the industry would effectively be paralysed. The initial costs to the taxpayer would comprise not only Railtrack's market capitalisation of around £2.5 billion at the current stock market valuation but £4 billion of debt liabilities. None of that money would buy additional rail investment. It would all go towards compensating shareholders and funding the company's debt. Renationalisation would also involve the public sector in directly funding Railtrack's investment. The additional debt through which the company currently plans to finance its activities would become public sector borrowing.
I share the conviction of Labour and Opposition Members that serious mistakes were made in the privatisation process. However, after years of fragmentation and instability, the answer is not yet more upheaval. What we now need is evolution rather than revolution, especially when the revolution would be at enormous cost to the public purse and deliver nothing directly in improved rail services.
It has been argued that the public money going to Railtrack should generate an equity stake. However, the money that the Government will be paying Railtrack, in renewal grants for the west coast main line, for example, is to meet the cost of improvements to the network. An equity stake would have to be paid for on top of that money, and it is not clear what the taxpayer would get in return for the extra cost beyond a right to dividends.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister tell us exactly what Railtrack has already received in moneys brought forward and under recent arrangements?
Mr. Hill: I think that my hon. Friend is alluding to the £1.5 billion in funding for Railtrack that was brought forward on 2 April. I hope to dwell further on that and the benefits that it will confer in terms of infrastructure renewal.
Let me continue by responding to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that Railtrack should be converted into a public not-for-profit stakeholder trust. There are serious drawbacks to that idea. The first is that the taxpayer would have to

177WH
foot the bill for buying Railtrack. The second is that a public trust's spending would be public expenditure. The trust would have to fund all its investment from public resources—potentially trebling the public expenditure cost of enhancements. We believe that the money would be better invested in education and health, where there are no alternative sources of funding.
The Government believe that renationalisation or the purchase of a large and costly public equity stake in Railtrack is not necessary to ensure that the company meets its public service obligations. We need an appropriate framework of incentives and regulation, within a coherent strategy of public-private partnership for the railways and our transport system as a whole. The 10-year plan provides the broad framework. The Strategic Rail Authority assumed its full powers in February under the Transport Act 2000. Within the framework of the plan the authority has published its strategic agenda and will publish its strategic plan later this year.
We have appointed a tough rail regulator to ensure that Railtrack delivers on its licence requirements and does not abuse its monopoly position. His periodic review, published last year, greatly increased not just the rewards to Railtrack for good performance but the penalties for poor performance. The regulator is rigorously enforcing Railtrack's network licence obligations. He has proposed seven new licence conditions. They include the key requirement on Railtrack—strongly endorsed in the Committee's report—to establish and maintain an asset register and make it available to other key industry players. A further proposal covers the establishment of a code of practice for Railtrack's dependent customers—also a recommendation made by the Select Committee. Railtrack has also made a commitment to appoint a new public interest director to its board. This strengthening of the Railtrack board demonstrates the company's recognition of its special public role.
This has been a most useful debate on rail investment, the subject of the recent very thorough and well-researched report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The Government will give the report the careful consideration that it deserves and will respond in the usual way to its many important conclusions and recommendations.
Rail investment is an area of public policy of considerable complexity, but on the whole the picture is very encouraging. Passenger and freight use of the railway system has grown strongly. Passenger journeys are up 20 per cent. since 1997, and freight volumes have grown by 22 per cent. The 10-year plan for transport looks forward to further growth of 50 per cent. in passenger use and 80 per cent. in freight volumes. Huge investment is needed to accommodate that growth, to secure the improvements that we require in the safety and quality of rail services, and to make up for past under-investment.
Since 1997, rail investment has doubled. Nearly 2,000 stations have been improved and 17 new stations built. There are 50 new freight terminals, and more than 3,000 new vehicles have been introduced. The 10-year plan for transport set out the Government's view of the rail investment that will be needed to support our objectives
178WH
for a rail renaissance. We also set out our view of the public funding that would be needed to support that investment and our intention to make that funding available. We estimated that £49 billion of investment would be required in total; £15 billion of public investment expenditure would lever in £34 billion of private investment. That is part of an overall plan for transport involving £180 billion of public spending and private investment.
Mr. Brake: The Minister will be aware that GoVia intends to increase services in south-west London by 30 per cent. It will achieve that by stopping direct services to Victoria or London Bridge. I am sure that it has similar proposals across the south of England. How will he ensure that the increased investment that he talks about will deliver the services that commuters want, as opposed to delivering what the rail companies want?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right. He and I share a common constituency concern about the efficacy of services to be delivered in due course by GoVia as a result of its acquisition of the Connex South Central franchise. It is precisely the role of the Strategic Rail Authority to supervise specific proposals that are being put in place. I have confidence that it will discharge that task. It is an open and accountable body, to which he and I, in our various capacities, can make representations.
In the brief time remaining, I want to speak about the human resources implications of the 10-year transport plan. I especially want to draw the Chamber's attention to the enormous employment implications of the Government's transport programme. The £180 billion plan is expected to create at least 60,000 new transport-related jobs, many of them in manufacturing and construction. The Government are determined to ensure that British companies can win that work by competing on expertise and price.
Recently, rail companies have had to import specialist welders and engineers from northern Europe, and signalling engineers from eastern Europe, to meet the demand for skilled labour. Shortages of train drivers are disrupting schedules in some areas. Action is now under way to recruit and train people to run the expanding rail system. The Department for Education and Employment, working with my Department, the SRA and other key stakeholders, has created a framework action plan to help push skills further up the agenda of the rail industry. The plan was unveiled by the DFEE last week. It is a balanced package that aims, among other things, to raise employer commitment to skills, to overcome obstacles to recruitment and labour supply, to improve training, and to improve skills and quality through externally validated qualifications. The plan focuses on several key occupations that the industry has identified as critical, including drivers, signalling and track maintenance engineers, middle management, graduates and professional staff.
For transport as a whole, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the devolved administrations, with Trades Union Congress involvement as appropriate, aim to meet in the near future to ensure that the 60,000 jobs created can be

179WH
filled. We shall involve the new job transition service, to link available opportunities in transport to those affected by redundancies. I know that that will be welcome news to the Select Committee, which drew special attention to its concerns about skills shortages in the railway industry.
I am grateful for the support that has been warmly expressed today for the 10-year plan. April was the first month of its operation. With the progress that is now being made on refranchising, on the channel tunnel rail link and on the relationship with Railtrack, it was a good new beginning for the railways.

HIV-AIDS
11 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am delighted to have the opportunity for this debate. It was prompted particularly by the third report of the Select Committee on International Development, entitled "HIV/AIDS: The Impact on Social and Economic Development". I commend that report to the House and to those outside the House. I had a part in it, and I congratulate the support staff involved and, in particular, the Clerk of the Committee, on writing it. It is an excellent report and deserves wider publicity than it has had so far.
What we are to discuss today is arguably the biggest disaster facing the human race. It is a crisis and a catastrophe and, to a large extent, it is not understood in the developed or the developing world. Last year the International Development Committee returned from South Africa and Mozambique having seen floods, among other things, and having witnessed the enormous AIDS problem confronting southern Africa. I asked my then research assistant, an extremely intelligent and well-informed person, what he knew about AIDS in Africa. He thought for a moment and said: "I think it is quite a problem, isn't it?"
I am afraid that that is typical of the reactions of people in this country, although that is changing to an extent, perhaps since the Durban conference last year. Yesterday I received an invitation from Christian Aid to a reception at the opening of Cold Heaven, an exhibition by Don McCullin on AIDS in Africa. Don McCullin, who is one of the world's leading photojournalists, said:
"I wanted to photograph the AIDS situation because the western world in which I live seems to have no interest in it".
In this country HIV-AIDS is still largely thought of as a disease of drug addicts, homosexuals and haemophiliacs. That was true in Britain to begin with, but has been changing dramatically. Indeed, in 1999 for the first time heterosexually acquired cases of HIV exceeded gay HIV infection. That was quite a milestone in HIV-AIDS in this country. I see that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who chairs the all-party group on AIDS, is present; it was at a meeting of that group that I heard information from a document entitled "Informing Policy", by the African HIV steering group. The document stated that in the first quarter of 1999 Public Health Laboratory Service figures showed that heterosexually acquired HIV infections, of which Africans made up the majority of cases, outstripped transmissions among gay and bisexual men. Referring to African communities resident in Britain, the document stated that there was an infection rate of one in 28 for men and one in 18 for women born in Africa.
That is the crux of the matter. In the United Kingdom as a whole, HIV prevalence is about 0.11 per cent. and 450 people died from AIDS-related disease in 1999. In some countries in Africa the prevalence rate is more than 25 per cent., and in sub-Saharan Africa in 1999 more than 2.2 million people died from AIDS-related diseases. That is some 200 times the UK rate.
The disease is wreaking havoc in the developing world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In Zimbabwe and South Africa it is a catastrophe unlike anything

181WH
since the second world war. In 1998 the International Development Committee was in Uganda. At dinner I sat next to a Minister who had just attended the funeral of the fifth of his wife's siblings to die of AIDS. Although it is an extraordinary thing to imagine, such circumstances are replicated in many, many families throughout Africa.
That man was obviously educated, and the problem can be disproportionately serious among educated people because it is related to travel. If one stays in the same place the whole time, without meeting many people from elsewhere, the virus is not spread. The infection is often contracted when one travels for education or work, as do many miners in South Africa. It can, therefore, have a disproportionate impact on the number of teachers or doctors in a county, although it could be said that such people should be better educated and aware, and therefore, perhaps, less prone to the infection.
There are already 13 million AIDS orphans in Africa, 95 per cent. of them in sub-Saharan Africa. That approximates to one quarter of the population of the United Kingdom; to put it another way, it is like finding that every person in Norway and Sweden had been orphaned by AIDS. Life expectancy in some countries of the developing world is dropping remarkably. In 1996, life expectancy in Zambia was 48.6 years. God knows, that is low enough. It fell, however, to 40.1 years by 1999. In the UK, life expectancy is more than 80 years.
Development, which was progressing in the second half of the 20th century, is starting to go backwards. There are more poor children. Many orphans are unable to go to school, perhaps because, as their parents are dead, they have to stay at home to look after siblings. Money is directed at the care of AIDS patients and away from other health areas. Diseases such as tuberculosis are very much on the increase because of AIDS. All that affects development. Poverty is greater. As we all know, the aim of DFID's policy is to reduce poverty in the developing world.
Such countries' economies are suffering. Our report examined that to a certain extent, but we are seeing only the beginning of it. Some work forces are literally dying and markets are getting poorer because there is less money in the market to buy goods. Investment that would have been channelled to some sub-Saharan African countries might now be channelled elsewhere, although that has yet to be determined. Agricultural production has also been reduced because of the number of deaths.
Some in the western, or developed, world might say, "That's all very sad, but it doesn't affect us directly", but political instability and possible social collapse and conflict are likely to arise. At a basic level, we could ask why people who are dying should obey the law. Also, in an earlier report that looked into the causes of conflict, we found that conflict and poverty are inextricably linked. It is self-evident that prosperous societies tend not to go to war in the same way that poor societies do.
182WH
Greater instability in the world would be detrimental to us as well as to other countries. The United States has declared the epidemic a national security threat.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend paints an accurate picture of the appalling situation. As some infections, such as TB, get out of control in sub-Saharan Africa, they are mutating into forms that convey considerable risks to people in more prosperous parts of the world. Does he agree that that is a further repercussion for the developed world?
Mr. Robathan: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that the western, developed world appreciates the huge scale and pandemic nature of the crisis.
We found that HIV and AIDS are exacerbated by poverty—owing to health care problems—and, at the same time, exacerbate poverty. That can become a vicious circle leading to greater conflict. It is an awful problem.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the causes of conflict, was he as puzzled as I was that the cross-departmental report on the causes of conflict in Africa, which has just been published, makes no mention of the AIDS crisis?
Mr. Robathan: I confess that the hon. Lady has the advantage over me, as I have not read the report, but it is self-evident that the AIDS crisis plays a part. In Ethiopia and Sierra Leone, for example, there is evidence that AIDS is being spread rapidly by the conditions of conflict.
Botswana has the worst adult prevalence rate in Africa: 35.8 per cent., or more than one in three. Last month, I went to a meeting attended by the President of Botswana. His big plea to the UK and the developed world as a whole was for us to try to understand the impact of AIDS in his country and the effect that it is having in every nook and cranny of its national life.
The first purpose of this debate is to increase awareness and understanding. The need for that has recently been illustrated by coverage of the dispute in South Africa about anti-retroviral drugs and the patent case brought by pharmaceutical companies. However, although the issue of the production of generic drugs is important, it merely scratches the surface, because in most of sub-Saharan Africa there is no health service to distribute such drugs and there are insufficient doctors and nurses to educate people about how to take them. Moreover, even if the cost of the drugs is reduced by a factor of 10, they are still too expensive to distribute to the millions of people who have the disease. I am glad that the pharmaceutical companies have dropped the case, but that will not have an impact on the big picture that I shall describe.
Not only is the problem huge, but it may be getting worse. In some countries, good policies appear to have stopped the rise in prevalence rates, but in other countries there is no evidence of that. Although infection rates are uncertain, there is a real worry about countries such as India and China. Recent newspaper reports suggest that the prevalence rate in China—which was until last year the world's most populous

183WH
nation—is a great deal higher than the authorities would have us believe. We have little knowledge of what is happening in China, but awareness is as important there as it is anywhere else.
The prevalence rate is still rising in much of Africa, but in Uganda it has been reduced. Having been top of the incidence rate for AIDS in 1993, it is now 14th. That is the result of good public policy. Uganda stands out as a beacon of hope in that respect. Its achievement was based largely on increasing awareness and understanding, causing behavioural change, and political leadership and education. The average age of first sexual intercourse has been increased by two years. That may sound like a paltry figure, but it is extremely important: it means that teenage boys are not having intercourse at the early age that had been customary. At the same time, male condom use has increased from 15.4 per cent. in 1989 to 55.2 per cent. in 1995—the most recent date for which I have figures. AIDS is not beaten in Uganda, but people there have started to turn the awful tide.
What can we do? There is a tendency to view such an enormous problem as insuperable, throw one's hands up in horror and have nothing to say. That would be wrong. We can help through education, and DFID does so, as it should. We have seen various schemes that DFID has assisted around the world. Development aid can be used to educate people and alleviate effects.
I remember visiting Kisumu high school in March 1998 with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and other Committee members and watching a rather good drama—a role play—about the dangers of AIDS, performed by teenagers. It was a shock to discover that, by the age of 19—I think that I am correct—over one third of girls and 8 per cent. of boys at that school are infected with HIV. At least education has begun, even though it may be too late and perhaps insufficient. Girls are more vulnerable because in some developing countries they are coerced into having sex at an early age, often by older men, and they are often raped. They are coerced by money and pressures from their family, and for understandable biological reasons they may be more susceptible to picking up the virus.
Education must lead to behavioural change, which is much easier to say than to achieve. We have heard the argument that the habits of some developing countries are cultural habits, that it is important that people have always behaved in a certain way and that it is not for people in the west to tell others that being profligate in their sexual favours is dangerous. The truth is that such cultural behaviour is leading to the death of cultures and the death of a large number of people. Greater abstinence and fidelity would assist, but that, too, is easier to say than to achieve. We have also heard about the practice of dry sex—I shall not elaborate. We are told that that is something imbued in the culture of various African countries, but it is assisting in the transmission of the disease. That issue relates to health. Bad hygiene and poor health care, together with a large number of sexually transmitted diseases, contribute to the spread of this ghastly disease.
Women's rights, human rights, the impact of conflict, which we have dealt with briefly, and the response from DFID, which I look forward to hearing, will be discussed later. The first step towards changing the
184WH
situation, in which we can assist today, is understanding. In future, history books will be written about this plague, just as they have been about the black death. It is too easy to say that the problem is too big for us and that we cannot do anything. Africa's schools have been emptied of teachers, its hospitals emptied of doctors, millions of children are without parents and societies are in a state of collapse. AIDS is the new black death stalking Africa and the human race. I hope that today's debate will push the issue up the public agenda.
11.18 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I warmly welcome both this debate which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the report by the Select Committee on International Development, which gave a balanced and thoughtful overview of the situation. The speech that we have just heard reflected the contents of that report. HIV is not just a medical problem; it reverses development gains in southern Africa, among other places. The spread of HIV in Asia and eastern Europe raises the prospect of development also being reversed in those regions. Without international action, the effects of the reverses will increase. I should like to focus my remarks on that issue.
I welcome the attention that the Department for International Development is giving to the issue and its promise of an HIV-AIDS strategy, which I look forward to seeing soon. However, there will be opportunities over the next few months for progress to be made and initiatives to be taken. There will be a special session of the United Nations General Assembly, in June, and a G8 summit, one month later, both of which will provide opportunities for the international community to start seriously to face up to the scale of the problem and to start to commit the necessary resources. An agreement in principle to set up an international fund was reached at the recent International Monetary Fund meeting. Whether that international fund will be of the required scale is debateable, but at least there are signs of progress.
I am concerned by how that fund might work and about whether there will be an appropriate international response to it. The hon. Member for Blaby referred to the court case in South Africa involving pharmaceutical companies. Concerns have been expressed in southern Africa about the approach taken by countries such as the UK and the US to that court case. Perhaps we were not seen clearly to support the South African Government's position.
In last week's International Development questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said she thought that the court case was ill advised. However, not much was said about the issue while the court case was in progress. Although the European Parliament passed a strongly worded resolution calling on the pharmaceutical companies to withdraw from the action, that position was not reflected in events in individual countries. Some activists in South Africa were disturbed by the impression—true or not—that the Government, and perhaps some other western Governments, were in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies.
I agree with the hon. Member for Blaby that we must learn the lessons about the type of response that is necessary. Our response should not only be medical,

185WH
because poverty reduction and education are other integral aspects of addressing the issue. In that context, I should like briefly to mention the consultation paper that the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit produced, on 30 March, and which discusses in detail how such an international fund might be used.
The paper lists the following package of measures: a new global fund for health, including funds to purchase commodities and commitments to buy effective new products as they become available; tax credits to strengthen incentives for drugs donation and research; protection of intellectual property rights and support for tiered pricing; better co-ordinated publicly-funded research and development, including clinical trials support; streamlining drug approval and regulation; and action to strengthen and expand coverage of health care delivery systems. Looking at that list of six items, it strikes me that five of them concern drugs, medicines and medication, and that only one of them concerns the expansion of health care delivery systems. I am concerned that people in developing countries may think that the package contains a distorted set of priorities that focuses on the needs of the pharmaceutical companies and drugs provision, rather than on the wider response that we need and which the hon. Member for Blaby described.
I see little mention in the document of matters such as the supply of condoms, education, and the necessary social and cultural changes. In some countries, the empowerment of women is key to making a difference and dealing with the stigma attached to HIV. The hon. Member for Blaby mentioned the need to change the sexual culture, but, as he said, we cannot impose such changes on other countries. However, the example of Uganda shows that such measures, combined with political leadership, can work. Our response should involve using all the funds that are established not just to provide medicine and drugs, but to encourage other necessary developments. Of course we want medical solutions when they are available, and we should continue to invest in research to develop vaccines and microbiocides that might prove cheaper and more effective, but in doing so, we should remain focused on the other forms of response that are necessary.
We should set up global funds and use them to encourage social, cultural and educational changes. We must consider how to deal with poverty and embed the HIV issue in the development agenda. There must be a balanced response. There should be medical intervention when possible, and better and more effective research into drugs, but we must not put all our eggs in that basket. We must consider the entire range of responses. The Select Committee report clearly highlighted the responses that are necessary and which have made a difference. We should encourage those responses.
Finally, even if he cannot give the exact figures this morning, I ask the Minister to provide a clearer explanation of Department spending on HIV and AIDS. When responding to questions in the House last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development mentioned a figure of £100 million for last year. However, in June 2000, an HIV-specific spend of£17 million was mentioned. In
186WH
July, spending for 1998–99 was said to be £43 million, but was later said to be£53 million. I must say that I am a little suspicious of what those figures actually represent. How much is spent directly on HIV, and how much spending on other reproductive health programmes is being included in that figure? We need greater clarity on what is really being spent and where.
During International Development questions last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it very clear that, in her and the Government's view, a wide range of responses was necessary to tackle those issues. She has also spoken frequently about the need to deal with poverty as an integral part of that programme—a point that has been made clearly this morning. I am pleased that we have had this debate, and I believe that the Select Committee has done an excellent job in producing its report. In the next year or two, I hope that we can move beyond this debate and use the report's recommendations to influence the United Nations and event internationally, and to ensure effective use of the money that would be generated by the international fund that the G8 is considering establishing.
11.29 am
Sir Norman Fowler: You caught me rather by surprise, Mr. Amess. I was going to intervene later.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate. He spelled out the seriousness of the international crisis extremely well. In the past couple of months there have been two debates on the subject in Westminster Hall, in which a few of us have taken part, but although millions of people have been infected with HIV-AIDS and are dying of it, we have not yet had a serious debate on the Floor of the House. That is a pity, and I can think of no other crisis on such a scale that has not found its way on to the Floor of the House. I say that with no disrespect to Westminster Hall —thank God there is somewhere to raise the matter—but it is astonishing that we cannot find time to have a serious debate on the issue on the Floor of the House.
Much of the writing, debate and discussion in the past few months has concentrated on drugs and the case involving drug companies in South Africa. It should be emphasised that that issue is not remotely a panacea. The delivery systems of drugs are lamentably inadequate in many of the countries where the problem is most serious. It needs to be repeated that we still have no vaccine for HIV -AIDS and there is no cure for it. Drugs can extend life, but they will not cure the disease. We are a long way from acquiring a vaccine.
We should turn our minds towards the prevention of HIV-AIDS, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. We should be concentrating on public health education. We had our own public education campaign in this country back in the 1980s. We used television advertising, sent letters to every household, put up posters, and so on. It is absurd to believe that such a public education campaign could be replicated in Africa or India, but some elements of it could be. My hon. Friend was correct to say that when Governments start taking the issue seriously, there can be some improvement in the figures. That was

187WH
established in this country and it is precisely what has happened in Uganda. The Ugandan Government have broadcast their concerns to the public, resulting in successful public education.
Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the paradoxical consequences of our highly successful public education campaign is that the new generation have almost forgotten the risks? There is clear evidence that the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in this country is rising sharply, and that will inevitably bring with it an increase in HIV-AIDS. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to take seriously the risk of HIV-AIDS in this country?
Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me to my next point. There is an example in this country, which is relevant to international discussion. We took the risk very seriously at the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s. I do not feel that we are taking it so seriously today. The Minister is not from the Department of Health, but he obviously keeps in close contact with it, and that Department promised a strategy paper on HIV, not of one or two years ago, but four years ago. My point is not really party political. Everyone on both sides has been disappointed by the Department's slowness in producing that paper—we are still waiting for it.
I cannot believe that we would have waited four years for a consultation paper to deliver a strategy on a different kind of issue. Will the Minister give us some guidance on when the strategy will be published, given that we are probably in the last days of this Parliament? We have all been long-suffering and good humoured about the matter until now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): I can put the right hon. Gentleman out of his misery and tell him that the HIV-AIDS strategy will be published next week.
Sir Norman fowler: That is very good news and I am extremely glad to hear it, but I take back not one word of what I said about the delay. Four years has been too long. I take it as a solemn promise from the Minister that the paper will be published next week, and I and the chairman of the all-party group on AIDS, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), will be very pleased.
Mr. Gerrard: I will be happy to see the strategy published. Is what is being published next week the DFID strategy or the Department of Health strategy? I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister was referring to the DFID strategy.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I meant the DFID strategy, for which I am responsible.
Sir Norman Fowler: I realise that I should not have believed that the Government would suddenly emerge from their slowness on the matter. They are not publishing the Department of Health strategy, which is, of course, what I was referring to. I said that several times and I underline it again. The Department of
188WH
Health said four years ago that it would produce a strategy for HIV and AIDS. There is no debate on either side about that. The Department has been saying for a very long time that the strategy will be published shortly, and perhaps it will be. From what the Minister has said, however, there is no sign that it will be published next week. The international strategy might be, but the domestic HIV strategy paper is not due for publication, as far as the Minister knows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby is entirely right: unquestionably, what is happening in Africa and Asia is more serious than the situation in the United Kingdom and in Europe. However, that is not a case for ignoring the state of affairs here and in Europe.
Although our figures are better than those of many other countries, including many of our European neighbours—thank God for that—we should take only limited comfort. The Public Health Laboratory Service estimates that today some 30,000 people are living with HIV in the United Kingdom. That equates to a prevalence among those aged 15 to 49 of about one in 1,000. It also estimates that the number of people living with diagnosed HIV is increasing by at least 10 per cent. a year. That is one reason why the disease was given the highest priority in the recent overview of communicable disease undertaken by the PHLS. Although HIV is an
entirely preventable infection—that needs to be repeated constantly—the past two years have seen real cause for concern in this country. In January this year the PHLS reported almost 3,000 new HIV diagnoses for the year 2000, a number that is set to rise as more reports come in. It is expected that the number of new HIV diagnoses recorded for 2000 in the UK will be the highest ever, once all the reports have been collected.
That is the problem that the Government should be tackling. It is not remotely a party political issue, but it is one that many of us feel strongly about. We should hate it if the progress that has been made was not followed up.
There is no cause for complacency anywhere. Self-evidently, there is no cause for complacency in Africa or in many countries in Asia. The international situation is the most serious. However, I hope that we shall not ignore the fact that AIDS is an international problem and that it affects this country and others in Europe. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has said; numerically, the major problem is in other countries. I also agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that there is a need for an international fund. However, I return to the point that we should not concentrate exclusively on drugs and treatment. We also need to try to prevent people from getting HIV in the first place. That must make sense. We need to make that an aim of our policy, and consider how we can most effectively put over the public health education message in other countries, not just in Europe.
11.43 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: In this age of e-mails, I understand that the Post Office service is now known as snail mail. With a small adjustment to the spelling, we might transfer the epithet to the Secretary of State for Health on the question of the AIDS strategy paper, which has not yet come out. The Select Committee report is full of suggestions about

189WH
how the Department for International Development might assist the international community to take practical steps to alleviate this dreadful scourge.
Although I shall not spend long on the issue, I want to stress the fact that our big companies and banks could play a leading role in bringing together companies in sub-Saharan Africa to talk about how they can help to prevent the spread of the infection among their employees. They are not investing enough time, energy or money in that proposition.
We should all be challenged morally by the issue. It is easy to take what I would describe as the popular press view—if no British person is involved in a bus crash in Spain, it is not worth reporting—of the problem. If people in sub-Saharan Africa are the only ones who will die, does it really matter that much? However, we must remember that all people are equal in the sight of God and that we have a moral obligation to assist all our fellow citizens.
None of us on the Select Committee could remain unmoved when it was reported by the group that visited Cambodia, of which I was not a part, that in a conversation with a woman in a slum there, it became clear that, if she needed an operation to sort out her health, and she had other children to care for, the only way that she could pay for that operation would be to sell one of her children. None of us was unmoved. When, in this comfortable country of ours, we pontificate about moral attitudes and issues, we do so from a viewpoint that is often very far from the reality that gives rise to those attitudes. How does one argue with a woman who has other small children to care for, and who may die without the medical care that she needs, that she should not sell the only asset that she has—one of her other children? I would not wish to face such a dilemma in my household, and I do not think that anyone else would, either.
The problems will become increasingly acute as the epidemic sweeps across not only sub-Saharan Africa, but other parts of the world. We should always remember that Thabo Mbeki, whose reported views on the origin of HIV-AIDS are entirely wrong, is quite right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said, that it is inextricably linked with poverty.
The alleviation of the scourge is manifestly a matter of political leadership. The Select Committee's report described how, when a Minister of a Government fell ill with HIV-AIDS, he did not want any of his colleagues to come and visit him, because he could not stand the stigma that would be attached to his condition. I would have thought that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union could both play a part in showing our parliamentary colleagues worldwide how important it is that they take the lead in removing the stigma from this dreadful condition.
I had a meeting in my constituency on Friday to discuss the question of drugs in one of the towns in my constituency —Faversham. The meeting was very interesting, not least because we had with us a number of families with members who were drug addicts and who had committed suicide or were in prison. Those
190WH
families all told the same story. The children get bullied because their brother is a drug addict. The parents are shunned in the shops because one of their children is a drug addict, regardless of the fact that the others are not. If we, in this so-called civilised society, ostracise people for a misfortune that could happen to any of us, how much worse is it that whole societies overseas are ostracising people with a disease—even though perhaps as many as 30 per cent. of a given age group are falling victim to it?
Social attitudes to people with the disease are partly determined by the fact that it is the incidental infections, not the disease, that kill the victims. People can use that as a mask and pretend that TB or some other illness carried the victim off. If we cannot change those attitudes, we will not make the progress that we need. We as parliamentarians—perhaps I should say my successors as parliamentarians, because I am retiring—should take on board the thought that we can use the CPA and the IPU to increase awareness.
I am concerned about HIV in India. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that health service provision there will be robust enough to cope when the epidemic really takes hold. The health service in some states in India may well be able to cope, and I met a Minister in the national Government—he may have moved on by now—who had an intelligent strategy for dealing with HIV-AIDS. However, I believe that the disease will spread like wildfire in India, and the idea that there is a cultural barrier to promiscuity is a myth. It is interesting how all the nasties come from abroad—it's the foreigners wot brings them in. It does not matter which country one is in—it is never the native people, but always the foreigner who is responsible for importing the nasties.
Some of my colleagues went with me to what looked like a small housing estate on the outskirts of a town called Bogra in Bangladesh. That is a Muslim country where, as we all know, promiscuity is banned by the Prophet and, therefore, does not exist. It struck me as marginally improbable that that small housing estate, which was actually a brothel of about 800 prostitutes, could have been established solely to service the relatively small number of foreigners who happened to pass by. Until countries accept the fact that the behaviour in sexual matters of some of the population is perhaps not as anchorite as they pretend, we shall make little progress. If the population is more than a billion, the incidence of HIV-AIDS does not have to be high for a large number of people to be infected. If that happens, the disease is bound to get dangerously out of control. To return to the issue of our own self-interest, the links between this country and India are very good, and the interchange of personnel between us is legion. If the disease gets out of control in India, we shall be at much greater risk than we are even now.
Mr. Robathan: That relates closely to a recent outbreak of TB in Leicester, which is just next to my constituency. The TB came largely from people who had been visiting India or the sub-continent, at least. TB and AIDS are linked, although I am not suggesting that any of the current TB cases have anything to do with AIDS. However, HIV infection can easily be brought to this

191WH
country in the same way as TB. From time to time, we should stress the need for self-interest more because altruism is not as prevalent as it might be.
Mr. Rowe: Indeed.
Finally, I stress an observation that the Select Committee made in its report. The international community set the international development targets before the extent of HIV-AIDS was understood. As the report says, it is terribly important to understand that it is no good simply revising a target every time one finds it difficult to reach. However, when the basis of international development targets has been knocked to pieces by a scourge on such a scale, it is unrealistic for us to continue with a rod for our own back. We cannot conceivably reach the targets that were set before the scourge was understood. We need an international agreement about working together.
I shall make one more quick point. For goodness' sake, let us pour some resources into south-to-south education. A wonderful non-governmental organisation in Uganda keeps together a group of young people who have agreed to be tested for HIV-AIDS. Whether they are diagnosed as positive or negative, they support one another, work together and get involved in public education to help change the nature of the debate there. We should make sure that they have the resources to spread their expertise to neighbouring countries, because many of those countries are quite rightly becoming weary of being told what to do by white people from a long way away.
11.55 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this debate. My only regret is that it is not longer, because I could easily speak for an hour on the subject; it was one of my specialties before I entered Parliament. I regret that I was not a member of the Select Committee when the report was being prepared, as I would have found it interesting.
We have heard many statistics about AIDS. My introduction to AIDS in the third world was, as hon. Members may remember, driving from Kampala airport into the capital of Uganda. I was mystified to see piles of rectangular boxes outside little shops in every village that we passed through. Some were tiny, some were big. I did not realise their purpose until I asked one of our Ugandan escorts, who told me that the best business in every village in Uganda was making coffins for AIDS victims.
One can see AIDS walking the streets not only in Uganda, but all over Africa. If one is a medic, one knows, because the victims are extremely ill, have sunken faces, and are thin, listless and weak. Many have open or closed TB. It is patently obvious that that continent is suffering terribly from the disease. I would not say that it was as obvious in Asia—not yet—but it is certainly obvious in Africa, where 34 million people have AIDS. There are families of orphans. One in five South Africans will die before the age of 15. That is the equivalent of one child in every family.
Before AIDS hit the world, the diseases that most affected developing countries, such as gastroenteritis and malaria, always killed the very young, the very old
192WH
and the sick. The trouble with AIDS is that it hits the young, fit, economically active members of the community. That is what makes it so destructive, and so different from previous pandemics. Kofi Annan described it as a global security threat, for all the reasons that we have heard, which is why I was surprised that it was not mentioned as a cause of conflict.
What can we do? I want to concentrate on three aspects. First, I shall deal with the so-called triumph of the South African Government over the drug companies. I emphasise that it is a triumph, because cheaper drugs are needed in all developing countries. The agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights must be renegotiated—or at least, some detailed work needs to be done on it. Drugs are needed for TB, malaria and gastroenteritis. They are needed also to prevent the vertical transmission of AIDS from mothers to babies. That simple treatment can be given to pregnant women to stop their babies being born with AIDS. It is needed, and it is affordable.
The idea that developing countries can use the sort of retroviral regime that we use in this country—it involves a complicated cocktail of many drugs and is often combined with special dietary requirements and special medical checks—is utter nonsense. If people in those countries hear that there is a drug to cure AIDS, we are done for. All the messages about prevention will go out of the window, and everyone will let rip.
One has only to look at the history of antibiotics in our country to see how true that is. If an antibiotic is useful on specific bacteria that cause a specific disease, the pharmacological companies will promote it and people will all want it from their doctors. A good and useful antibiotic, septrin, one of the ingredients of which is trimethoprim, was overused and badly used some years ago. People do not take correct regimes of drugs, but stop taking them as soon as they feel better, instead of finishing their courses. That leads to resistant bacteria, which is the other danger of thinking that AIDS drugs will be the answer in developing countries. If they are not taken properly, there will be further variations in the virus and further problems in the spread of the epidemic that we will have no way to treat.
I emphasise caution in thinking that drugs will be any use. We should put in a little plug for the pharmaceutical companies, as I want them to develop microbiocides. Those will be an interesting development in the treatment of AIDS. I also want the companies to put money into the development of vaccines. In the long term, a vaccine for AIDS would be tremendous: a greater contribution than the smallpox or TB vaccines. Many vaccine projects are already taking place. The all-party group on AIDS went to Oxford to see the work of Professor MacMichael. In Africa, 10 different trials are going on for different strains of the AIDS virus that affect Africans.
I am told by the international AIDS vaccine initiative, however, that there is a shortage of money. We must tackle that problem, about which little has been said so far. The Department for International Development started two or three years ago by contributing£ 250,000. It has now upped that contribution to£14 million. That is a tremendous advance, and it shows that the Secretary of State for International Development is on-message on the AIDS pandemic. Another development in the spending review, announced by the Secretary of State

193WH
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the measures to encourage pharmaceutical companies to engage in vaccine research. I would like to hear more about that, as little on the matter has been said.
Prevention is the only tool that we can use at present against the disease. The only message that we can safely promote is that education, health education and the use of the poor old condom form practically our only defence against AIDS. I apologise in advance if I offend anyone in the Chamber, but I want to make a plea. The Roman Catholic Church has tremendous influence in the developing world. We all know—we have seen it on trips abroad —that Catholic charity workers all over the developing world promote the use of condoms. However, that is not the same as a clear message from the Vatican to say that condom use is acceptable. Would that not be a pro-life message from the Church, rather than an anti-life message, considering that millions of people die from AIDS because they do not use condoms?
I urge everyone in the Chamber to put pressure on the Catholic communities in their constituencies to try to get that message through. The Tablet, a Catholic magazine, is working hard to promote it. A Vatican announcement in favour of the use of condoms is vital and would have a huge effect on people in the developing world. At present, that is our only defence. We have seen wonderful projects, and hearing the hon. Member for Blaby talk about the play that we saw in the grammar school in Uganda took me back three years. A lot of us said at the time that our schoolchildren should be doing plays like that before the problem overtook us. A wonderful preventive message was going out and being taken on board by the children. We should push that message at every opportunity through health education and ordinary education.
That is why it is so important, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, that we have a strategy for HIV-AIDS. We have waited four years, which is a long time. I do not know why we have had to wait so long. It is vital for the world that we have a strategy for the west, as well as a good strategy for the developing world from the Department for International Development.
Will the Minister tell us why spending on AIDS prevention has gone down in recent years, as noted in the Select Committee report? Last year,£700 million was spent on AIDS projects worldwide. The United Nations estimates that between£5 billion and £7 billion needs to be spent. If so, what initiatives will the Government promote at the UN Special Assembly in June? What will the money be spent on? Will it be for all projects remotely connected with AIDS or only for particular health projects, including vaccine research and drugs? I do not know, and we need more detail. What I do know, however, is that AIDS is one of the greatest catastrophes facing the world. It is a problem not only for the developing world, because what happens there will spread to us as surely as night follows day—and night is what it will be if the AIDS pandemic spreads through western countries as it has done through developing countries.
194WH
I end with a quote from the Select Committee's report, which is excellent, although it does not mention the Catholic Church, as it would have done, had I been present. In its conclusions, the report states that the real crisis of the AIDS pandemic is the
"crisis of poverty. It is the denial of resources, services and rights which has done so much to exacerbate the spread of HIV/AIDS and control of the epidemic will only be secured when such poverty issues are addressed".
How true that is.
12.8 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing a debate on such an important subject. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, it is probably the most important issue facing mankind.
The Select Committee's report was the product of all the time that its members spent on the Committee. In each country that we visited over the four years available to us, HIV-AIDS was a major topic, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby illustrated how important that is. The report notes that there are 13 African countries with adult prevalence of 10 per cent. and that potential gains in life expectancy will regress 17 years. That means that instead of reaching 64 years by 2010 to 2015 as previously expected, life expectancy will regress to an average of just 47 years. That represents a reversal of most of the development gains of the past 30 years.
What do those figures mean in a country such as Malawi? They mean that more teachers are dying of AIDS-related diseases than can possibly be trained to replace them. The impact on Malawi's capacity to educate its people is huge.
The conclusions of our inquiry make grim reading. As my hon. Friend said, in 1999, 2.7 million people worldwide died suffering from AIDS, which is more than three times the combined deaths from war, murder and violence. HIV-AIDS is also having a disproportionate effect on the poor, as many hon. Members have said in powerful speeches. The facts are starkly shown in the statistics. Of the estimated global total of 34.3 million people who at the end of 1999 were living with HIV-AIDS, 24.5 million were in sub-Saharan Africa and 5.6 million were in south and south-east Asia. HIV-AIDS prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa was 8.5 per cent. in 1999, compared with less than a quarter of 1 per cent. in western Europe. Some parts of Africa, including South Africa, have a rate of infection as high as 40 per cent. It is hard to imagine what that means for the complete undermining of the social community and of society. It will certainly lead to serious conflict and violence.
The report argues that poverty and HIV-AIDS are inextricably linked. First, there is the crisis of the global HIV-AIDS epidemic and the tragedy that it brings in its train. Secondly, sub-Saharan Africa has appalling levels of prevalence; levels of infection are so high that in many countries the collapse of the entire system is a real danger.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the only medical intervention, or semi-medical intervention, that will prevent HIV-AIDS from spreading is the

195WH
condom. What else can be done? The most effective action to reduce the effects of HIV-AIDS on a country is to reduce the number of transmissions by promoting effective prevention. The means of preventing or reducing transmissions of the virus are already known, but we lack the will to make them work on the necessary scale. Uganda was given as an example of a country where, from the President downwards, interventions have been made and have had the effect that the hon. Lady illustrated.
Another example is Thailand, where the army's general field marshal recognised that unless the AIDS problem, which had been rampant, was dealt with, he would not have an effective army to fight in a potential war and defend the country. With the total support of the Government of Thailand, he went to every brothel and place where HIV was likely to be transmitted and, gave direct orders to every male in his army to use condoms. The result was a dramatic fall in the incidence of HIV-AIDS in Thailand. It is therefore possible to produce the result that we are looking for by human, if not medical, intervention.
The report also addresses the question of care. We noted that all too often the debate about access to treatment for HIV-AIDS is reduced to one about anti-retroviral drugs—an issue to which the hon. Lady also referred. No evidence to the inquiry called for the purchase and donation of anti-retroviral drugs to be a priority for donor funds. The Secretary of State told the Committee that even at cost price, such drugs cost in the region of $3 a day per person and, as the hon. Lady said, the care for those undergoing retroviral treatment is very complicated and unlikely to take place in remote villages and towns in South Africa or elsewhere in the developing world.
In many developing countries, annual health budgets amount to little more than $10 per person per annum. The use of anti-retrovirals in tackling the disease is completely irrelevant to the main causes that we are talking about, and we should remember that—although greater access is needed to cheaper drugs for opportunistic diseases such as TB, malaria and gastroenteritis, which are the biggest killers in southern Africa. The provision of anti-retrovira1 treatments to people with HIV in the poorest areas of the developing world is clearly not a practical or sustainable development intervention. Donor funds and activities should concentrate on the prevention of further infections, the development of basic health care systems, the provision of palliative drugs and basic treatments of opportunistic infections. However, the report does conclude that there is room for price reduction for drugs to treat opportunistic infections, and we welcome efforts to secure access to cheaper drugs.
An analysis of the expenditure by 10 major donors on HIV-AIDS showed an increase from $59 million in 1987 to $293 million in 1998. As spectacular as that fivefold increase appears, during the same period the number of infections rose from 4 million to 34 million—an eightfold increase. In per capita terms, expenditure on HIV-AIDS has fallen from $22 per person living with HIV-AIDS in 1988 to less than $9 in 1997. That is a massive fall. Expenditure on HIV-AIDS remains at less than 1 per cent. of donor countries' total annual overseas development aid budgets.
196WH
In the report, we examined DFID's expenditure on HIV-AIDS. Here I must make a confession. I got my noughts in the wrong place when I asked a question at last week's International Development questions. We think that the figure is£100 million or thereabouts—although, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, DFID gave us several different figures in the course of the inquiry. It is interesting to note that since the end of the financial year 1999–2000, DFID has made several attempts to assess its expenditure on HIV-AIDS, on each occasion increasing its estimate of the amount spent. In our first oral evidence session with DFID officials, we were told that expenditure was running at between £20 million and£30 million per year and that it was anticipated to rise to £40 million in 1999–2000. By the end of the inquiry, we were told that the figure for 1999–2000 had increased to £54.8 million—not yet £100 million—and in an answer to a parliamentary question in January this year, DFID claimed to have spent more than £84 million on bilateral HIV-AIDS related work in 1999–2000.
What is the Department including in those figures? How has it made them advance so much in such a short time? Last week, at International Development questions, the Secretary of State put the figure for the same financial year at£100 million. How do we get there? I was glad to hear from the Minister that the HIV-AIDS policy is to be published next week. The report called for its publication, and we believe that it is essential. One of the effects of the report has been to make DFID look carefully at the whole matter, which had been spread around a range of subject areas.
Although we naturally welcome the increased funding, there is clearly some confusion as to what constitutes HIV-AIDS spending. In an effort to examine DFID expenditure in this area, we examined a list of DFID-funded HIV-AIDS and sexual health initiatives from 1992 onwards. We examined bilateral expenditure between 1992 and 2003. Because most projects lasted for a number of years, for example we averaged such expenditure out—for example, we valued a three-year project costing £3 million at a cost of £1 million a year.
I refer hon. Members to the results of our findings, which are reproduced in a graph in paragraph 256 of our report. Although the graph is not an accurate representation of year-on-year expenditure, it provides us with a crude sense of the regional spread of DFID's HIV-AIDS work. The graph makes striking viewing, showing that bilateral HIV-AIDS expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa rose rapidly in the early 1990s to a peak in 1997, but that has been followed by a considerable decline in that region. Over the same period, DFID's expenditure in Asia has risen more gradually, but has now levelled off at fairly high amounts.
Obviously, the graph does not take account of any new spending commitments announced since the start of our inquiry and, if any such commitments have been made since that time, we would welcome them, but the basic point remains: bilateral expenditure should be increasing. Although we welcome DFID's prevention work in Asia, any decline on bilateral expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa is unacceptable.
DFID has considerable leverage in many of the countries worst affected by HIV-AIDS. In 1999, DFID was one of the top three donors in eight of the 10 countries with the worst HIV-AIDS prevalence in the

197WH
world. Furthermore, there has recently been a change in the political climate in Africa, with countries such as Uganda, Senegal and Zambia making serious inroads into tackling the disease. The report also calls for DFID to develop an explicit HIV-AIDS strategy, which we look forward to reading about next week.
HIV-AIDS is not only a result of poverty; it also entrenches poverty still further. The Committee has, as a result of its inquiry, concluded that donors, including DFID, have much work to do in assessing the impact of HIV-AIDS on the spectrum of their development activity. There is an urgent need to redesign development programmes, policies and approaches, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, to take account of the new realities caused by HIV-AIDS.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has raised an important issue and I thank him for triggering a good debate. The HIV-AIDS epidemic is perhaps the most important challenge facing the world in the foreseeable future. He and others have graphically set out the scale of the problem and I propose to concentrate on what my Department is doing about it.
I shall start by knocking on the head any suggestion that DFID is complacent about the issues. Contrary to what is sometimes suggested, there has been no decline in DFID spending on HIV-AIDS. On the contrary, spending on HIV-AIDS related work, which includes sub-Saharan Africa, continues on an upward trend from around £62 million in 1998–99 to more than£100 million currently. Furthermore, we expect that upward trend to continue.
Rather than getting in a tangle with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) over figures in the limited time remaining, I shall write to him and attempt to clarify the funding issues, which are complicated for reasons that I shall touch on briefly. DFID is increasingly helping to tackle HIV-AIDS in the context of large sexual and reproductive health programmes and sustainable health systems. In those circumstances, it is often difficult to attribute spending to particular aspects of sexual and reproductive health. For example, the provision of condoms serves the dual purpose of HIV-AIDS prevention as well as family planning and protection against sexually transmitted infections. We strongly believe that a cross-sectoral approach to tackling HIV-AIDS is essential if we are to be successful, and I know that the Select Committee shares that view. The hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulties in attributing particular amounts of spending to particular problems.
DFID currently supports HIV-AIDS related activities in 39 countries throughout the developing world, including Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, China, Cambodia, India and Russia. Sub-Saharan Africa will nevertheless continue to be a priority region. Areas of growing concern include Burma, Vietnam and neglected vulnerable populations in central and south America and the Caribbean, where the epidemic is growing faster than anywhere else in the world.
198WH
As national strategic plans to tackle the epidemic improve, we have begun to place our support within the framework of those plans. Our HIV-AIDS strategy, which will be published next week, aims to balance immediate local prevention and mitigation measures with support for long-term initiatives. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the Department of Health's strategy, but I cannot help him today in that regard. However, I shall make inquiries and write to him.
In global terms, DFID's strategy aims to build political leadership and national capacity, to tackle underlying causes, to maximise the contribution of all sectors, to encourage a comprehensive approach that addresses both prevention and care, and to support research and development. DFID is a significant contributor to the global fight against HIV-AIDS, but it is clear that we cannot succeed alone. If we are to tackle the epidemic successfully, there must be a comprehensive response from donors, Governments, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, faiths and communities. I wholly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—who has had to leave early—about the need for a strong lead from the Catholic Church. In terms of HIV-AIDS, we are a major contributor to the efforts of the UN AIDS programme, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and the UN population fund.
At this point I should say something about the recent court case involving the pharmaceutical companies and the Government of South Africa. The case was regrettable and it is sad that the dispute came to court at all, but we welcome the settlement that has been reached. One hopes that we have all learnt from the experience. In our view, the way to increase investment in, and access to, new and existing medicines to tackle the diseases associated with poverty lies in co-operation between the pharmaceutical companies, developing countries and the international community. We will continue to do all that we can to facilitate that cooperation.
In the past year, we have seen welcome reductions in the cost of anti-retroviral drugs for developing countries. However, as hon. Members have said, even at reduced prices those drugs remain unaffordable for the poorest countries. In addition, they are very toxic and complex to administer, and constant monitoring of the treatment regime is required. Tragically, health services in many poor countries do not have the capacity to deliver those drugs and other treatments safely and effectively. It is therefore vital that basic health systems are put in place to ensure that the poor can benefit from the availability of TB and malaria care, reproductive health care and HIV-AIDS care and treatment.
The Government are considering a range of policy options for improving the affordability of essential drugs in poor countries. As part of the global child poverty initiative, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development announced several tax measures and purchase fund options to increase access to medicines in developing countries. The UK is working with other donors to mobilise additional resources. This morning, my right hon. Friends are chairing a breakfast meeting in New York with Kofi Annan and representatives of developing and developed countries to build support for

199WH
the establishment of a global health and HIV-AIDS fund to help developing countries tackle the diseases associated with poverty.
We are also encouraging developing countries to do more to facilitate lowering the price of drugs. Import duties, trade barriers, customs restrictions and delays all contribute to increased prices. It is crucial that we do not let dramatic headlines distract us from doing the things that work well, and that have already saved countless lives. I have no time to discuss the details, but our policy consists of four broad themes: raising the profile of the epidemic; prevention in, and beyond, the health sector; care for people infected with, and affected by, HIV-AIDS; and improving knowledge and technology.
In conclusion, I should point out that the situation is not hopeless. As hon. Members have said, Governments such as those of Uganda, Thailand and Senegal have already demonstrated that the tide can be turned. Progress has also been made in countries such as Zambia and the Dominican Republic. Above all, what is required is strong political leadership from Governments who are committed to the welfare of their people. For our part, the UK stands ready to increase its support for Governments and institutions that are seriously committed to tackling this dreadful disease.

GM Crop Trial (Low Burnham)
12.30 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the genetically modified crop trial in Low Burnham, in my constituency. I want to address two aspects: first, the specific problems at Low Burnham and secondly, the general handling of GM crop trials in future.
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is here to listen to the debate and to answer for the Government. I am grateful for the welcome help that his private office gave me when I needed to raise residents' concerns about the matter with his Department.
So far as approvals are concerned, the matter relates back to directives that were agreed in 1990 and came into effect in 1993. Ministers can be held to account for many things, but not for what happened before they were in power. Nevertheless, government involves dealing with the here and now, and the Minister needs to address the real issues affecting Low Burnham.
Low Burnham is situated in an area of north Lincolnshire called the Isle of Axholme, which is reclaimed land—now some of the country's best agricultural land. It lies in the parish of Haxey, between Haxey and Epworth, and is a very small village with an agricultural tradition. The trial came to my attention when I received correspondence from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from Aventis. I quickly sent that out to the local parish councils and to the local National Farmers Union to make them aware of the situation and to ask for their comments.
An interesting feature of this part of the Isle of Axholme is that it is an area of strip farming, which is no longer widely practised in the UK, and is often described as a mediaeval method of farming. The fields in Low Burnham and nearby areas are open, and many people own small strips that border on to each other. There are, therefore, concerns that the field location chosen is an inappropriate place for a GM crop trial.
In addition, the field where the trial will be is adjacent to the village and next to the greenway, a disused railway line that is now a popular rural walk with much blossom and wildlife. People are obviously concerned about that. An organic farm is in close proximity and there is bee-keeping in the area. The location hits all the buttons of intense concern that have been pressed by GM crop trials in the past few years.
It is to the Government's credit that, some time ago, they tried to introduce a voluntary code of practice for the companies concerned to ensure that trials were more open and that people had greater access to information about them. However, that has not been the case in respect of Low Burnham. First, information was not sent out to the relevant parish council. I understand from the comments made by representatives of the DETR who came to a recent open meeting that information was sent out, but to the wrong place. That part of the code of practice failed to work.
Secondly, the published grid reference was wrong. Although it was in the locality, it was the wrong field. That led to some concern, not least for the farmer who owns the field at the published grid reference.

201WH
Thirdly, the farmer did not consult local landowners. That led to frustration and annoyance among villagers and landowners. So the three safeguards that the Government had built in to help such situations all failed in respect of that trial.
There is little information or awareness of what happened at the start of the trial, and that has led to great suspicion. People take the view that they cannot have confidence in the regime and protocol of the trial if basic safeguards fail at the outset.
I have been asking questions of the DETR and Aventis on the issues that local residents have raised with me. I have sent the answers out to villagers, parish councillors and anybody else who asked for information. It has been a useful exercise that has given people a great deal of information, but I am concerned that it was down to myself and my constituency staff to send out information that should have been offered more willingly by those involved in the trial.
Local residents have formed a group to campaign on the issue and they have been diligent in that respect. It would be wrong to try to name everyone involved, but it would be equally wrong not to mention people such as Dr. Goodwin, who lives in the village and has done a great deal of work, Jilly Moore, Linda Patel and Councillor Jean Turner from Epworth town council. They have worked tirelessly in trying to access information about the trial and in talking to other groups across the country that have similar concerns.
Their actions resulted in a public meeting on 23 April, when Graham Davis from the DETR addressed residents and we went through the issues. Although little could be said about what went wrong, there was nevertheless a great feeling of dissatisfaction by the end of the meeting. For instance, the fact that information was sent out to the wrong parish council was acknowledged as a mistake that could not be put right. Similarly, the grid reference will be corrected, but apart from that, nothing will be done.
The Department thought that there had been consultation, which did not surprise me because both the DETR and Aventis had previously given me the same information. I spoke to the farmer on two separate occasions, and he told me up front that he had not managed to speak to the landowners concerned. That is not surprising in light of my earlier point about it being an area of strip farming. There are 10, 11 or maybe more landowners adjoining the field because of the method of farming used in this part of the world. The farmer involved in the trial told me that he was unable to contact the landowners because he did not know who they were. In short, the consultation failed completely.
There was great concern among the villagers present at last week's meeting that the voluntary code of practice, which failed in Low Burnham, did not matter because the trial went ahead regardless of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I tell my hon. Friend that there was no consultation in respect of a similar trial in my constituency? The first that anybody knew of it was the posting of the sites on the DETR website. Does he agree that it is necessary to
202WH
press the Minister to replace the failed voluntary consultation process with a statutory form of consultation?
Mr. Cawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. It is regrettable that these matters came to light only when grid references were published. I hope that the grid references were correct in her case, which would put it one step ahead of the trial in my constituency. However, she is right about the need for a statutory approach.
Other issues, which were not addressed, came up during the public meeting. One was contamination. The Government and Aventis said that there would be no more than 1 per cent. contamination, but people were still concerned by what they meant. In particular, a villager from Low Burnham said that he suffered from bad allergic reactions. How do we know that 1 per cent. contamination would not lead to allergy sufferers having problems? There was no answer to that point and, without wanting to be critical, it is a question that needs to be answered. The person available at the meeting could not answer it, so perhaps the Minister will ensure that we get an answer.
On liability, there are real concerns that the only means of redress is through the civil court, which, in theory, is open to anybody—providing that they can afford it. As we all know, the civil court is therefore open to few people. There ought to be some sort of statutory liability order on such matters. I know that the Minister answered a parliamentary question on that point earlier in the year, when he said that he wanted to consider the issue. Hopefully he will be able to say more today.
A further concern is the scientific validity of the trial because no baseline data was collected. The trial was designed to examine the effect on wildlife when a herbicide interacts with a GM crop. Local people are concerned that if one does not examine the wildlife before the trial, it will be difficult to identify any difference. One answer that has been given is that the trial will be in two halves of the same field: a genetically modified crop will be grown in one half and a standard crop in the other, and the two halves will then be compared. In an area such as the Isle of Axholme, that creates a problem in relation to good old strip farming. There is no guarantee that what are now two halves of the same field will have been farmed in the same way over the years—they may have been farmed in different strips with different crops and pesticide regimes. Even now, before a single genetically modified organism has been put into the soil, it is likely that an analysis of the two halves of the field would produce completely different results. If no baseline data capture is taken at the start of the trial, how on earth can any meaningful result be obtained?
The trial will not seek to consider key species such as earthworms, soil fungi and bacteria, and I have been told that funding to look at the impact of GMOs on bird life in the area has been withdrawn, so that work will not go ahead.
Separation distances are another worry, especially to people who keep bees. The DETR has told me that the separation distance for the trial is 50 m. That may be extremely optimistic from the point of view of ensuring confidence in the trial.

203WH
What can the Minister say or do for us? I could make several suggestions, but I shall try to be brief. First, I should like him to give me a personal assurance that he will investigate the Low Burnham trial and the mistakes that were made, especially in relation to the lack of information that was sent out, the incorrect grid reference and the fact that his Department and Aventis were content to accept that consultation had taken place merely because the farmer had told them so, although in fact that was not the case. My constituents would welcome such an assurance.
Secondly, given the nature of the area and the fact that 10 or 11 landowners farm on the border of the field, cannot the Minister, even at this stage, try to persuade the company that this is a highly inappropriate location for a GM trial and that it should pull the plug on it? I say in all candour to the Minister that if he is unable to do something, the code of practice will effectively be dead in the water. If, after all the concerns that have been raised about issues such as strip farming, the trial goes ahead anyway, how can there be any public confidence in the code of practice in future?
Thirdly, will the Minister tell us more about the statutory compensation scheme, in which I know that he is interested?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) that we need a statutory approval system to give local authorities, parish and town councils, local residents and farmers a legal input into a site application and the right for their views to be taken into consideration. I say that not only because it would be an extension of democracy—something in which I am always interested—but because often local people can provide the best local knowledge about the appropriateness of a site. I do not mean to underplay the ability or role of civil servants in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but I and others from Low Burnham who spoke to some of them received the impression that they did not even understand what strip farming was, or even that it still existed. And why should t hey? After all, they do not work at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We need a system that would involve local people and allow them a say.
I do not blame the Minister for 1990 directives, but I look to him to introduce a more rigorous procedure generally and specifically to investigate the concerns of the village of Low Burnham and, for that matter, the whole of the isle of Axholme. If he can establish proper procedures and put matters on a more statutory footing for the future, he will have done rea1 service not just to my constituents, but to everyone in the United Kingdom.
12.45 pm
The Minister for the Environment(Mr. Michael Meacher): I very much welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). They were made in sober tones, conveyed a forthright message and require a response. There is no question but that mistakes were made at Low Burnham and we need to learn from the experience. He referred to nearby organic farms and bee-keeping, and to the unusual agronomic condition of strip farming—which, as he made clear, was not properly taken into account. Those are all valid points.
204WH
I agree about the importance of informing the public and farmers—especially organic farmers—of the whereabouts of the farm-scale evaluation sites in time to allow genuine discussion and negotiation. I am committed to openness and transparency in that regard and to informing the public fully about the evaluations and what they entail. My hon. Friend has clearly shown that that did not happen in the case about which he is concerned. I apologise on behalf of the Department. It should have happened but did not.
The Government have asked the farming and biotechnology industry group, SCIMAC, to impress on farmers participating in the evaluations that they should inform local organic farmers and neighbours as soon as possible of their intention to grow a genetically modified crop. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said about trials and the failure to apply the principle that I have outlined. I am very concerned about that and should like to consider how we can improve matters.
To assist the process, we have announced that, this year, the locations of evaluation sites should be announced much earlier. I have asked that that be done six weeks before sowing, thereby allowing my Department and others to do more work in informing local people about sites near to them. In this and other cases, officials in my Department have written to provide information to all parish, community, district and county councils in whose area an evaluation is sited. My officials have offered to attend meetings with parish councils to explain the evaluations.
Mrs. Lawrence: My right hon. Friend said that he has asked for local people to be informed six weeks prior to evaluations. However, is there any potential for objections to be made in that time and for people to find ways of preventing the trials?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend puts her finger on a sensitive point. Although the 92/20 directive includes notification and consultation requirements, EU legislation makes no provision for public consent. Information, discussion and consultation are certainly expected and required, but current legislation makes no statutory provision for agreement. I continue to believe that that is a serious problem.
The statutory requirements for notification are that, at least 15 days before planting, the company—in this case, Aventis—is required to inform the Department about its intention to plant a particular crop at a particular site; and that, no more than five days after that, and at least 10 days before planting, it should advertise the fact in the relevant local newspaper so that others in the area will know about it. That is not sufficient time, which is why I want the requirements to be changed.
In the Aventis case, officials wrote on 28 February to parishes and other councils where oilseed rape and beet were to be grown, and on 3 April to those where maize sites were planned. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole has described what happened, and I do not dispute what he said. Indeed, I agree that mistakes were made. It was not a good or representative example of the public being informed about how evaluations were intended to work. Elsewhere, however, the procedure has generally worked as expected.

205WH
On 28 February, following telephone advice from the local authority about the relevant parish, officials wrote to Epworth parish council about the oilseed rape site near Low Burnham. We were later informed that the site, despite being close to Low Burnham, was actually in the nearby parish of Haxey. We therefore wrote to Haxey parish council, with copies of all the information that had been sent to Epworth, and offered the participation of officials in any public meeting that the council might call.
Subsequently, we were informed by SCIMAC that the final figure of the six-figure grid reference that it had supplied for the site was incorrect. I emphasise that it was extremely unfortunate—I could use another word—that the two errors occurred at the same site, and I apologise for the confusion that the matter has caused local residents. However, I am told that local farmers and the public were fully aware of the identity of the farmer who was hosting the evaluation and of its true location.
In this year's spring sowing round, we have detected a similar error in only one of the other 84 sites. We suspect that the grid reference supplied for that site may be incorrect, and we are investigating the information supplied as quickly as we can. My Department told SCIMAC that it must re-advertise the site in the local paper to correct the confusion. I agree that it is after the event, but it is the right thing to do in the circumstances. My Department and English Nature have checked that the risk assessment for the correct field remains valid, and we are satisfied that it is. We have also updated our website to include the correct location details.
In the majority of cases this spring, the arrangements for notifying local people have worked rather better. Although I do not intend to diminish my acceptance that things went badly wrong and the situation was unacceptable, I believe that neighbouring farmers and local parishes have been informed about the evaluations in reasonably good time, and certainly in better time than in previous years. Indeed, I understand from SCIMAC that, some weeks ago—although I know that a different view is being put forward by the other side; one never knows exactly where the truth lies—the farmers hosting the site at Haxey spoke to their neighbours about their intention to grow GM crops and contacted the only organic grower in the area.
I am told that the farmers elected to host a GM oilseed rape crop evaluation because none of their neighbours usually grow that crop, whereas they do grow beet.
Mr. Cawsey: Just to clarify the point on what consultation took place, the farmer—I have spoken to him directly and am fairly confident of this—spoke to some of the landowners, but he did not speak to all of them because he did not know the identity of all of them. He could not contact those whom he did not know. When he did speak to landowners, he did so on a reactive basis, in response to questions about whether he was conducting a GM trial. It was only when people
206WH
started to raise concerns with him that "consultation" took place. It is not in dispute that several landowners were not consulted.
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend gives an account that probably reconciles those two slightly divergent views. I accept that there was some communication, but that it may have been reactive rather then proactive, and probably was not comprehensive.
As part of the public information campaign for the evaluations, my officials, as my hon. Friend said, attended meetings with local farmers and the public in a number of areas. That included a meeting at Haxey, on 23 April, with local farmers and my hon. Friend. I understand the concerns and the irritation expressed at that meeting, and the wish to see information about the evaluations corrected and made available as soon as possible. I am also aware that some adjoining farmers have stated that they were not consulted. My officials are pursuing that point with SCIMAC.
The conclusion is that we have a voluntary system that generally works properly, but has not worked in a significant number of cases. We should certainly consider the request made by both my hon. Friends, that the system should have some statutory back-up. As the Low Burnham site shows, it can sometimes be difficult to ensure that everyone who needs to know about a site is told, and in good time. The voluntary agreement generally works well, but it undoubtedly works less well in some cases.
We need a fresh approach, and I should like to see improved notification and consultation processes for future rounds of the evaluations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, my preference is for a statutory system of notification to ensure that all those who need to know about the sites are informed, including organic growers, bee-keepers and non-GM farmers. I have also insisted that, before the next round of evaluations begins in the autumn, each site should have a specific risk assessment carried out on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole made a number of general points on the trials. He also spoke about the issue of statutory consultation and my point on the need for greater assurance of public consent. We are considering the statutory liability provision. There is also an EU provision on liability across the whole environmental spectrum. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider that provision specifically with respect to GM in this country, and we are doing so.
Like my hon. Friend, I remain concerned about whether people understand what 1 per cent. GM contamination really means. It should be made clear that it means that adjoining crops may be contaminated by GM at a rate of up to 1 per cent. There is also the question of whether there are health impacts for those who have particular allergies. I cannot speak about that, but it is an issue.
The issue of fields split into halves, one of which has been strip farmed, is a significant one, and we probably did not take it sufficiently into account. However, I shall raise with the scientific steering committee the issue of whether it invalidates the results in this case. I may write to my hon. Friend when I have done that.

207WH
The number of fields—although it is 84 or 85 this year—is not sufficient for us to be able to draw statistically valid conclusions about the effect of GM on the number of birds. However, we are considering using bird food as a proxy to try to measure that effect.
The separation distance in this case is 50 m, which is intended to deliver no more than 1 per cent. contamination. However, I am well aware that that is a very contentious issue. It is also important to encourage dialogue between farming groups at national level. My Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have already discussed with industry bodies how we can do more to inform organic farmers and bee-keepers in farm-scale evaluation areas about the location of sites that might affect them. I shall ask my officials to arrange further meetings with the respective industry groups, both SCIMAC and organic and conventional farmers, to establish whether we can do more together in future to ensure that all their members who could be affected are informed of farm-scale evaluations near them in good time, and I repeat, at least six weeks before sowing.

Listed Buildings
1 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a privilege to have the opportunity to raise an important issue in the Chamber. I ask the Minister for the Arts to put away his file on stately homes. I do not want to talk about stately homes or large monuments, but the large number of listed buildings that people live in.
I refer to people's normal residences, which they try to maintain at substantial cost with very little support through existing Government structures. I recognise that the Minister's Department understands some of the issues and values the historic, listed buildings in this country. It commissioned the important report, "Power of Place", which says precisely that. However, I ask him to listen to what I have to say and to make even stronger representations to his colleagues in the Treasury and in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, because it is there that we need to see action to support the fine words that have been said on many occasions.
Part of the idyllic rural scene, almost the epitome of rural England, is the thatched cottage—one in a west country village—with roses around the door. What we must recognise is that the chocolate-box cottage costs a pretty penny to maintain. My interest has been stimulated by the fact that there are a great number of listed and thatched buildings in my constituency. Many of my constituents who live in those buildings have written to me over the years expressing their concern about the difficulty of maintaining their buildings in the way that they would like. I am indebted to Mr. Tregoing, a constituent from Long Sutton, who came to my surgery and clearly set out his concerns. He had had to look again at thatching half of his property and realised how expensive that would be. It has to be done every few years, using top-grade materials—that is required by the authorities—in order to maintain it. He cannot go for a cheap alternative. He cannot even use a cheaper material for thatching. In our area, reed thatching is not acceptable, so he has to use traditional thatch materials and that makes it an expensive job.
What Mr. Tregoing finds extraordinary is that first, he does not have access to any support—there are no local authority or other grants—and secondly, he has to pay what I think is the iniquitous imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT. The majority of people to whom I have spoken who live in that sort of property consider it a great privilege to live in their houses. They love living in historic buildings. They recognise that in many cases not only are those buildings very beautiful in themselves, but they add beauty and value to the village or town in which they are located. The building might not even have been listed when they first lived there, and they find it difficult to understand that the value added tax system penalises them for maintaining it to an acceptable standard for the public good, although they obviously have an interest in doing so.
The Minister will be familiar with the facts, but I will set them out for the record. Since 1973, the standard VAT rate of 17.5 per cent. has applied to repairs and refurbishments of buildings, including listed and historic buildings. The difference is that newly constructed buildings carry a zero rate of VAT. At first

209WH
sight, that seems totally anomalous; it flies in the face of everything that the Government have argued otherwise—and which Liberal Democrats have always argued—as regards sustainability and the proper balance between using existing buildings and allowing new buildings. However, there we are.
The regulations were amended slightly in 1994 to extend the zero rating to approved alteration work on protected buildings. If one applies for listed-building consent for an alteration to a listed building, the zero rate applies. Of course, that makes the situation even more anomalous. The extraordinary thing is that someone who builds an extension or undertakes a major alteration to his thatched cottage is not liable for VAT; however, someone who simply tries to maintain it in the historic form in which it has always existed is. Many people find that difficult to understand.
There has been a long-running campaign on the issue, and different concerns have been expressed. As regards churches, the Government have listened. It was announced in this year's Budget that the Treasury has devised a mechanism whereby listed buildings that are places of worship will benefit from a reduction in VAT. That has not yet been agreed with the European Commission, and discussion is still going on. There will be a general review in 2003, when it is hoped that the matter will be resolved.
The Government cannot hide behind the smokescreen of European rules, which I understand are restrictive in this regard. There is no scope under the current agreement for new—I emphasise new—zero rates of VAT for goods or services unless that is decided by general agreement. However, there is scope for introducing a 5 per cent. rate of VAT. Annexe H of the sixth VAT directive lists the goods and services to which Governments can apply a 5 per cent. rate. Item 9 refers to the
"supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of a social policy."
It is a matter of interpretation as to whether an historic building can be construed as part of a social policy, and I understand that difficulty.
In October 1999, a further qualification extended to member states an option to apply an experimental reduction to a 5 per cent. rate for three years on services including the renovation
"and repairing of private dwellings, excluding materials which form a significant part of the value of the supply."
That seems to many of us to offer the Government a much more realistic opportunity to do something significant. However, there is no indication that they intend to take any action whatever. I am disappointed by that, because the Government are failing to act in a way that would be of enormous benefit to a great many people in this country, as well as to our built heritage, and in a way that would meet the objectives—the core beliefs—of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We will have the wrong end of the stick if we are not prepared to entertain a saner taxation system that encourages what we want, such as conservation and sustainability, but instead have a system that does the reverse—that provides a fiscal stimulus to build new buildings and allows old buildings to fall into disrepair.
210WH
Another aspect of the problem is the absence of grants for maintenance of listed buildings, which compounds the difficulties that individual householders face with respect to VAT costs. Local authority grants for maintenance are now almost non-existent. There was a time when local authorities had a little more spare cash and were relatively generous and when, perhaps, fewer people knew about the grants and asked for them, but times have changed. I checked with the two district councils in my constituency. Mendip district council does not have a great number of thatched cottages—that is not a vernacular style for that area—but it does have many historic buildings. It has offered no grants for the past two years. It still receives applications, which are kept on file, but there is no indication that grant aid will be available. At one time, it had funds of £25,000 for maintenance grants and £40,000 for buildings at risk. At present, it cannot deal effectively with grant applications for maintenance or for buildings at risk. That worries me enormously.
South Somerset district council, in the other half of my constituency, has 6,000 listed buildings in an enormous range of styles. The area contains the second highest number of listed buildings in the country. Even uneducated laymen would recognise many of them as historic, beautiful and worthy of conservation. The district council's fund, which is now down to £24,000, is targeted at buildings at risk. It is used almost exclusively for unoccupied buildings that otherwise would be in danger of dereliction, and not for occupied buildings. I understand that priority, but I also recognise that it leaves many people without the support that they would like.
The only other alternative is the heritage lottery grant. It currently allocates £86 million for historic buildings and townscapes, but I understand that that is set to fall to £53 million in the coming year. Those funds are oversubscribed by a factor of five to one and are clearly inadequate to the task. They are targeted largely at major buildings rather than the individual dwelling places that are, cumulatively, of as much historic importance.
We are in a very serious position. Mr. Colin Johns, a gentleman with whom I have had dealings, is a founder trustee and the honorary treasurer of the UK Association of Preservation Trusts. As an architect, planner and former head of conservation at Wiltshire county council, he knows a great deal about the matter.
He has said:
"Access to the Heritage Lottery Fund is now the lifeline for many conservation projects, which without grant aid will simply fail. Until recently it was often possible to obtain funding from Cadw, English Heritage or Historic Scotland but these opportunities have been severely curtailed for most projects and the political pledges made in the past that lottery funding would be additional to existing funding, not a replacement for it look decidedly tarnished."
I agree with that comment.
Returning to the subject of VAT, many organisations take the view that it is an anomaly that must be corrected. A number of them have come together as the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies, which has produced a report entitled "VAT and the Built Heritage". Its foreword states:
"Charging VAT at standard rate on repairs to listed buildings whilst charging nothing on alterations to them flies in the face of government advice on conservation. The present system is also at

211WH
odds with the ideas of sustainability which lie at the heart of recent thinking by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and which underpin the report of the Urban Task Force."
I agree entirely with those comments, and something must be done now.
The crux of the argument is that doing something about VAT and making grants more widely available would be good for the country. Compared with the alternatives, such measures make economic sense and are good in terms of sustainability. In keeping with the argument that I have already advanced, there is no sense in adopting a fiscal policy that encourages new building and is detrimental to older buildings that we want desperately to preserve. Such measures would also be good for employment. They would help to maintain a craft base and the artisans and craftsmen who carry out such work, and to ensure that the materials that they use are kept in use in this country. Such measures would also undoubtedly be good for tourism. Part of the image that we in the west country sell is that of the traditional townscape or village, of which older buildings form an integral and essential part. Without them, it will be even more difficult to bring back to the glories of the west country the visitors whom we have lost through current events.
Finally, such measures would be good for the residents themselves. They would be freed from the serious concern of maintaining a roof over their heads— literally so, for those who live in thatched cottages—and would be able to preserve their properties in the manner that they prefer. It is true that that would be to their benefit, but it would benefit everyone to whom the listed building process is relevant. Without such measures, the entire system for protecting historic buildings will remain a nonsense. Instead of paying lip service and offering pious hopes, this Government should reform the system so that it can make a real difference to those who live in historic buildings.
1.17 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and congratulate him on securing today's debate. He makes a gentle and seductive case, and I should like to respond to it as fully as time will allow. He and I are certainly in agreement, inasmuch as historic buildings and other survivals of the past give profound pleasure. They stand as a record of artistic and technical achievement in many different fields, and we have a proud tradition of protecting and preserving important buildings. The listing of buildings of special architectural or historic interest began after the war, when planners in blitzed towns and cities desperately needed guidance on which surviving buildings were worthy of retention. Protection is now given to some 500,000 listed buildings, and a wide variety of structures are included—from castles and cathedrals, to thatched cottages, milestones and village pumps.
The Government are advised on which buildings to list by English Heritage, which conducts thematic studies such as those recently carried out on cinemas and military and railway structures. It also advises us on specific proposals for listing buildings that are, for example, under a perceived threat. Legislation is backed up by planning policy guidance note No. 15, which provides solid guidance on identifying and protecting
212WH
the historic environment, and includes advice on the upkeep and repair of historic buildings. The guidance is directed not just at local authorities, but at other public authorities, historic building owners, developers, amenity societies and other members of the public.
As the hon. Gentleman noted, many owners are pleased that their properties have been listed, and therefore officially recognised, as part of our heritage. However, we realise that some owners may be uncertain or apprehensive about what listing will mean for them. My Department's publication, "What Listing Means: a Guide for Owners and Occupiers", deals with general queries. Local authorities and English Heritage are available to answer more detailed questions, and often best placed to do so. Many listed buildings are in public ownership. The Government are aware of their responsibilities and we are considering how best to give guidance to local authorities on best practice in the care of their buildings.
That a building is listed does not necessarily mean that it must be preserved intact for all time. The main purpose of listing is to ensure that care will be taken with decisions affecting the building's future, that any alterations respect its particular character and interest, and that the case for its preservation is taken fully into account in considering any redevelopment proposals.
Owners of listed buildings who wish to carry out works affecting the character of the building must first obtain listed-building planning consent from the local planning authority. When considering applications for consent, planning authorities must ensure that the terms on which consent is granted relate fairly and reasonably to the circumstances of the building and its conservation needs. Planning authorities must therefore ensure that conditions are necessary, relevant, enforceable and reasonable, and they should have access to the appropriate expertise. If an applicant is aggrieved by the terms on which consent is granted, he or she has a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Although owning a listed building can result in additional costs for owners, it can also bring benefits. In many areas, the cachet of listing can add to the value of residential property. As the hon. Gentleman said, many people regard owning a listed building as a privilege and accept it as a responsibility. We are aware of and appreciate the efforts made by the vast majority of listed building owners to maintain their properties in sound condition. PPG15 states that regular maintenance and repair are key to the preservation of historic buildings, that routine expenditure on repairs keeps a building weather-tight and that regular maintenance—especially roof repairs and clearance of gutters and downpipes—can prevent more expensive work becoming necessary later.
The lifespan of an historic building may be all but indefinite, provided that it is regularly maintained and that any major repairs are undertaken promptly. Major problems are often the result of neglect. If tackled earlier, they can be prevented or at least reduced in scale. PPG15 also encourages owners of listed buildings to seek expert advice on maintenance and the best way of carrying out works. The Government hope that local planning authorities will give owners informal advice when they can or guide them to other sources.

213WH
English Heritage is a national source of information and expertise on matters relating to the historic environment. It provides much specialist advice on the care of historic buildings and can sometimes advise on individual cases, especially when there are unusual problems. Its learned and fascinating publication, "Thatch and Thatching", for example, provides valuable guidance on thatched cottages. It says that local authorities' policies should be based on a thorough knowledge of local traditions of thatching and take account of regional diversity, the preservation of materials and technologies and the maintenance of the area's character.
The hon. Gentleman made important points about the wider benefits to the economy, our craft tradition, tourism and heritage of ensuring that our heritage buildings are kept in good repair. He also said much about funding. I do not think that we dispute that local authorities have powers to give grants to owners of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, regardless of whether they are listed. The allocation of funds is, however, for local authorities to decide. I appreciate that there is not, in practice, great scope for authorities to grant funds, but it must be a matter for their priorities and a decision for them.
Grants for the repair of buildings of outstanding architectural or historic interest, which usually means grade 1 and grade 2* buildings—approximately the top 6 per cent. of listed buildings—may also be available though English Heritage provided that the application is made prior to the work being carried out. All applications for grant assistance are judged on their merits. English Heritage takes into account the importance of the building, the urgency of the proposed repairs and the need for financial support. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has grant schemes for the repair and reinstatement of traditional farm buildings, which includes listed buildings. The directory of grant-making trusts also lists a number of charitable trusts that make grants towards the preservation and upkeep of historic buildings.
The Government have long been aware of the concern that repairs to listed buildings attract the full rate of VAT. The Chancellor's approach to the European Commission last year to seek to lower the VAT burden to 5 per cent. on repairs to listed places of worship is wholly representative of the Government's willingness to play their part in sustaining that inheritance. The Commission has said that it will look carefully at the VAT treatment of heritage buildings when the VAT directive is reviewed in 2003. We shall continue to work with the Commission towards a positive conclusion.
Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me, as I have very little time?
That is not to say that we are content to let the matter rest there. My Department, following the undertaking given by the Chancellor in his Budget statement, is working urgently on developing a system to administer grant payments to listed places of worship, which will
214WH
effectively reduce the rate of VAT to 5 per cent. That new policy will mean a very substantial increase in public support for the repair of listed places of worship. The measure has already received widespread and enthusiastic response by all faiths nationally and locally, and we shall make an announcement as soon as possible on introduction of the scheme. Indisputably the nation's places of worship play a huge part in creating our sense of common heritage, but they also play a critical role at the centre of individual communities. It is partly for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with whom the responsibility for VAT rests, chose to concentrate the benefits on those particular buildings.
A responsible Government must be circumspect and selective in targeting reliefs. All of us understand that a relief introduced in one area costs revenue that has to be made up from elsewhere. Of course we fully recognise the importance of the conservation of secular buildings and the important role that individual owners play in achieving that. We greatly appreciate what they do, and we do not underestimate the burden and difficulty for many of them. We play our own part in their preservation through the provision of the grant assistance to which I have already referred. I cannot hold out the prospect of asking taxpayers to provide grant to support the general cost of repairs to grade 2 listed buildings. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, there are 6,000 listed buildings in south Somerset alone. The allocation of heritage lottery funding must be a matter for the trustees.
We have set in train a wide-ranging review of policies on the historic environment, leading to a major statement of policy on the historic environment later this summer. That is a Government initiative. As a first stage, I asked English Heritage to address a number of specific issues and to submit a report to the Government. Its report, "Power of Place", to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was published in December last year, and we are currently considering it very carefully. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about it.
The report contained a number of recommendations aimed not just at Government, but at the heritage sector and owners generally. The Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was among those who participated in that process. The document also addressed the issue of the VAT burden, which was so central to the hon. Gentleman's argument. One of its recommendations was for an equalising of work that is new build or alterations, with work that is repair and maintenance. The Government understand the force of that plea and will consider the proposition carefully. Determination of the matter lies with the European Union, but these matters are not set in concrete. The Government have shown that they are willing to use the flexibility available. The overall system will be reviewed in 2003 at European level.
Another message was the need for the heritage sector to promote a shift from cure to prevention, by encouraging regular condition surveys and planned maintenance and by piloting self-help initiatives and low-cost insurance schemes, and for owners to carry out routine maintenance and regular condition surveys. That backs up the message in PPGl5, and we are looking forward to seeing how the heritage bodies

215WH
respond to it as well as the other recommendations. I know that many of them have already seized the initiative and are actively considering future patterns of collaboration.
The Government are very much aware of the problems faced by those who own and live in listed buildings and the special responsibility that they carry for the maintenance and repair of those buildings. We pay the warmest tribute to owners for the work that they do in caring for their properties and ensuring that they retain their place within our national heritage. The proper upkeep of listed buildings is an integral part of our policy for protecting the historic environment, which matters greatly to the vast majority of people and is something about which we can be rightly proud. Our forthcoming policy statement will set out in full our vision for sustaining that policy.

NHS and the Drugs Industry
1.30 pm
Mr. Peter Bradley: I can only assume that the May Day disturbances have prevented the public and Members alike from flocking to Westminster Hall for this debate. I had expected a full Chamber, but I shall have to do my best to whistle in the wilderness, which is a practice that is not unknown to me.
A couple of weeks ago, I received a copy of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries annual review for the year 2000—and a very interesting and useful document it is. It states:
"Opinion surveys of Parliament show that overall favourability towards the pharmaceutical industry had improved again over the past 12 months. Six out of ten MPs express a positive attitude towards the industry and only one in ten is critical."
I am afraid that I am part of that one in 10.
I make no apology for raising the issue again, as I have done a number of times, both in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House. I recognise the importance of the drugs industry to the national health service and, indeed, to the economy, but I have a principled objection, as I am sure do most others, to profiteering. I have been disappointed in the past two years at what I can regard only as the Department of Health's complacency in the face of the excessive profits that some pharmaceutical companies are making at the expense of the NHS and taxpayers. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), in whom I have the utmost confidence, will restore my faith.
I acknowledge the industry's contribution of 60,000 jobs, a further 250,000 indirect jobs and £2.9 billion a year invested in research and development, which equates to about £8 million a day, according to the ABPI's annual review. Five of the top 25 selling drugs on the market have been pioneered in the United Kingdom and there were £7.1 billion worth of exports, producing a trade surplus last year of £2.3 billion. Drugs that are manufactured in the UK are our third biggest export, which is an impressive record.
However, we have seen too frequently the way in which the pharmaceutical industry and the companies within it have exploited their dominant position. We saw recently how multinationals sought to put pressure on the South African Government. I am pleased that they have now withdrawn their action against that Government in respect of AIDS drugs. We saw, too, the reaction of the manufacturer, which I believe is Glaxo Wellcome, although I stand to be corrected, when the National Institute of Clinical Excellence announced that it could not recommend that the drug Relenza could be prescribed through the NHS. As I recall, the chairman's response was that he would have to review the company's investment in this country.
It is interesting to note that drug prices are uniformly cheaper in Spain, where there is no drug industry, so that the muscle that the industry applies to the Government in negotiating drug prices is considerably reduced. It is my contention that there is routine profiteering at the expense of the NHS. I accept that the costs of research and development are considerable and I recognise the need for drug companies to recover their investment and to reward their shareholders. I do not object to profit, but to excess profit.

217WH
In 1999, Shropshire health authority and the primary care group in my constituency raised concerns about the deficit in their drugs budget. I carried out research and initiated an Adjournment debate in which I described the £69 million overspend that health authorities were contemplating, £66 million of which would not have existed had there not been the differential pricing between branded and generic drugs. I described how hospital-led prescribing was contributing significantly to the problems that they faced. When I say "they" I mean 78 out of the 100 English health authorities. Some 34 were facing a deficit of £1 million, and five were facing deficits in excess of £2 million. In summary, hospital-led prescribing is simple. Pharmaceutical companies offer hospitals drugs at knock-down prices—loss leaders—knowing full well that hospitals account for only 20 per cent. of the market, and that outside the hospital, in the community, which represents 80 per cent. of the market, the prices of those drugs can be significantly increased.
Typically, when a patient is released into the community, he or she goes to his or her doctor and demands the same branded drug that was offered by the consultant in the hospital. The patient will not know that in many cases the cost of the drug in the hospital is a fraction of its cost in the community. In the case of Frumil, the cost in the hospital was only 6 per cent. of the cost in community, and the in the case of Imdur, the figure was 2.5 per cent.
My health authority faced a deficit of more than £1.5 million in 1997–1998. The following year the deficit was roughly the same. In 1999–2000 it had risen to £3.5 million. Those deficits had to be met either from other budgets for health care in my community or from the taxpayer. In 1999, with the introduction of primary care groups, the NHS began to get to grips with the problem. Because PCGs control their own budgets, they have an incentive to switch from expensive branded drugs to the cheaper generics. The health authority in my constituency was encouraging closer working between primary and secondary care, to begin to tackle that problem. It introduced innovative IT packages to guide doctors as to the most cost-effective medicine that they could prescribe.
At the same time, the Department of Health negotiated with the branded medicine manufacturers a 4.5 per cent. reduction in the price of their drugs. That was very encouraging, until the drug industry hit back. Mysteriously, between the autumn of 1998 and the summer of 1999, the number of drugs on the category D list, issued monthly by the NHS to alert practitioners to the lack of availability of cheaper generic drugs, leapt from 30 to 170. Typically, drugs were featured on the list as being unavailable and were then removed from the list some time later. Fruzomide in particular leapt in price between September 1998 and September 1999, from 26p to £2.14, an increase of 723 per cent. Other drugs followed a similarly steep path. The price of 100 mg of thyroxine increased by 670 per cent. and that of 5 mg of bendroflurozide increased by 567 per cent.
So alarming were those increases and their impact on health authorities, that the Select Committee on Health held a snap investigation of the causes of this fluctuation in the market. In its report, the Committee referred to market manipulation, hoarding and collusion, and it
218WH
concluded that the stratospheric price rises of the past 18 months must have enriched many individuals at the expense of the NHS. It was right.
Sadly, the Office of Fair Trading, which was asked by the Department of Health to investigate the causes of spiralling drug prices, is still investigating almost two years later. OXERA—Oxford Economic Research Associates—a consultancy commissioned by the Department, has submitted its report, but it is currently unavailable for public scrutiny and is still being considered by Ministers. Meanwhile, the plunder continues.
The category D list may not be an issue now, but at the time it cost the NHS £160 million. I did not fabricate that figure—it was provided to me in a parliamentary answer by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). So steep was the increase and so serious were the consequences for health authorities throughout the country that the Department of Health was obliged to make additional grants to those authorities of £90 million in December 1999.
Whenever I have raised my criticisms on those issues, they have provoked fevered denials from the APBI and individual drug companies, and rather sullen hostility from civil servants, which I do not understand, because I would have thought that if one could identify a way of spending precious taxpayers' money on the NHS more effectively, the Department of Health would be first in line to make use of it.
I first raised my concerns in an Adjournment debate in 1999. Some of the press interest generated by that debate caused the managing director of a small drugs company to write to me, explaining that he had been excluded from the market for pain relief medication for cancer sufferers. He ran a small company that made a generic drug that was a great deal cheaper than the drug known as MST Continus, which was produced by Napp Pharmaceuticals. I referred that complaint to the Office of Fair Trading. It is regrettable that the investigation took two years. but it was thorough. On 30 March, the OFT issued its findings—the first under the Competition Act 1998.
The OFT found that Napp's MST drug had captured about 97 per cent. of the NHS market in 1998, despite the fact that its patent had elapsed as early as 1992. It had achieved that by discounting the cost of the drug to hospitals by more than 90 per cent. It was being sold at less than 50 per cent. of the cost price. Napp's defence was that it could achieve that price through bulk sales to hospitals. I contend that a company that sells a product at less than the cost price will survive only if it can recoup the losses and make a tidy profit from other activities. In my view, that is exactly what Napp did. That was also the view of the OFT, which referred to Napp's strategy of eliminating competition. It spoke of selective "excessive" discounting in hospitals to capture 90 per cent. of the market within hospitals and, once it had secured that market and excluded those companies that could not compete with its discounting, it could capture the far more lucrative market in the community.
The OFT concluded that Napp had "abused its dominant position' in the absence of competition and had charged excessive prices in the community. MST treatments of 10 mg, 30 mg and 60 mg were 1,000 per

219WH
cent. more expensive in the community than in the hospitals. The OFT estimated that a profit of about 80 per cent. was being made on the drug and, more important, that it was costing the NHS about £2 million a year. Those unequivocal findings ware serious enough to prompt the OFT to impose a £3.21 million fine. It also demanded that Napp should end the infringements, reduce its prices to the community and close the price differential between what it charged hospitals and what it charged doctors' surgeries.
OFT director John Bridgeman said:
"Napp's discounting policy to hospitals has impeded competition in the market for sustained release morphine by anti-competitively targeting rival's products. Discounts of well over 90 per cent. were offered in tendering for hospital contracts where Napp faced a rival"—
interestingly, those discounts were not so generous if there was no rival—
"and at least one competitor was forced to withdraw from the market.
By keeping more than 90 per cent. of the hospital segment of the market, Napp was able to retain a similarly high share of the much larger business of supplying sustained release morphine to patients in the community. It was able to do this because GPs' prescriptions are strongly influenced by the brands used in hospitals. Community prices were excessive—typically more than ten times higher than Napp's hospital prices and up to six times the export price of MST.
I estimate that the price reduction I have proposed should immediately bring savings to the NHS of the order of £2 million annually. In the longer term developing competition should lead to further savings to the NHS and so to the taxpayer."
That was a landmark decision. Should Napp appeal, the case will be heard by the tribunal set up under the Competition Act 1998, and will be the first of its kind under the new legislation. That, too, will be a landmark. What the OFT found after its two-year investigation totally vindicated the criticisms that I and many others had made of the drug industry over the years. Napp's defence, according to its press release, was that
"discounting in hospitals is commonplace"
It went on to state that
"the OFT's attack on Napp's list price could equally well be applied to other companies governed by the PPRS (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme) and represents an across the board attack on pharmaceutical companies' prices".
Hear, hear. That is less a defence than an indictment of the rest of the drugs industry. The practice for which Napp is condemned is as commonplace as it is cynical.
It is difficult to estimate the annual cost to the national health service. I have sought the benefit of the Department of Health's estimates through parliamentary questions, but it has not been forthcoming so far. I think that its estimate will be between £50 million and £300 million. That is not unreasonable when one realises that the annual bill for medicines is about £7 billion.
I am concerned about the responses from the Minister. In an answer that I received last week, she said:
"The Department keeps the level of competition in the pharmaceutical sector under review, and has mechanisms in place to prevent profiteering. It secures value for money through the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) which controls the profits which companies make from the supply of branded medicines to the National Health Service. Under this scheme a high price for one product may be balanced against a low one for
220WH
another, provided that the company's overall profits remain within the limits permitted by the scheme."—[Official Report, 23 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 168W.]
I wish that I could have such faith in the PPRS, but I do not, and I do not think that it is entirely shared by the OFT either. In its report, it referred to Napp's argument that the PPRS prevented it from charging excessive prices, and concluded:
"It is not considered that these restrictions prevent Napp from charging excessive prices on MST. In particular, it is noted that the PPRS is a portfolio constraint and does not seek to ensure that the prices of individual products are not set at excessive levels."
The officials in the Department who advise the Minister must do better on this issue. I welcome the Government's unprecedented investment in the NHS, but I am determined, as I am sure are Ministers, that every precious penny from the taxpayer that should go into front-line health care does so. That cannot be said to be the case now, as millions of pounds go in through the front door of the NHS and exit through the back, straight into the credit columns of drug company accounts. That is unacceptable.
I want the Minister to assure us that there will be a comprehensive and urgent investigation of the relationship between the NHS and the drugs industry. That should be followed—if it is justified, as I believe that it is—by decisive action to end profiteering. An end should be brought to differential prices in hospitals and the community. Consideration should perhaps be given to the establishment of a single central NHS purchaser for drugs.
If patients are to be at the centre of the NHS—I believe that they should be, and it is one of the central planks of the Government's reform of the health service—drug companies should move aside as much as other sectional interests in the NHS. It is time for the Government to take action.
1.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent OFT case concerning Napp Pharmaceuticals. The company is based in Cambridge and it employs several of my constituents, so I want to mention some points that have been made to me.
The OFT decision appears to be based on the belief that, as a result of the abuse of a dominant position, NAPP secured excess profits from the sales of its sustained release morphine drug. The penalty that the hon. Member for The Wrekin said had been imposed on the company suggested that substantial excess profits were obtained. However, in the Minister's recent answer to his question, to which he also referred, she explained that the PPRS
"has mechanisms in place to prevent profiteering. —[Official Report, 23 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 168W.]
If the Office of Fair Trading decision stands, will it not undermine the purposes of the PPRS in encouraging research and development and the supply of innovative treatments?
We need clarity. Either the pharmaceuticals market should be subject to normal competition rules, along with full patent protection enabling innovative

221WH
producers of drugs to secure a return while the patent protection applies, and doubtless involving higher costs for branded drugs during that period; or it should be possible for the purchasing power of the NHS to be applied through the PPRS to secure drug supply within negotiated profit levels. It is hard to dispute the effectiveness of that approach given the cost of drugs in this country relative to Germany or the United States. I would not regard Spain as a comparator because it does not have the same incentive to encourage innovation in its drugs companies, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin said.
Under the present regime, and following progressive price decreases in the PPRS, the price of MST tablets is lower than it was 18 years ago. The alternatives must be faced. It is unreasonable for the Government to impose the PPRS while appearing to allow it to be ignored, and letting the Office of Fair Trading apply normal competition criteria. In the era of supposed joined-up Government, Ministers need to tell us whether the PPRS is to be sustained or undermined.
1.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on securing the debate and on what I might describe—in the friendliest of terms—as his dogged persistence in getting the issue a public airing. I also note the comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) about the relationship between industry and the NHS.
It is true that the NHS spends about £7 billion on medicines in the United Kingdom. I hope that we all agree at least on wanting a system that allows as much as possible of the overall spending to benefit patients. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin referred to the Office of Fair Trading investigation, which he instigated. It was an important investigation and a significant development in the way in which we deal with competition issues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of hon. Members. As he mentioned, it was the first action of its kind under the Competition Act 1998.
The market for medicines is unusual in several respects and that has been recognised by all countries and by the European Union. First, it is unusual because it is not easy to apply the ordinary language of buyers and consumers to it. Doctors choose medicines on clinical grounds, being relatively autonomous and wanting what is best for their patients. That is the right approach. Secondly, there is often no way in which substitute products can be used, because of patents or sometimes, even when a patent has expired, because of features that make substitution difficult or impossible. That is the case with slow-release morphine, which is the subject of the Office of Fair Trading investigation. Thirdly, the medicines market is not uniform. One cannot automatically decide that manipulation of one sub-market means that the same will happen elsewhere.
My hon. Friend has been quoted as suggesting that the NHS could save vast sums from the drugs bill. We need to be careful about the use of figures. It would be
222WH
dangerous to extrapolate from one example to the whole market. It is not safe to generalise from economic behaviour in one or even a few examples. There is no alternative to certain drugs. Some medicines are for life and others are taken only once.
My hon. Friend spoke as if discounts were automatically a bad thing. I do not believe that. Discounting can be abused, but initially discounts are an example of purchasers using their skills and bargaining powers to achieve savings. That is why it is so important to study each case on its merits. Simply ending discounts will cost money, not save it. Nor do I think that deciding on the right price for a medicine is straightforward. A large part of the price of new medicines relates to the cost of research and development. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that without that there would be no new medicines. Of course it is less easy—and a matter for further debate—to say what share of the research and development costs the UK drugs market should include in the price of its medicines. The market is not always stable; I remember the Health Committee debate that was prompted by the unusual turmoil in the market, on the many ways in which the Department of Health could deal with it.
I recognise that companies must be allowed to recoup some of their research and development costs. What counts as "excessive" will probably be the subject of on-going debate. However, we have a strategy; so despite his call for a thorough investigation, I hope that my hon. Friend is convinced that we are looking for the right balance. A number of elements are involved, including direct price control, help with prescribing decisions and profit controls at company level. We need to be careful that the interface between those elements does not damage the pharmaceutical industry, or in any way leech money out of patient care. The pharmaceutical industry is successful, and we would lose it at our peril.
My hon. Friend spoke at some length about the recent OFT report. I reassure him that we are studying that report carefully. It took two years to write, but we have had it for only one month, thanks to the confidentiality provisions of competition legislation. The Director General of Fair Trading has still not issued his direction, although I understand that that will happen very soon. I should like to make it clear at the outset that the OFT investigation does not claim to provide for the day-to-day control of medicine prices. However, the OFT recognises that the pharmaceutical price regulations scheme has considerable advantages as a system of profit and portfolio regulation.
My hon. Friend also asked me to investigate the prevalence of the practice of which Napp Pharmaceuticals is said to be guilty—in short, is the Napp case typical? For the reasons that I have set out—patents and non-substitutability of medicines—dominance of such a limited market is not unusual. Indeed, there might be good reasons for it to happen. However, in the light of the OFT investigation, we are examining further the areas where there is a dominant position and the potential for abuse. We cannot prejudge the case of Napp, which could be the subject of an appeal. However, we can put strategies in place to deal with imperfections in the market.
A great amount of work has been done to improve prescribing in the primary care sector. For instance, the area prescribing committees are working together with

223WH
the NHS trusts and the primary care groups, and the "Pharmacy in the Future" strategy was launched last September. We are making sure that good working relationships exist between trusts, drug and therapeutic committees and the area prescribing committees, including collaboration on formulary choices and the managed entry of new drugs.
My hon. Friend referred to generic medicines. We recognised that category D of the drug tariff was open to exploitation—it was one of the main topics discussed by the Select Committee on Health—and that changes needed to be made. That is why we abolished it last year, and there are now no products in that category. The market has changed over the past three years, and it has shown success in improving the use of generic medicines. The prices of generics increased, which is why we introduced the statutory maximum price scheme last year. The NHS is expected to realise savings of around £240 million on generic medicines in 2000–01, compared with price rises in March 2000. Overall, prices now are much as they were in 1999, before those steep increases.
There are real signs of the success of our strategy of working with the market. My hon. Friend referred to the OXERA report and the work that had been carried
224WH
out. We are developing further options and drawing on that report. We are committed to publishing a summary of the factual basis for OXERA's findings and will discuss the options with interested parties before we take final decisions on the way forward.
The title of this debate is "NHS and the Drugs Industry". I should like to put on record that we have good relations with that industry. It is important, and it produces a trade surplus of about £2.7 billion; equally importantly, it develops medicines of enormous benefit to patients the world over. We value that and we have to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place in which to develop and produce new medicines.
The OFT investigation has shown that it can sometimes appear that a supplier is exploiting a dominant market position. We have the tools in place to deal with that, to have a proper and fair investigation and to apply the appropriate remedies. In the Napp case, we shall have to wait to see whether the company will appeal. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that we are dealing with the matter vigorously and with great determination.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Commission (State Aid)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, by country, for each of the past 10 years, the amount of state aid permitted by the European Commission to each EU country by sector. [158326]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest available information on expenditure of compatible state aid by member state can be found in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Surveys on State Aid in the European Union on the European Commission website at www.europa.eu.int. Copies of all these surveys will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Social Chapter
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with EU colleagues on the Social Chapter. [158611]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Since fulfilling our manifesto commitment to end the UK opt out to the Social Chapter, the Government have participated at EU Council and other meetings at which measures brought forward under the Social Chapter have been discussed. I last met with EU colleagues on 20 December at the Employment and Social Policy Council.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of(a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other relevant energy needs of buildings and premises owned and leased by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [160014]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's policy is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses, and other substances detrimental to the environment, from its buildings.

  When purchasing new or replacement equipment, the Department will therefore consider equipment using less environmentally damaging refrigerants where practicable.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which London headquarters building or premises owned or leased by his Department use(a) chlorofluorocarbons and (b) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other relevant energy needs. [160018]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has one HQ building, Kingsgate House, where a small proportion of the refrigeration and other energy needs are met using chlorofluorocarbons.
  548W
  Three HQ buildings (1 Victoria Street, 151 Buckingham Palace Road and Kingsgate House) have some of their refrigerant and other energy needs met by plant which requires the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent his Department's headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons for(a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons. [160009]

  Dr. Howells
  One building (1 Victoria street) uses a small amount of hydrofluorocarbons for its refrigeration.

  Between the period April 2000 and March 2001, 1 kg of hydrofluorocarbons was purchased. Data for previous years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  When replacing plant which currently uses hydrofluorocarbons, the Department will consider plant using alternative refrigerants where practicable.

  Maternity Pay and Leave
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current requirements for maternity pay and leave. [160153]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The responses to the consultation on the Green Paper "Work and Parents—Competitiveness and Choice" have confirmed that the existing rules for maternity pay and leave are unnecessarily complex for employers and employees. This complexity is particularly a problem for small businesses.

  Through the consultation process employers, their representatives, working parents and those representing unions and family groups have told us that they want to see simplification of these rules.

  I have responded to these strong calls for simplification by today publishing a framework for a simplified maternity pay and leave system, including an assessment of the likely benefits and costs of any changes.

  This new framework will deliver simplicity, certainty and improved planning time for both employers and employees. It sets out changes to the notification procedures and periods and unified and simpler qualification requirements.

  An integral part of the new system is the Government's decision, following the consultation, to allow mothers the choice to take up to a year's maternity leave in total. This was strongly supported by parents and their representatives. This will be another important step in the process of helping parents balance their work and home lives. It builds on the steps announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget Statement and by me, in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), on 25 April 2001, Official Report, columns 280–81.

  I welcome comments on the framework and have placed copies of the document in the Library of the House.

  Banana Trade Dispute
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the terms of the settlement reached between the European Community and the United States of America concerning the importation of bananas from associated states of the Community and non-associated producers of bananas, together with the consequential effects on traditional imports from current and former members of the Commonwealth, and the consequent financial and social effects. [158816]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have placed in the Library of the House copies of the "Understanding on Bananas", which sets out the basis of the agreement between the European Commission and the United States of America.

  The new regime will enable Commonwealth banana-exporting countries in the Caribbean which have traditionally supplied the UK market to continue to do so. The precise quantities of bananas imported will depend on commercial decisions by banana traders. However, to the extent that contractions in the Caribbean banana sector which have been seen in recent years continue, it will remain essential that, in these countries, Community funds are used for viable development activities such as restructuring, diversification and safety net schemes to help cope with ongoing changes in the banana sector.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many special advisers worked in her Department from 1997 to date. [160026]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 I have had two special advisers at any one time and five different individuals have occupied the posts.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what successful steps the Government have taken since May 1997 to achieve multilateral nuclear disarmament. [158786]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since May 1997 the UK has:ratified the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone) in September 1997:
  ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in April 1998, worked actively for its entry into force and for its verification arrangements to be established as soon as possible;
  agreed strengthened international safeguards arrangements for the UK with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) in September 1998, following international agreement of model strengthened international safeguards arrangements for non-nuclear weapon states in May 1998;
  helped ensure a positive outcome to the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, and played a key role in the success of the negotiation of a Final Document which both reviewed progress over the last five years and set out an agenda for the next five. Of particular significance in the Document was the "unequivocal undertaking by the
  550W
  nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states are committed under Article VI of the NPT".
  engaged in consultations among the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) leading to the joint NWS announcement in May 2000 that "none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at any State";
  agreed to contribute £70 million over the next 10 years as part of the G8 programmed to help dispose of Russian weapons-grade plutonium announced at the Okinawa summit in July 2000.
  ratified the Treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone) in February 2001.
  The UK has also worked hard internationally to create the broader security environment necessary to enable further nuclear reductions without jeopardising our own security.

  The practical measures on nuclear disarmament in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in July 1998 enabled the Government to show the commitment of the UK as a Nuclear Weapon State to make its own contribution to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. They included the reduction in the size of our deterrent and greater transparency about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles. These SDR measures will help lay the ground for UK participation in multilateral negotiations when the conditions are right.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries(a) his officials and (b) the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down have conducted since 1 January 1997 into allegations that service personnel were duped into taking part in experiments at Porton Down when they believed that they were taking part in research to find a cure for the common cold; and when each inquiry was conducted. [160061]

  Dr. Moonie
  Some research has been carried out in response to inquiries from former volunteers, parliamentarians and the Wiltshire police.

  Many of the details of the trials that were undertaken at Porton Down are in the public domain, and papers in the Public Record Office. The subject has been covered in numerous publications. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has done selective research of the public record and the Porton archive in support of the Wiltshire police inquiry and the Volunteers helpline. However, there has never been an opportunity for MOD to conduct a full and thorough search of all the sources, in particular the Porton archives, which contain unpublished technical papers, the original experimental books, and other contemporary material.

  Against this background, we will conduct a comprehensive survey of the Volunteer programme. It will:
  Be conducted by MOD officials and will be supervised by Professor Ian Kennedy, an external appointee from the School of Public Policy, University College, London.
  Cover the period 1939 to 1989 because this is the period of most concern to surviving volunteers, and is the period of highest volunteer throughput.
  Attempt to give a full description of the size and shape of the trials programme listing what exposures took place, and how many volunteers were exposed to particular substances, in what manner.

  551W
  The survey will seek, record and analyse all original documentation available relating to the way in which volunteers were recruited; the terms in which the programme was described to them; protocols for informing volunteers of the individual experiments; evidence of how risks were assessed and communicated to participants; evidence of whether and how consent was obtained. The survey will also look at how the relevant internal and external supervision of the programme developed together with evidence of how the practices in the trials reflected contemporary international and national ethical guidelines.

  The findings of the Survey will be published.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the four UK defence contractors which are participating in the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme. [159804]

  Mr. Hoon
  The four participating contractors are Matra BAe Dynamics (UK), Alenia Mar oni Systems, BAE Systems and Hunting Engineering Ltd.

  Homosexuality and Lesbianism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he sought regarding the guidance on the compatibility of homosexuality and lesbianism with service in HM Armed Forces issued to potential recruits to the armed forces; when the leaflet containing this guidance was last reprinted; how many copies were printed; and if he will make a statement. [159542]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no specific leaflet offering guidance to potential recruits on the compatibility of homosexuality and lesbianism with service in the armed forces. Such guidance pre-dated the change of policy announced in January 2000. The present version of the armed forces recruiting application form refers instead to standards of personal behaviour expected from all Service personnel. Such behaviour is governed by the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct.

  In introducing both the new policy towards sexual orientation and the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct, the Department sought legal advice to ensure that the policies were within the law and respected the rights of the individual.

  RAF Board of Inquiry Reports
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those civilians, including retired Service personnel, who may have access to RAF Board of Inquiry reports held at the Inspectorate of Flight Safety. [159281]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Civilians including retired Service personnel, and Service personnel re-employed as civilians by the Ministry of Defence, whose continuing responsibilities require it, may have access to RAF Board of Inquiry repots held at the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety.
  552W
  Where a fatal accident has occurred, a declassified copy of the specific report, if requested, is provided to the next of kin of the deceased. Should they wish to disseminate the report further, this is a matter for them.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Promotional Campaigns
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, answering on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, how the Electoral Commission proposes to divide the sum of £1.5 million allowed in the Electoral Commission (Limit on Public Awareness Expenditure) Order 2001 between promoting public awareness of(a) electoral systems, (b) systems of Government and (c) the institutions of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [159974]

  Mr. Beith
  The provisions of section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 do not come into force until 1 July 2001. I understand from the Chairman of the Electoral Commission that, to date, no decisions have been taken as to the division of the £1.5 million available for 2001–02 between the three purposes specified in section 13 of the Act. Information about the Commission's spending plans under section 13 will be published later in the year, and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

WALES

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions between 5 June 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158553]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Wales Office special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity on three occasions between 5 June 2000 and 31 March 2001. I have no non-departmental special advisers.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department and its predecessor from 1997 to date. [160051]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Special advisers' salaries are negotiated individually within the three-band range announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 354W. Individual salaries and pension contributions are confidential to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned, so it is not possible to give the combined costs of employing special advisers.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers worked in his Department and its predecessor from 1997 to date. [160034]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 3 May 1997, no more than two special advisers have been in post at any one time in the former Welsh Office and the Wales Office.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald of 25 April 2001,Official Report, column 273W, on Lord Birt, what the emerging findings of Lord Birt's work were; if he will place in the Library a copy of the briefing setting them out; and if he will make a statement. [159977]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer to the answer given by the Home Secretary, 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 594W.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been paid by his Department to(a) accountancy and (b) legal firms in each year since 1 May 1997 in relation to PFI projects. [153263]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical school intake targets in England

  Institution

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  University of Birmingham

  213

  232

  332

  332

  332

  372

  Universities of Brighton and Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  128

  University of Bristol

  155

  169

  169

  169

  230

  249

  University of Cambridge

  254

  276

  276

  296

  296

  296

  University of East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  110

  100

  Universities of Hull and York

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  130

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  286

  311

  326

  326

  326

  326

  King's College London

  343

  360

  360

  370

  380

  390

  University of Leeds

  200

  218

  218

  258

  258

  258

  Leicester Warwick Medical School

  175

  190

  239

  303

  303

  403

  University of Liverpool

  200

  218

  218

  268

  268

  308

  University College London

  330

  330

  330

  330

  330

  330

  Universities of Manchester and Keele

  240

  261

  311

  341

  341

  341

  Universities of Newcastle and Durham

  185

  201

  220

  290

  340

  340

  University of Nottingham

  178

  194

  202

  218

  234

  324

  University of Oxford

  104

  113

  113

  160

  170

  180

  Peninsula Medical School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  127

  167

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  222

  241

  241

  253

  253

  305

  University of Sheffield

  200

  218

  223

  238

  238

  238

  University of Southampton

  157

  171

  200

  200

  200

  200

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  172

  187

  222

  222

  257

  257

  Total England

  3,614

  3,890

  1,200

  4,574

  4,993

  5,652

  Learning Difficulties
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people with severe learning difficulties are in work(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total number of people with severe learning difficulties; [158102]

  GCSEs (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school pupils in Shropshire achieved five or more GCSEs in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [157600]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The percentage of pupils in Shropshire who gained five or more GCSEs (or GNVQ equivalents) at grades A*-C are shown in the table:

  Percentage

  1996–97

  —

  1997–98

  53.3

  1998–99

  55.4

  1999–2000

  56.4

  The figures show that there has been an increase of 3.1 percentage points since 1997–98 and that Shropshire has already achieved the national target of 50 per cent. by 2002.

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many student places there were in the medical schools of each university in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; and what the projected numbers are for (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [157903]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The number of medical places in each university, for each year from 1998 to 2001 and the predicted numbers for 2001 to 2004 are as follows:

  (2) how many people with learning disabilities are unemployed. [158091]

  Ms Hodge
  The latest labour force statistics indicate that there are 47,000 people in Great Britain with severe or specific learning difficulties in employment; this accounts for 29 per cent. of the total number of people with severe or specific learning difficulties. The same
  555W
  source indicates that in Great Britain 12,000 people with severe or specific learning difficlties are unemployed; this represents 7 per cent. of the total number. The remaining 64 per cent. of those with severe or specific learning difficulties are classed as economically inactive.

  The White Paper "Valuing People—A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" which was published in March 2001 sets out the Government's commitment to improving the life changes of people with learning difficulties. It states our aim to increase the number of people with learning disabilities in employment and to work towards their achieving parity with other disabled people in the work force.

  Beacon Colleges
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the criteria used for the award of Beacon College status. [159000]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Taking into account the advice of Inspectorates, Ministers have awarded beacon status to colleges that are considered to

  UCAS home accepted applicants (aged 18 or 19): 2000 year of entry cycle by LEA of domicile (England) and social class

  Sum of accepted applicant

  Social class

  LEA

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled non-manual

  Skilled manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Total

  Barking

  23

  76

  39

  70

  30

  9

  247

  Barnsley1

  67

  204

  60

  120

  68

  9

  528

  Bedfordshire1

  290

  754

  150

  202

  122

  24

  1,542

  Birmingham

  415

  1,174

  323

  686

  336

  177

  3,111

  Blackburn with Darwen1

  52

  186

  70

  118

  59

  26

  511

  Bolton1

  111

  422

  95

  173

  93

  25

  919

  Bradford

  193

  683

  176

  349

  124

  115

  1,640

  Brent

  186

  491

  240

  324

  118

  42

  1,401

  Brighton and Hove1

  108

  279

  45

  97

  25

  9

  563

  Bristol

  215

  435

  118

  131

  83

  9

  991

  Bromley1

  244

  613

  192

  160

  56

  9

  1,274

  Calderdale1

  80

  310

  56

  98

  40

  17

  601

  Camden

  135

  250

  60

  82

  39

  8

  574

  Cheshire1

  653

  1,567

  280

  382

  232

  22

  3,136

  City of Derby1

  108

  258

  67

  138

  79

  23

  673

  Cornwall1

  250

  821

  183

  304

  152

  33

  1,743

  Coventry1

  137

  380

  84

  219

  148

  31

  999

  Croydon1

  247

  655

  248

  203

  81

  12

  1,446

  Cumbria1

  255

  750

  134

  284

  147

  21

  1,591

  Derbyshire1

  374

  1,134

  235

  379

  204

  42

  2,368

  Dudley1

  104

  423

  113

  199

  82

  32

  953

  Durham1

  215

  652

  163

  228

  140

  40

  1,438

  Ealing

  209

  547

  218

  299

  162

  49

  1,484

  East Riding1

  182

  551

  127

  196

  85

  13

  1,154

  East Sussex1

  312

  863

  170

  246

  89

  17

  1,697

  Essex1

  750

  2,240

  492

  646

  255

  40

  4,423

  Gateshead

  56

  220

  81

  138

  56

  4

  555

  Gloucestershire1

  445

  1,081

  307

  287

  184

  25

  2,359

  Greenwich

  77

  232

  74

  96

  35

  10

  524

  Hackney

  43

  139

  61

  90

  62

  24

  419

  Halton

  27

  132

  37

  86

  48

  7

  337

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  61

  208

  54

  67

  32

  4

  425

  Hampshire1

  970

  2,289

  557

  614

  264

  36

  4,730

  Haringey

  138

  298

  83

  124

  64

  23

  730

  Hartlepool

  26

  91

  28

  72

  29

  10

  256

  Herefordshire1

  113

  380

  72

  88

  42

  12

  707

  Islington

  88

  174

  59

  78

  38

  10

  447

  Kensington and Chelsea

  102

  260

  45

  51

  23

  8

  489

  Kent1

  845

  2,389

  634

  653

  311

  71

  4,903

  Kingston

  152

  291

  104

  80

  38

  2

  667

  556W
  be truly outstanding. Potential candidates were drawn from those colleges that have achieved excellent inspection reports, taking particular account of those serving areas of social deprivation.

  The future of Beacon Colleges and the criteria used to assess them will be reviewed in light of recent changes in the post-16 sector, including the new inspection framework.

  Excellence Challenge
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those areas which are currently participating in the Excellence Challenge; and what percentage of undergraduate entrants from those areas are from social categories III, IV and V. [159001]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The percentage of young accepted undergraduate applicants from social categories III, IV and V from each of the areas participating in the Excellence Challenge is shown in the following table.
  557W

  UCAS home accepted applicants (aged 18 or 19): 2000 year of entry cycle by LEA of domicile (England) and social class

  Sum of accepted applicant

  Social class

  LEA

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled non-manual

  Skilled manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Total

  Knowsley

  17

  119

  40

  85

  58

  23

  342

  Lambeth

  87

  268

  114

  102

  53

  19

  643

  Lancashire1

  675

  1,968

  497

  728

  360

  92

  4,320

  Leeds

  383

  964

  228

  370

  159

  31

  2,135

  Leicester

  127

  298

  131

  220

  249

  64

  1,089

  Lewisham

  106

  273

  111

  83

  49

  10

  632

  Liverpool

  143

  491

  166

  256

  101

  33

  1,190

  Manchester

  126

  387

  110

  197

  89

  21

  930

  Medway Towns1

  80

  320

  103

  145

  63

  9

  720

  Middlesbrough

  68

  168

  40

  107

  50

  17

  450

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  171

  336

  101

  133

  64

  10

  815

  Newham

  63

  297

  134

  209

  139

  45

  887

  Norfolk1

  387

  1,021

  246

  356

  155

  28

  2,193

  North East Lincolnshire1

  44

  161

  52

  106

  47

  7

  417

  North Somerset1

  154

  333

  96

  80

  33

  1

  697

  North Tyneside

  101

  267

  118

  104

  58

  8

  656

  Northamptonshire1

  304

  1,049

  237

  342

  180

  41

  2,153

  Northumberland1

  238

  589

  142

  160

  108

  13

  1,250

  Nottingham

  74

  198

  58

  115

  47

  26

  518

  Nottinghamshire1

  361

  1,212

  284

  384

  172

  35

  2,448

  Oxfordshire1

  592

  1,184

  227

  293

  125

  22

  2,443

  Plymouth1

  94

  229

  92

  145

  62

  10

  632

  Redcar and Cleveland

  45

  153

  50

  110

  34

  16

  408

  Rochdale

  79

  284

  74

  127

  66

  28

  658

  Rotherham

  78

  299

  71

  129

  52

  14

  643

  Salford

  61

  209

  53

  84

  42

  6

  455

  Sandwell1

  44

  178

  80

  207

  103

  70

  682

  Sefton

  147

  524

  188

  228

  90

  19

  1,196

  Sheffield

  282

  598

  159

  198

  78

  19

  1,334

  Shropshire1

  192

  613

  103

  157

  78

  15

  1,158

  Slough1

  48

  132

  55

  102

  90

  35

  462

  Solihull2

  186

  475

  95

  126

  58

  6

  946

  Somerset1

  278

  878

  203

  235

  125

  23

  1,742

  South Tyneside

  39

  155

  57

  96

  46

  7

  400

  Southend on Sea1

  69

  208

  71

  61

  26

  7

  442

  Southwark

  102

  208

  91

  71

  42

  14

  528

  St. Helens1

  66

  265

  78

  155

  58

  12

  634

  Stockton on Tees

  105

  301

  84

  135

  60

  7

  692

  Stoke-on-Trent

  50

  194

  50

  128

  56

  18

  496

  Sunderland

  68

  310

  96

  149

  70

  13

  706

  Telford and the Wrekin1

  58

  213

  65

  74

  46

  15

  471

  Tower Hamlets

  18

  94

  40

  168

  74

  40

  434

  Trafford1

  168

  423

  106

  130

  66

  13

  906

  Wakefield1

  108

  373

  91

  160

  69

  8

  809

  Waltham Forest

  63

  279

  121

  177

  76

  27

  743

  Wandsworth

  142

  345

  133

  90

  39

  5

  754

  Westminster

  91

  211

  71

  61

  34

  10

  478

  Wigan1

  93

  394

  104

  128

  74

  13

  806

  Wirral

  240

  569

  125

  239

  105

  26

  1,304

  Wolverhampton1

  93

  289

  86

  208

  114

  74

  864

  Accepted applicant percentage

  Social class

  LEA

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled non-manual

  Skilled manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Total percentage

  Barking

  9.31

  30.77

  15.79

  28.34

  12.15

  3.64

  100

  Barnsley1

  12.69

  38.64

  11.36

  22.73

  12.88

  1.70

  100

  Bedfordshire1

  18.81

  48.90

  9.73

  13.10

  7.91

  1.56

  100

  Birmingham

  13.34

  37.74

  10.38

  22.05

  10.80

  5.69

  100

  Blackburn with Darwen1

  10.18

  36.40

  13.70

  23.09

  11.55

  5.09

  100

  Bolton1

  12.08

  45.92

  10.34

  18.82

  10.12

  2.72

  100

  Bradford

  11.77

  41.65

  10.73

  21.28

  7.56

  7.01

  100

  Brent

  13.28

  35.05

  17.13

  23.13

  8.42

  3.00

  100

  Brighton and Hove1

  19.18

  49.56

  7.99

  17.23

  4.44

  1.60

  100

  Bristol

  21.70

  43.90

  11.91

  13.22

  8.38

  0.91

  100

  Bromley1

  19.15

  48.12

  15.07

  12.56

  4.40

  0.71

  100

  558W 559W

  Accepted applicant percentage

  Social class

  LEA

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled non-manual

  Skilled manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Total percentage

  Calderdale1

  13.31

  51.58

  9.32

  16.31

  6.66

  2.83

  100

  Camden

  23.52

  43.55

  10.45

  14.29

  6.79

  1.39

  100

  Cheshire1

  20.82

  49.97

  8.93

  12.18

  7.40

  0.70

  100

  City of Derby1

  16.05

  38.34

  9.96

  20.51

  11.74

  3.42

  100

  Cornwall1

  14.34

  47.10

  10.50

  17.44

  8.72

  1.89

  100

  Coventry1

  13.71

  38.04

  8.41

  21.92

  14.81

  3.10

  100

  Croydon1

  17.08

  45.30

  17.15

  14.04

  5.60

  0.83

  100

  Cumbria1

  16.03

  47.14

  8.42

  17.85

  9.24

  1.32

  100

  Derbyshire1

  15.79

  47.89

  9.92

  16.01

  8.61

  1.77

  100

  Dudley1

  10.91

  44.39

  11.86

  20.88

  8.60

  3.36

  100

  Durham1

  14.95

  45.34

  11.34

  15.86

  9.74

  2.78

  100

  Ealing

  14.08

  36.86

  14.69

  20.15

  10.92

  3.30

  100

  East Riding1

  15.77

  47.75

  11.01

  16.98

  7.37

  1.13

  100

  East Sussex1

  18.39

  50.85

  10.02

  14.50

  5.24

  1.00

  100

  Essex1

  16.96

  50.64

  11.12

  14.61

  5.77

  0.90

  100

  Gateshead

  10.09

  39.64

  14.59

  24.86

  10.09

  0.72

  100

  Gloucestershire1

  19.11

  46.41

  13.18

  12.32

  7.90

  1.07

  100

  Greenwich

  14.69

  44.27

  14.12

  18.32

  6.68

  1.91

  100

  Hackney

  10.26

  33.17

  14.56

  21.48

  14.80

  5.73

  100

  Halton

  8.01

  39.17

  10.98

  25.52

  14.24

  2.08

  100

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14.32

  48.83

  12.68

  15.73

  7.51

  0.94

  100

  Hampshire1

  20.51

  48.39

  11.78

  12.98

  5.58

  0.76

  100

  Haringey

  18.90

  40.82

  11.37

  16.99

  8.77

  3.15

  100

  Hartlepol

  10.16

  35.55

  10.94

  28.13

  11.33

  3.91

  100

  Herefordshire1

  15.98

  53.75

  10.18

  12.45

  5.94

  1.70

  100

  Islington

  19.69

  38.93

  13.20

  17.45

  8.50

  2.24

  100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20.86

  53.17

  9.20

  10.43

  4.70

  1.64

  100

  Kent1

  17.23

  48.73

  12.93

  13.32

  6.34

  1.45

  100

  Kingston

  22.79

  43.63

  15.59

  11.99

  5.70

  0.30

  100

  Knowsley

  4.97

  34.80

  11.70

  24.85

  16.96

  6.73

  100

  Lambeth

  13.53

  41.68

  17.73

  15.86

  8.24

  2.95

  100

  Lancashire1

  15.63

  45.56

  11.50

  16.85

  8.33

  2.13

  100

  Leeds

  17.94

  45.15

  10.68

  17.33

  7.45

  1.45

  100

  Leicester

  11.66

  27.36

  12.03

  20.20

  22.87

  5.88

  100

  Lewisham

  16.77

  43.20

  17.56

  13.13

  7.75

  1.58

  100

  Liverpool

  12.02

  41.26

  13.95

  21.51

  8.49

  2.77

  100

  Manchester

  13.55

  41.61

  11.83

  21.18

  9.57

  2.26

  100

  Medway Towns1

  11.11

  44.44

  14.31

  20.14

  8.75

  1.25

  100

  Middlesbrough

  15.11

  37.33

  8.89

  23.78

  11.11

  3.78

  100

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  20.98

  41.23

  12.39

  16.32

  7.85

  1.23

  100

  Newham

  7.10

  33.48

  15.11

  23.56

  15.67

  5.07

  100

  Norfolk1

  17.65

  46.56

  11.22

  16.23

  7.07

  1.28

  100

  North East Lincolnshire1

  10.55

  38.61

  12.47

  25.42

  11.27

  1.68

  100

  North Somerset1

  22.09

  47.78

  13.77

  11.48

  4.73

  0.14

  100

  North Tyneside

  15.40

  40.70

  17.99

  15.85

  8.84

  1.22

  100

  Northamptonshire1

  14.12

  48.72

  11.01

  15.88

  8.36

  1.90

  100

  Northumberland1

  19.04

  47.12

  11.36

  12.80

  8.64

  1.04

  100

  Nottingham

  14.29

  38.22

  11.20

  22.20

  9.07

  5.02

  100

  Nottinghamshire1

  14.75

  49.51

  11.60

  15.69

  7.03

  1.43

  100

  Oxfordshire1

  24.23

  48.47

  9.29

  11.99

  5.12

  0.90

  100

  Plymouth1

  14.87

  36.23

  14.56

  22.94

  9.81

  1.58

  100

  Redcar and Cleveland

  11.03

  37.50

  12.25

  26.96

  8.33

  3.92

  100

  Rochdale

  12.01

  43.16

  11.25

  19.30

  10.03

  4.26

  100

  Rotherham

  12.13

  46.50

  11.04

  20.06

  8.09

  2.18

  100

  Salford

  13.41

  45.93

  11.65

  18.46

  9.23

  1.32

  100

  Sandwell1

  6.45

  26.10

  11.73

  30.35

  15.10

  10.26

  100

  Sefton

  12.29

  43.81

  15.72

  19.06

  7.53

  1.59

  100

  Sheffield

  21.14

  44.83

  11.92

  14.84

  5.85

  1.42

  100

  Shropshire1

  16.58

  52.94

  8.89

  13.56

  6.74

  1.30

  100

  Slough1

  10.39

  28.57

  11.90

  22.08

  19.48

  7.58

  100

  Solihull2

  19.66

  50.21

  10.04

  13.32

  6.13

  0.63

  100

  Somerset1

  15.96

  50.40

  11.65

  13.49

  7.18

  1.32

  100

  South Tyneside

  9.75

  38.75

  14.25

  24.00

  11.50

  1.75

  100

  Southend on Sea1

  15.61

  47.06

  16.06

  13.80

  5.88

  1.58

  100

  Southwark

  19.32

  39.39

  17.23

  13.45

  7.95

  2.65

  100

  St. Helens1

  10.41

  41.80

  12.30

  24.45

  9.15

  1.89

  100

  Stockton on Tees

  15.17

  43.50

  12.14

  19.51

  8.67

  1.01

  100

  Stoke-on-Trent

  10.08

  39.11

  10.08

  25.81

  11.29

  3.63

  100

  Sunderland

  9.63

  43.91

  13.60

  21.10

  9.92

  1.84

  100

  Telford and the Wrekin1

  12.31

  45.22

  13.80

  15.71

  9.77

  3.18

  100

  560W 561W

  Accepted applicant percentage

  Social class

  LEA

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled non-manual

  Skilled manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Total percentage

  Tower Hamlets

  4.15

  21.66

  9.22

  38.71

  17.05

  9.22

  100

  Trafford1

  18.54

  46.69

  11.70

  14.35

  7.28

  1.43

  100

  Wakefield1

  13.35

  46.11

  11.25

  19.78

  8.53

  0.99

  100

  Waltham Forest

  8.48

  37.55

  16.29

  23.82

  10.23

  3.63

  100

  Wandsworth

  18.83

  45.76

  17.64

  11.94

  5.17

  0.66

  100

  Westminster

  19.04

  44.14

  14.85

  12.76

  7.11

  2.09

  100

  Wigan1

  11.54

  48.88

  12.90

  15.88

  9.18

  1.61

  100

  Wirral

  18.40

  43.63

  9.59

  18.33

  8.05

  1.99

  100

  Wolverhampton1

  10.76

  33.45

  9.95

  24.07

  13.19

  8.56

  100

  1 Denotes Education Action Zones. Only schools within LEAs who are part of the Education Action Zone are participating in the Excellence Challenge

  2This Excellence in City Partnership consists of only three of the LEA's schools

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the initial teacher training providers that have not, in their admissions policy, accepted the equivalence to GCSE English and Maths of Curriculum 2000 Level Two Key Skills Qualifications in Communications and Application of Numbers. [159287]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: This information is not held centrally. We do not require that initial teacher training (ITT) providers publish a list of those qualifications they accept as equivalent to GCSE English and maths. It is the responsibility of ITT providers to decide whether an applicant holds qualifications that meet the Secretary of State's entry requirements for courses of ITT, including those relating to the key skills of communication and the application of number. Qualifications must, however, be of the equivalent standard to a GCSE grade C, or above.

  New Teaching Posts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the 20,000 new teaching posts to be created by 2002 will be allocated between(a) key stage 1, (b) key stage 2 and (c) key stages 3 and 4; and if he will make a statement. [159439]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to our target to increase by 20,000 the number of teaching assistant posts by 2002. Between 1999–2002 we are making available to local education authorities in England around £350 million to meet the cost of recruiting and training the equivalent of 20,000 new teaching assistants. We have met our target a year earlier than expected—there has been a rise of over 25,000 full-time equivalent teaching assistants between 1999 and 2001. The appointment, training and deployment of teaching assistants are matters for schools and local education authorities to consider in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) of 9 February 2001,Official Report, column 764W, on student loans, if he will estimate the nominal rate of
  562W
  interest required to hold the net present value of student loans at £590 million, if the threshold of student loans repayment were increased to £13,000. [159543]

  Mr. Wicks
  The net present value of the estimated £982 million income contingent loans issued in 1999–2000 to students domiciled in England and Wales is estimated to be £590 million. The nominal rate of interest required to maintain this net present value with a threshold for repayment of £13,000 per year is estimated to be around 3½ per cent. It should be noted that such calculations should be treated with caution, due to their dependence on the estimates of the resource cost of income-contingent loans. Any interest rate calculated will consequently be subject to some fluctuation.

  Vocational Programmes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to extend the funding available for vocational programmes to allow young people to develop craft and technical skills. [159673]

  Mr. Wicks
  From September 2002, there will be a significant expansion of vocational opportunities for young people at Key Stage 4, with additional developmental funding of £18 million in 2002–03 rising to £20 million in 2003–04 being made available.

  Vice-chancellors
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to require vice-chancellors to be subject to election by the university community. [159797]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The appointment of a vice-chancellor is a matter for the governing body of an individual university to determine.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in each English local education authority area are in receipt of educational maintenance allowances. [159812]

  Mr. Wicks
  In England, as of 16 March 2001, there were almost 70,000 students receiving EMAs in the 56 pilot local education authorities (LEAs). This number is constantly increasing as applications continue to be received by LEAs. Following is the information:
  563W

  Local education authority

  Number of students in receipt of EMA1

  Birmingham

  3,005

  Bolton2

  2,098

  Bradford

  1,938

  Brent

  435

  Camden

  367

  Cornwall2

  5,501

  Coventry

  868

  Doncaster2

  2,282

  Ealing

  281

  East Lancashire

  1,409

  Gateshead2

  1,774

  Greenwich2

  985

  Hackney

  577

  Halton

  444

  Haringey

  330

  Hartlepool

  351

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  264

  Islington

  359

  Kingston on Hull

  918

  Knowsley

  868

  Lambeth2

  779

  Leeds2

  3,074

  Leicester City

  1,304

  Lewisham2

  841

  Liverpool

  2,365

  Luton

  653

  Manchester

  1,988

  Middlesbrough2

  1,603

  North East Lincolnshire

  716

  Newham

  680

  North Tyneside

  794

  Northumberland

  1,231

  Nottingham2

  2,136

  Oldham2

  2,410

  Salford

  435

  Sandwell

  745

  Sheffield

  1,763

  South Tyneside

  750

  Southampton2

  1,434

  Southwark2

  792

  St. Helens

  643

  Stoke on Trent2

  2,328

  Suffolk

  1,249

  Sunderland

  923

  Tameside

  1,005

  Tower Hamlets

  1,159

  Wakefield

  1,068

  Walsall2

  2,192

  Waltham Forest

  626

  Wandsworth

  186

  Wigan

  1,277

  Wirral

  1,204

  Wolverhampton

  986

  Worcestershire

  1,570

  1 As at 16 March 2001

  2 First year pilots started in September 1999

  School Uniforms
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proportion of maintained(a) primary and (b) secondary schools which require the wearing of school uniform. [159953]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not collect information about schools' uniform policies. The Government believe that school uniforms can make a valuable contribution to the identity and discipline of schools. It is, however, for school governors to decide whether there should be a uniform, and we believe that this should remain the case.

  Trainee Teachers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial help he plans to make available to postgraduate trainee teachers whose courses started too early for them to be eligible for training bursaries. [160151]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  On 30 March, my noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment in the Lords made regulations allowing the Teacher Training Agency to make payments to any postgraduate currently in teacher training who did not qualify for a £6,000 training bursary and who, in the Agency's opinion, has suffered financial hardship as a result. However, the Agency has since informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that unforeseen difficulties in setting up the hardship scheme would lead to any payments under the Regulations being delayed significantly beyond the start of the summer 2001 term.

  The Regulations were designed to allow help to be offered this term to postgraduate trainee teachers whose courses began during the 1999–2000 academic year and who remain in training now, but are not eligible for any training bursary payments. Hon. Members from all sides of the House have made representations to my right hon. Friend about the hardship that this group of trainees has suffered as a result of being ineligible for the training bursaries. In view of this evidence, my right hon. Friend believes that it would be wrong to allow financial assistance to be delayed to an extent that might cause further disadvantage. Accordingly, he has decided that the trainees in question should be made eligible to receive full £6,000 training bursaries with immediate effect, subject to the same conditions that apply to trainees whose courses began on or after 1 September 2000. My Department and the Teacher Training Agency are contacting training providers with details of these new arrangements.

TREASURY

  Audio Visual Equipment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change there has been in the retail price of audio visual equipment in(a) the last year and (b) the last five years. [159964]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 1 May 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on changes in the retail price of audio visual equipment in the last year and the last five years (159964).
  The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measures the average change from month to month in the prices of goods and services purchased by most households in the UK. Audio visual equipment is one of the published components within the leisure goods group of the RPI. It includes representative items such as televisions, sound systems, PCs and accessories and electronic instruments. The latest published data refers to March 2001.
  The following table gives the RPI index for audio visual equipment for March, in each of the last six years, together with the percentage change over each of the 12 month periods:
  565W

  Retail Prices Index: Audio visual equipment

  Year

  Index (1987=100)

  Annual percentage change

  March 1996

  70.6

  —

  March 1997

  65.9

  -6.7

  March 1998

  59.8

  -9.3

  March 1999

  49.4

  -17.4

  March 2000

  42.5

  -14.0

  March 2001

  36.4

  -14.4

  Between March 1996 and March 2001, the audio visual index fell by 48.4%. This information is published every month in the Consumer price indices First Release and on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk).

  Chester Street Insurance Holdings
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will hold an inquiry into Chester Street Insurance Holdings and associated companies. [155894]

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will order an inquiry by his Department into the conduct of Chester Street Insurance Holdings and related companies prior to liquidation. [155895]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 2001]: In pursuing their duties to creditors of identifying, protecting and maximising assets, the Government would expect a provisional liquidator to report any suspicions of impropriety to the appropriate authorities.

  The Companies Investigation Branch in the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for receiving and acting on information relating to suspicions or evidence of company improprieties.

  Investors' Compensation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what criteria are applied by the investors' compensation scheme to determine if a decision on an application for compensation can be referred to a panel of non-executive directors for review; [159758]

  (2) if he will conduct a review of the effectiveness of the appeals mechanisms of the investors' compensation scheme; and whether an independent appeals procedure should be established. [159757]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Complaints about maladministration may be addressed, successively: to the investors compensation scheme manager responsible or to a more senior member of staff; to the Chief Executive or to the board; to the scheme's Independent Investigator. The criteria for all stages in this review process are whether the claim has been handled properly and fairly. If deficiencies in the scheme's handling of a claim or in its conduct are found, these are assessed to check if the decision itself should be reviewed. The criteria for the review of a decision itself are whether the scheme's rules have been applied properly and fairly. A decision is reviewed by, successively: the manager responsible; a more senior manager; the Chief Executive. In addition, any investor may challenge the scheme's decision by judicial review.
  566W
  There are no plans to review the effectiveness of these arrangements. They were introduced after the financial services compensation scheme assumed operational control of the investors compensation scheme on 1 February. The new scheme reviewed the complaints arrangements and removed the stage of the panel of non-executive directors before a complaint could reach the independent investigator.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on(a) accountancy and (b) other professional charges incurred by taxpayers in calculating and submitting tax returns in respect of capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement. [159576]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government receive a wide range of representations on a number of issues.

  IT-embedded Investments
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to introduce 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for IT-embedded investments. [159671]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process. There are currently no plans to introduce 100 per cent. first-year allowances for IT-embedded investments.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform sections 589A and 589B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 with regard to(a) extension of the relief to an employee's spouse, (b) extension of the relief to part-time employees and (c) changing the minimum two year employment period for qualification. [159677]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process. There are currently no plans to reform sections 589A and 589B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Export Control
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for export control offences in each of the years 1996 to 2000. [159252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No one was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for export control offences during the years 1996 to 2000.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were convicted of arms control offences in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000; and what the average sentence was. [159251]
  567W
  Dawn Primarolo
  During the relevant periods the following people were convicted for arms export control offences:(a) 2, (b) 1, (c) 1, (d) nil, (e) nil. For those given a custodial sentence, the average was 30 months. The average fine was £15,000.

  PFI/PPP Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the PFI and PPP totals envisaged for all projects, including London Underground, indicating how much in each case the proposed public spending content is. [159246]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Budget statement contained a breakdown by Department of the estimated private sector investment resulting from signed contracts, and those expected to reach preferred bidder stage within the next three years. A more detailed breakdown of these investments can be found in table C16 and table C17 of the FSBR 2001.

  In addition to these PFIs, there are two major public-private partnerships envisaged, London Underground (LU) and National Air Traffic Services. The financial requirements of London Underground under the public-private partnership will not finally be known until negotiations with preferred bidders have been completed. It is still too early to give the precise investment associated with NATS.

  Table C18 of FSBR 2001 shows a forecast of estimates by the public sector flowing from private sector investment in signed projects over the next 25 years.

HEALTH

  National School Fruit Scheme
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to inform schools involved in the national school fruit scheme about the advice from the Chief Medical Officer, issued in 1997 and 1998, about pesticide residues and the peeling of fruit and vegetables. [147043]

  Yvette Cooper
  Fruit for the national school fruit scheme (NSFS) will be sourced from growers whose produce is grown according to the principles of integrated crop management, where pesticide inputs are minimised. In the case of United Kingdom fruit, only that from producers who meet the standards of the assured produce scheme will be used. Imported fruit used by the scheme will be required to meet similar standards.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was established in April 2000 to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied, and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. We have consulted the FSA extensively on the detail of the NSFS including details on the preparation of the fruit. The FSA and Chief Medical Officer have approved the development of the NSFS, and in particular the FSA has advised that it would not agree to the use of any pesticide if fruit or vegetables treated with it have to be washed or peeled to make them safe to eat.
  568W
  The Chief Medical Officer's original precautionary advice about washing and peeling fruit and vegetables was issued in 1997 in the light of research and surveillance on pesticide residues conducted at the time. The long-standing advice to wash fruit before consumption is to ensure that it is clean, and this still holds. However, the situation with pesticides has moved on and many of the pesticides of particular concern have been withdrawn or are undergoing review.

  The FSA is currently considering up-to-date advice on washing and peeling fruit and vegetables, and will be consulting the Government's independent advisory committee on pesticides.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations in the Maclean report on abattoirs the Government have decided not to implement. [153240]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the revised meat inspection charging system that came into force on 2 April 2001 implements all the recommendations of the meat inspection charges task force (Maclean report) with one exception.

  The exception was the recommendation that the FSA should carry out a full risk assessment of green offal inspection and veterinary involvement in ante-mortem inspection of young stock. The underlying intention was the removal of unnecessary burdens and costs (subject to amendment of the European Union Fresh Meat Directive) if the proposed assessment indicated that the procedures did not offer increased public health protection.

  In its consultation package on the measures required to implement the recommendations of the Maclean task force, the FSA explained that the EU scientific steering committee is undertaking a risk assessment relating to all aspects of meat inspection in all member states. Any action that the European Commission proposes to take will depend on the committee's findings, and European legislation will be amended if required. In these circumstances the FSA considered that it would be unwise to act ahead of Europe on these issues. In addition, the FSA considered that the types of meat plants that would benefit from the removal of unnecessary inspections would, in any case, include those likely to benefit from the introduction of a revised inspection charging system based on headage payments.

  The FSA's proposal in this respect did not attract any opposition from respondents to the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given abattoir operators regarding meat inspection charges post 1 April. [155114]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that a copy of their proposals for changes to the meat inspection charging system from 2 April 2001 in order to implement the recommendations of the meat inspection charges task force was sent to all licensed meat plant operators in Great Britain in January 2001 as part of the FSA's public consultation exercise.

  Subsequently, the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) wrote to all plant operators on 29 March 2001 to inform them of the outcome of the consultation exercise and to provide

  569W
  details of the revised charging system to apply from 2 April. The letter also provided the contact details for MHS regional customer liaison officers should plant operators require further information.

  The FSA also wrote to meat industry representative organisations on 2 April 2001 with a summary of the comments received during the consultation exercise, together with the FSA' s response, and with details of the new charging system.

  These letters are available on the FSA website, www.foodstandards.gov.uk, and I have also arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The revised meat inspection charging system came into effect, as proposed, on 2 April 2001.

  Mastectomy
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent reports on the numbers of mastectomy operations in(a) London and (b) the north-east and north-west regions of England. [156236]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reason for the variation in the number of mastectomies carried out in different parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [156252]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are aware that there are variations in access to treatment across England. These may affect the number of mastectomies undertaken. The NHS Plan and the NHS Cancer Plan make clear our targets to improve services to reduce variations. We have made available an additional £255 million in this financial year to support the appointment of new consultants and help implement the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance to end the postcode lottery of care. In addition new equipment for diagnosis and radiotherapy is being targeted to reduce geographic variations in levels of service provision. Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved assemblies.

  NHS Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS walk-in centres have been established in(a) the UK and (b) the city of Coventry. [157816]

  Sefton health authority: Waiting times for suspected breast cancer patients, 2000–01

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Number seen during quarter by a specialist within 14 days of the decision to refer by their GP

  296

  300

  318

  1—

  Number seen during quarter by a specialist within 28 days of the decision to refer by their GP

  310

  300

  318

  1—

  Total number seen during quarter

  310

  300

  321

  1—

  Percentage seen during quarter by a specialist within 14 days of the decision to refer by their GP

  95.5

  100.00

  99.1

  1—

  Percentage seen during quarter by a specialist with 28 days of the decision to refer by their GP

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1—

  1 Available June 2001

  Source:

  QMCW quarterly returns
  570W
  Yvette Cooper
  A total of 40 National Health Service walk-in centres have been established across England. With the exception of Southampton, which will open in autumn 2001, all are now open.

  One NHS walk-in centre has been set up in Coventry. It opened on 11 December 2000 and is located at Stoney Stanton road, Coventry.

  BSE
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is being allocated per annum to research into human health aspects of BSE. [157965]

  Yvette Cooper
  Key areas for the health related Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) research programme are epidemiology, diagnostics, therapeutics, the investigation of different strains of TSEs, potential risks from blood and blood products and the decontamination of surgical instruments. Our total funding on TSE research for 2000–01 was in excess of £30 million, of which £4.0 million was for the Department's projects. For 2001–02, £5.3 million has been allocated for the Department's funded research.

  The research strategy is kept under review and is updated and amended in the light of emerging scientific findings. A detailed list of Government-funded projects into TSEs is available on the Medical Research Council website at http://www.mrc.ac.uk/tse—tb2c.htm.

  Cancer Referrals (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people presenting with symptoms of(a) breast cancer and (b) colo/rectal cancer were seen by a specialist within (i) two weeks and (ii) four weeks during (A) 2000–01 and (B) 1996–97 in Sefton health authority. [158514]

  Yvette Cooper
  In April 1999, we introduced the standard that patients with suspected breast cancer referred urgently by their general practitioners should be offered an appointment with a specialist within two weeks of requesting an appointment. Central monitoring of this information began in April 1999. The table gives the number of urgent breast cancer referrals seen in Sefton health authority between 1 April 2000 and 31 December 2000. Data for 1 January 2001 to 31 March 2001 will be available in June 2001.

  Central monitoring on all other urgent suspected cancer referrals, including bowel cancer, began on 1 January 2001 and the first data will be available later this year.

  Meningitis C
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the Meningitis Group C vaccination programme has been. [158531]

  Yvette Cooper
  The meningitis C immunisation programme, launched in November 1999, has offered vaccine routinely to babies and, in a catch-up programme, to everyone aged under 18. The total cost in England from the start of the programme to the end of the latest financial year (2000–01) is estimated at £290 million (total includes vaccine cost, moneys for general practitioners and nurses to administer the vaccines, publicity and information and changes to computer systems).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the secretary of State for Health how many cases of Meningitis C have been reported in the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. [158530]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures for the number of laboratory confirmed cases of meningococcal group C disease provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) meningococcal reference unit (MRU) (for England, Wales and Northern Ireland), Cardiff Public Health Laboratory (Wales) or the Scottish Pneumococcal and Meningococcal Reference Laboratory (Scotland) are shown in the table.

  Laboratory confirmed cases of meningococcal Group C disease

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1996

  556

  49

  48

  13

  666

  1997

  762

  51

  56

  13

  882

  1998

  766

  45

  63

  16

  890

  1999

  910

  72

  95

  35

  1,112

  20002

  676

  40

  65

  41

  822

  1 Scottish data include a small number of cases confirmed by serology only

  2 2000 data provisional

  About 50 per cent. of all cases of meningococcal disease are laboratory confirmed, the rest are clinically diagnosed on the basis of symptoms only by the doctors treating the patient. Clinically diagnosed cases must also be reported to the PHLS and other laboratories and this enhanced surveillance allows estimates to be made of the total burden of meningococcal disease caused by each group.

  The best estimate of the burden of group C meningococcal disease just before the introduction of the meningitis C conjugate vaccine, adjusted for underreporting and non-typing, was 1,530 cases and 150 deaths in England and Wales in 1998–99. The vaccine has had a huge impact on the disease. During the last six months of 2000, cases in all under 18 years of age were reduced by 71 per cent. with reductions of up to 90 per cent. in those age groups immunised first.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in descending order the 10 parliamentary constituencies which had(a) the highest rate of heart disease and (b) the highest rates of death due to heart disease indicating the reasons for major discrepancies in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [158746]
  572W
  Yvette Cooper
  We recognise the importance of better information, not least to ensure that we are able to identify, treat and prevent heart disease. That is why one of the early priorities for the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease (CHD) is the systematic development and maintenance of practice-based CHD registers.

  Data for the 25 health authorities with the highest rates of mortality from all circulatory disease, which includes all forms of heart disease, for men and women, for the latest available year are shown in the table. Information at parliamentary constituency level on rates of death from specific causes is not collected centrally.

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) for all circulatory disease (ICD9 390–459), 1997–99–25 health authorities with highest
  (worst) mortality rates

  Health authority

  Number

  Men

  West Pennine

  130

  Manchester

  128

  Rotherham

  128

  Liverpool

  125

  Sandwell

  124

  Wigan and Bolton

  122

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  122

  East Lancashire

  121

  County Durham

  119

  Bury and Rochdale

  118

  Northumberland

  118

  Barnsley

  117

  Wolverhampton

  116

  Tees

  116

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  114

  North Staffordshire

  114

  Doncaster

  113

  Salford and Trafford

  113

  Sunderland

  113

  Birmingham

  112

  East London and the City

  112

  Bradford

  111

  Coventry

  110

  Wakefield

  110

  North Cheshire

  110

  Women

  West Pennine

  128

  East Lancashire

  126

  Bury and Rochdale

  123

  County Durham

  123

  Northumberland

  122

  Doncaster

  121

  Wigan and Bolton

  120

  Rotherham

  119

  Manchester

  119

  North Cumbria

  119

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  116

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  116

  North Cheshire

  116

  Tees

  114

  North Derbyshire

  113

  Sunderland

  113

  Sandwell

  112

  Barnsley

  112

  Morecambe Bay

  111

  Coventry

  111

  South Lancashire

  111

  North Staffordshire

  111

  South Staffordshire

  110

  Liverpool

  110

  Dudley

  110

  Source:

  Department of Health Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators 2000.

  New Hospital (Worcester)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy not to approve a name for the new hospital under construction in Worcester before conducting a local consultation on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [158482]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a duty to consult in regard to significant changes to services, and will take account of all representations made to him regarding any such issues. However, in most circumstances the naming of a hospital is not generally viewed as a significant change, and is therefore usually a matter for local management.

  Where the proposed name of the hospital includes a royal name or title, including the title "Royal", sovereign approval must be received. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for offering advice to Her Majesty The Queen in this regard, taking account of views and information received from other appropriate Government Departments, as well as all other representations made to him.

  Mental Health Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the money allocated for mental health services for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 has been allocated for the pilot assessment projects for those with dangerous severe personality disorder. [159159]

  Mr. Hutton
  Money allocated to fund pilot assessment projects for those with dangerous severe personality disorder in the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 is as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  70,000

  2001–02

  15,350,000

  1 Allocation will take place during 2001–02

  Food Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the action being taken by the EU Commission to harmonise regulations on food supplements in member states. [159180]

  Ms Stuart
  The European Commission published an amended draft directive1 on food supplements on 19 March which takes into account a number of amendments proposed by the European Parliament. The directive would establish a framework for harmonised legislation covering the composition (vitamins and minerals which can be used and levels of use) and labelling of food supplements sold under food law. It would have no effect on products classified as medicines.

  Our view is that, in the interests of consumer choice, the market should be open to all food supplements which are safe and properly labelled. It also believes that the law should not prevent provision of true information unless it might mislead consumers. The Food Standards Agency, which is representing the Government in discussions on the proposal, is pressing this case in negotiations.
  1 Document 2000/0080(COD)—[COM(2001) 159 Final]

  Council of Europe Public Health Committee
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed agenda for the meeting of the public health committee of the Council of Europe scheduled for 30 and 31 May on the subject of nutrition, food safety and consumer health; and if he will be represented at those meetings. [159178]

  Mr. Hutton
  The next meeting of the Council of Europe's committee of experts on nutrition, food safety and consumer health will take place on 30 and 31 May 2001. The agenda indicates that functional food, energy drinks, food supplements, nutrition in hospitals, stored product protection, new food processing technologies and food quality management are among the subjects that will be discussed. The representation from the United Kingdom will be decided once subject papers have been circulated and in the light of other priorities.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the measures he has taken to tackle domestic violence since May 1997. [159419]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to raising awareness of domestic violence and its impact on children, to tackling domestic violence on every front, and to ensuring that women and children are safeguarded and protected from abuse.

  In March 2000 we launched the "Domestic violence: A resource manual for health care professionals", and we are providing funding (from 2000–01 to 2002–03) under the Section 64 Scheme to the Women's Aid Federation of England for their health and domestic violence awareness project to help implement the resource manual.

  Our NHS Direct East Midlands domestic violence pilot project aims to produce protocols for good practice, and train staff to be able to deal with victims of domestic abuse sensitively and refer them to appropriate agencies.

  We have also held preliminary discussions with representatives of the Royal Colleges to discuss a programme of education and training on aspects of domestic violence for health professionals.

  Recent work by the Department in relation to child protection in the context of domestic violence includes the "Making an impact—children and domestic violence training pack" which we published in 1998 to raise awareness about the impact on children of domestic violence and to develop professional understanding of how best to offer help and support.

  There is an undertaking in "Working together to safeguard children" our revised inter-agency guidance to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, published in 1999, to commission overview reports at least every two years, drawing out key findings of case reviews and their implications for policy and practice. The first overview report will have child protection in the context of domestic violence as its central theme. We have commissioned this report and it will be published later this year.
  575W
  In addition, we have provided Section 64 funding to a number of voluntary organisations for a range of projects designed to assist survivors of domestic violence and children caught up in such violence.

  TB Vaccine
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the effect of shortages of the TB vaccine on the number of cases of TB; and if he will make a statement. [158972]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Our recommendation for the use of BCG vaccine is based on the advice of an independent expert advisory committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). They have advised that the degree of delay in children receiving their BCG would not be accompanied by significant public health risk.

  The recent outbreak in Leicester is one such example. Nearly all the children involved in this outbreak had been immunised with BCG as babies or later. Unimmunised children in Years 10 and 11 had also been vaccinated in 1998 and 1999 before the national schools immunisation programme was interrupted. The temporary suspension of the schools BCG immunisation programme has not therefore been a factor.

  CFS/ME Working Group
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made to date by the CFS/ME working group and its sub-groups. [159560]

  Yvette Cooper
  The chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis working group, supported by a sub group looking at children's issues and a wider reference group is making good progress. The working group has completed its year long scoping exercise and work is currently under way on the drafting of the final report.

  Children's Rights Director
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the Children's Rights Director is; and what the terms of reference for the post are. [159562]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provision is made in Schedule 1 of the Care Standards Act 2000 for the functions of the Children's Rights Director to be prescribed by regulation. We plan to publish draft regulations covering the work, key tasks and responsibilities of the Children's Rights Director for consultation in the near future. The Children's Rights Director position has been advertised. An appointment will be made later this year.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Minister has responsibility for the policy issue of haemophilia patients infected by NHS products with hepatitis C. [159764]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has this responsibility.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Family
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions in the past two years when he attended(a) official and (b) other meetings with members of the Royal Family. [159954]

  The Prime Minister
  With the exception of those occasions when Her Majesty has not been in London or I have been abroad or in Northern Ireland, I have been received in audience on the usual weekly basis since May 1997. I meet other members of the Royal Family on a regular basis.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will hold a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak once it is concluded; and if he will make a statement.[159844]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 251W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many special advisers worked at 10 Downing Street from 1997 to date. [160038]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), on 28 July 2000, Official Report, columns 971–74W. James Purnell, Geoff Mulgan and Phil Murphy are no longer employed as special advisers. Roz Preston, Pat McFadden, Tim Allan, Lance Price, and Dr. lain Anderson left their appointments before 24 July 2000.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the combined cost of employing special advisers at 10 Downing Street from 1997 to date. [160047]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet office today,Official Report, column 607W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Kensington Palace
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 336W, how many bedrooms and living rooms make up the apartment at Kensington Palace occupied by Prince Michael of Kent; on what date he started making a contribution to the cost of maintenance; for what reason he was granted the apartment; and if he is allowed to conduct business from these premises. [159958]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The apartment occupied by Prince Michael of Kent has seven bedrooms and nine reception rooms. He started making a contribution to the cost of maintenance with effect from 1 April 1994. No reasons are documented for the granting of the licence. No commercial business is conducted from the apartment.
  577W
  (Prince Michael's commercial activities are conducted from offices in Oxfordshire.) Prince Michael does carry out charitable work at Kensington Palace and receives invitations and correspondence there as a member of the Royal Family.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Israel and the occupied territories. [158619]

  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. [158624]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. [158627]

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Israel and the occupied territories. [158630]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about peace initiatives in the middle east. [158637]

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on prospects for peace in the middle east. [158645]

  Mr. Wilson
  Despite continuing contacts in the region over the weekend, the situation remains grim. It is essential to restore a political process leading to an agreement based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the principle of "land for peace", security for Israel within recognised borders and an end to occupation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been directly engaged with all the parties to encourage an end to violence and a return to the negotiating table.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone. [158621]

  Mr. Wilson
  The main objectives of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) are to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in their efforts to extend their authority and to restore law and order progressively throughout the entire country. UNAMSIL is also tasked with assisting the Sierra Leone Government in promoting a renewed democratic political process, which should lead, in due course, to the holding of free and fair elections.

  We fully support UNAMSIL's efforts to help the people of Sierra Leone in their search for lasting peace and stability. This reflects our commitment both to Sierra Leone and to UN peacekeeping in general.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet President Jiang Zemin to discuss the human rights situation in China. [158622]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to meet President Jiang Zemin.

  We seek to discuss our concerns about the human rights situation in China through the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue process and during ministerial level contacts with Chinese Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights in depth with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan when they met in New York on 12 September.

  Drugs
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in combating the international drugs trade. [158625]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government are at the forefront of international efforts to combat the drugs trade. Our aim, as stated in the 10-year drugs strategy, is to halve the availability on UK streets of those Class A drugs which cause the greatest harm, particularly heroin and cocaine, by 2008. The FCO Continues co-ordinate the international elements of this strategy.

  We are active in international drugs forums to strengthen the global policy framework for tackling the illegal drugs trade, including in the EU, UN and the G8. As members of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, we continue to play a leading role in pressing for improved management of the UN International Drugs Control Programme. In June the FCO is organising an international conference on the Global Economy of Illegal Drugs—an initiative by the Prime Minister at the G8 Summit in Okinawa last year.

  Our programme of counter-drugs assistance overseas is directed at key producer and transit countries. In the last financial year we provided bilateral assistance for law enforcement capacity building and anti-money laundering trading in Iran, UAE, Colombia, Bolivia, the Caribbean, Croatia and Slovenia. And, multilaterally through the UN, we helped to fund drugs crops surveys in Afghanistan and Bolivia, law enforcement co-operation in S.E. Europe and Iran, and demand reduction projects in Iran and Turkey.

  IGC (2004)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with member states of the European Union on the agenda for the 2004 intergovernmental conference. [158628]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Declaration on the Future of the Union attached to the Treaty of Nice states that the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference will address, inter alia, the delimitation of powers between the European Union and member states, simplification of the Treaties, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments. It also calls for a deep and wide debate on the future of the EU involving the people of Europe. We welcome this.

  Cyprus
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the proximity talks concerning the future of Cyprus. [158629]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK continues to believe that the current UN settlement process, launched in December 1999 by the UN Secretary-General, offers the best chance of achieving both a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus and one which can take into account the vital concerns of both sides. We regret the current lack of progress in the talks but are confident that the UN will find a way to move the process forward. To that end we will continue to urge all those involved to be fully and positively engaged in the search for a solution.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cyprus. [158639]

  Mr. Vaz
  Cyprus is an important partner for the UK. Our relationship is underpinned by common membership of the Commonwealth, Cyprus' EU candidacy, our close trading links, significant tourism and frequent contacts at ministerial and official level. My visit to the island in March allowed me to have valuable meetings with President Clerides, Foreign Minister Kasoulides and Chief EU Negotiator Vassiliou during which I reiterated UK support for the UN settlement process and Cyprus' EU accession.

  Kosovo
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU partners on the future status of Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [158631]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have regular discussions with EU colleagues on matters relating to Kosovo. The agreed EU position on the future status is clear and remains unchanged. We believe that a Kosovo remaining within FRY represents the best option for stability in the region. But this is not an issue for today. The important thing now is to focus on the forthcoming elections, on establishing interim institutions and building Kosovo's capacity for self-government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made our views clear during his visit to Kosovo on 24 April.

  Naira Nadia (Pakistan)
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has received to the representations made by the Government to the Pakistani authorities on 22 March concerning the kidnap and rape of Naira Nadia. [158632]

  Mr. Wilson
  We understand that charges have now been brought against three men and a woman in the Lahore High court in relation to the Naira Nadia case. The first hearing was on 19 April. The hearing has been adjourned until 22 May to give the police more time to complete their investigations.

  We will continue to monitor the court proceedings closely.

  Conflict Diamonds
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in controlling the sale of conflict diamonds. [158633]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White),Official Report, column 748.

  EU (Belgian Presidency)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda for the forthcoming Belgian presidency. [158634]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Belgian Government take over the presidency on 1 July 2001. They have not yet announced their programme. But the Belgian presidency have been mandated to take forward the wide public consultation on the future of Europe called for in the Nice Treaty and launched on 7 March. In the enlargement process, it is scheduled to tackle nine chapters of the "acquis communautaire", thereby sustaining the pace of the enlargement negations. It will carry forward the implementation of the Lisbon economic reform agenda to deliver more and better jobs. Discussion of external trade will focus on efforts to launch a new WTO trade round. The Belgian presidency will also take forward work on the European Security and Defence Policy, preparing a decision by Heads of State and Government for the EU to become operational in military crisis management, by the December Summit in Laeken at the latest. The Laeken Summit will also review progress on the Justice and Home Affairs work programme set at Tampere in October 1999. The Belgian presidency will also witness the final preparations to introduce euro notes and coins in January 2002.

  Syria
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Syria. [158635]

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Syria. [158642]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK and Syria enjoy good and friendly bilateral relations, based on an active and broadening programme of co-operation in support of Syria's stated objective of modernisation. We also conduct a full and wide-ranging dialogue with Syria on regional issues, as part of our broader aim to promote regional stability and encourage the constructive engagement of all parties in pursuit of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace.

  EU Enlargement
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with colleagues from other member states of the European Union relating to enlargement of the EU.[158636].
  581W
  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed enlargement with all of his EU colleagues at the General Affairs Council on 9 April and expects to do so again on 14 May. Since January, we have had separate discussions on enlargement with many of our colleagues in the EU and candidate countries, and will continue to do so.

  Turkey
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government on allegations of rape and other human rights abuses by state agencies. [158638]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 23 March our Embassy in Ankara raised with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs the case of nineteen people who made allegations about rape and torture in police custody, and have since been charged with insulting the security forces. We regularly raise specific human rights cases with the Turkish authorities.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Turkey. [R] [158644]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK enjoys good bilatrial relations with Turkey. Turkey is an important partner for Britain and the EU, a key NATO ally, a candidate for membership of the EU and a major market for UK exporters.

  Sweden
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sweden. [158641]

  Mr. Vaz
  Relations remain close and substantial. Sweden is running an effective and impartial EU presidency. Our aim is to support the Swedish Government in this task. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I and many other British Ministers meet or talk to our Swedish counterparts on a regular and frequent basis.

  Belize Telecommunications
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the dispute between the British high commission in Belmopan and Belize Telecommunications has been resolved. [158643]

  Mr. Battle
  No. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 532W. The issue is now in the hands of the Belize Public Utilities Commission and the Belizean Government. We hope that it will be resolved soon.

  India
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with India. [158646]

  Mr. Wilson
  We enjoy excellent relations with India. Ministers regularly discuss issues of mutual interest with their Indian counterparts and a number of successful visits have taken place over the last year. We are aware of the 582W
  hon. Member's interest in the case of Peter Bleach, a British national in prison in Calcutta. We continue to raise this case at the highest level with the Indian authorities.

  EU (Accountability)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to increase the democratic accountability of the European Union. [158614]

  Mr. Vaz
  European democracy is strongest in the Parliaments within the member states. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his Warsaw speech a new proposal for the institutional involvement of the national parliaments through delegations to a second chamber of the European parliament. We secured agreement at Nice that the role of national parliaments would be one of the agenda items for the next intergovernmental conference.

  At Nice we were also successful in securing the first ever increase in the voting strength of the UK in the Council of Ministers and acceptance of the democratic principle that votes should more fairly reflect population size.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas funded by his Department in Zimbabwe. [159568]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are currently funding, from our Human Rights Project Fund, a project carried out by a Zimbabwean NGO which is designed to offer support to victims of torture. The same NGO is also working on the prevention of torture in Zimbabwe.

  West Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what support his Department is providing to long-term relief efforts aimed at solving the refugee crisis in West Timor; and what steps are being taken to ensure a secure environment for refugees and humanitarian agencies in West Timor; [159925]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the office of UNHCR on their decision to cease operations in West Timor at the end of the year. [159926]

  Mr. Battle
  We remain deeply concerned about the situation in the refugee camps. We maintain regular contact with UNHCR and I discussed West Timor with Mr. Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in Geneva on 22 March. Representatives from the British Embassy in Jakarta visited West Timor on 16–17 April to assess the situation there. Acquiring information in the field strengthens HMG's ability to influence the key players towards resolving the situation. We are also encouraging the UN to keep the situation in West Timor under review, so that UN agencies can resume operations in the camps as soon as possible.

  The Indonesian Government have announced that from 21–24 May they will conduct a registration of the refugees remaining in West Timor with the aim of speeding up the

  583W
  repatriation of those who wish to return. On 10 April, five international NGOs agreed to work in the camps in West Timor.

  Council of the European Union (Business)
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for May and the major European Union events for the period between 31 May and October. [160152]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information is as follows:May 7—ECOFIN—Brussels

  1. Adoption of the provisional agenda

  2. (poss.) Approval of the list of "A" items

  3. Follow-up of the Stockholm European Council (23–24 March)

  4. Commission Recommendation for the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 2001

  Debate

  5. Economic dialogue between EU and Russia

  Preparation

  6. Preliminary draft EU Budget for 2002

  Presentation by the Commission and orientation debate

  7. Pensions

  (poss.) Proposal for a Directive on the activities of institutions for occupational retirement provision

  Council conclusions

  (poss.) Communication on taxation of pensions

  Presentation by the Commission

  8. E-commerce and financial services

  9. A. O. B.

  p.m.

  EUROGROUP 7 May (morning)

  Macroeconomic dialogue at political level (late afternoon)

  Meeting between the ECOFIN Troika and a delegation of the Economic and Monetary Committee of the European Parliament (early morning)

  Other business

  5–6—Nykoping—Gymnich

  7—Brussels—Employment and Social Council (possible)

  14–15—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  14–15—Brussels—Industry and Energy Council

  22–23—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  28–29—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28—Brussels—Education and Youth Council

  31—Brussels—Development Council

  31—Brussels—Internal Market Council

  No agendas for the above are available yet.

  The following are the principa1 events in the EU between 1 June and October 2001 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  June

  5

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  7–8

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  11–12

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  11

  Luxembourg

  Employment/Social Affairs Council

  15–16

  Gothenburg

  European Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council (possible)

  584W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  21

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  25–26

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  Transport/Telecommunications Council

  July

  6–7

  Brussels

  Informal Employment and Social Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  Regional Territories Council (Informal)?

  16–17

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  August

  There are no Councils scheduled for August

  September

  8–9

  Brussels

  Gymnich

  14–16

  Brussels

  Environment and Transport Council

  16–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  October

  1

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  11–12

  Luxembourg

  Defence Council (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16

  Luxembourg

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  16

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the Island of St. Helena. [158623]

  Mr. Battle
  Various events are being arranged in St. Helena throughout 2002 to celebrate the quincentenary of the discovery of the island. These include sports days, carnivals, a son et lumière and musical pageant, as well as the opening of the new museum to which we have made a financial contribution.

  We are in touch with the Governor about other ways to celebrate this anniversary.

  Lockerbie Trial
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report by Dr. Hans Van Koechler on the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. [158626]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UN Secretary-General was tasked by the Security Council to appoint international observers to the Lockerbie trial. These observers, representing five organisations, were not UN observers and, as such, did not have the task of reporting to the Secretary-General.

  One of these observers, Dr. Hans Van Koechler, has written a report in a private capacity.

  We understand that Dr. Koechler has been complimentary about the professionalism shown in the way the trial was administered by the Scottish Court

  585W
  Service, the Scottish Prison Service and the police. However, Dr. Koechler appears to have misunderstood a number of aspects of criminal procedure and processes in this case.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Flooding (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions (1) when he will reply to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham's letters dated 30 January, 12 February and 14 March and the letters from the Shrewsbury Chronicle dated 11 January, 15 March and 22 March concerning the "Bale Us Out" campaign about business rate relief for flooded premises; and if he will make a statement; [156584]

  (2) for what reason queries about the "Bale Us Out" campaign by the Shrewsbury Chronicle have been referred to his private office; and if he will make a statement. [156579]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The Environment Agency is investigating options for reducing the risk of flooding in Shrewsbury by the construction of flood defences to protect the vulnerable areas of the town.

  An earlier scheme which would have been eligible for MAFF funding was refused planning permission by the local authority.

  The Agency is now fast-tracking this project and, subject to the usual consents, is aiming to start construction this autumn. The Agency is currently preparing an Environmental Statement and planning application.

  With reference to business rate relief, as with all cases where business is disrupted, businesses can apply to the local valuation office to have their rateable value reduced while premises are affected.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his holding answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham of 2 April, on the Shrewsbury Chronicle's "Bale Us Out Campaign", when he will give a substantive reply to the questions. [158430]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have replied to my hon. Friend's questions today.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with banks regarding the waiving of interest payments of debts accrued directly as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158723]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 6 April 2001 Official Report, columns 319–20W. In addition to the sympathetic approach which the banks have announced, the Government announced on 6 April an extension to the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme to assist businesses suffering cash flow problems due to the effects of foot and mouth. When the Revenue agrees
  586W
  to deferral of tax or National Insurance Contributions because a business is in serious financial difficulty due to the effects of foot and mouth, neither interest nor surcharges will be payable on deferred tax and National Insurance Contributions over the period they are deferred.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the Minister for the Environment's oral statement of 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 32, if he will initiate an immediate study into (a) the formation of dioxins due to combustion of chlorinated compounds in carcases burnt by napalm and (b) the formation of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons due to reactions involving naphtha compounds in napalm. [159231]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The chemical reactions from burning napalm are already well understood. Napalm is therefore not being used to burn carcases, as both forms of napalm available produce very toxic compounds when they burn.

  Station Franchises
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the requirements for facilities at stations beyond those contained in existing franchise contracts. [158828]

  Mr. Hill
  One of the aims of franchise replacement is to secure improvements in facilities at stations. The Government have also made available £105 million which is distributed through the Rail Passengers Partnership scheme. The scheme is designed to encourage rail initiatives at a local level and station improvements would be eligible for consideration. In addition, there is a £225 million programme to enhance passenger facilities at stations over the next five years.

  Railways (Code of Practice)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority contributes to the Government's goal of tackling social exclusion. [158830]

  Mr. Hill
  The SRA's interim Directions and Guidance from the Secretary of State require it:"to take into account any Government policies which are relevant to the provision of passenger service in so far as they affect, or may be affected by, the fulfilment of your objectives".

  A revised code of practice, "Meeting the needs of disabled passengers", will be issued in the summer; and the SRA is also promoting personal security for passengers, in particular women, through replacement franchise agreements

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport in and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implementation of the commitment in the 1998 White Paper on the Future of Transport that rail operators will be asked to report on their success in meeting the objectives in the code of practice for rail operators; and he will place a copy of these reports in the Library. [158829]
  587W
  Mr. Hill
  I will write further to my hon. Friend about these reports. The Strategic Rail Authority is working with Sustrans and BikeRail to encourage best practice and will be taking over the sponsorship from Sustrans of the Cycle Mark award scheme.

  Heat Insulation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has had about the suitability of BS 5422 as a heat insulation standard; and if he will assess the benefits of raising the level of heat insulation for pipework specified in BS 5422. [158809]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The current (1995) edition of Approved Document indicates that if the relevant recommendations in BS 5422 (1990) for thermal insulation of heating and hot water pipes, ducts and vessels are adopted the requirements in the Building Regulations for this aspect of the conservation of fuel and power in buildings would be met. A consultation document on amendments to Approved Document L was published last summer and included references to the prospective new edition of BS 5422 (2001) for heating and hot water systems as before, and for air conditioning systems including their attendant chilled water and refrigerant services. These proposed amendments were accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment in which the beneficial effects of thermal insulation were taken into account, but BS 5422 was not explicitly identified. There was no adverse comment in the response to the consultation so the references to BS 5422 have been carried forward into the interim draft Approved Document L published on 9 April 2001.

  The suitability of BS 5422 as a heat insulation standard for industrial processes is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role the Strategic Rail Authority has in the publication of Railtrack's Annual Network Management Statement for Great Britain for 2001; and when he expects the document to be published. [159182]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack is required to consult the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) regarding the SRA's present and future proposals for the provision of railway services. The SRA will work with Railtrack to identify, prioritise, prepare and put out to tender the enhancement projects that will increase capacity and improve safety and performance on the network.

  Railtrack expects to publish Part 1 of its Network Management Statement, on the core railway and its asset stewardship obligations, by the end of May 2001. Part 2 of the statement, to be published in the autumn, will identify enhancement projects and set out a procurement method agreed with the SRA.

  "Are You Doing Your Bit?" Campaign
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans 588W
  he has to change the funding arrangements of the campaign, "Are you doing your bit?", in 2001–02; and if he will make a statement; [159256]

  (2) what funding he plans to allocate to the campaign, "Are you doing your bit?", in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [159257]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The "Are you doing your bit?" campaign, which promotes energy efficiency, transport, water conservation and waste reduction messages, was launched by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1998. Its budget provides for a range of activity, including an annual road show, in addition to the television and radio advertising campaign.

  £ 5 million of the budget identified for the overall campaign in 2001–02 (approximately £ 8 million) has been redirected to comprise one element of the £ 15 million package of short-term practical help for rural businesses in the areas worst affected by foot and mouth disease. The package was announced on 11 April by the Minister for the Environment and Chairman of the Rural Taskforce.

  Details of the advertising budget for DETR (Central) for 2002–03 and 2003–04 have not yet been decided. Allocation of advertising expenditure to particular campaigns, including "Are you doing your bit?", will be on the basis of a strategic assessment of policy priorities by Ministers.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many pensioners are eligible to apply for the free bus pass which entitles the holder to half-price fares; how many have applied; and what estimate he has made of the likely cost of the scheme. [159372]

  Mr. Hill
  The relevant provisions are already in force in Greater London. From 1 June, all pensioners in England—an estimated 9 million—will be eligible, but application is to the relevant local authority; no central records are kept. The additional costs of guaranteeing half-fare reductions for pensioners on buses have been estimated at around £39 million a year, to be met from adjustments to Revenue Support Grant.

  Gait Burrows Nature Reserve
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps English Nature is taking(a) to ensure that Gait Burrows National Nature Reserve is not damaged by the Lunesdale Hunt and (b) to remedy damage done by hunting. [159496]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Recent incidents at Gait Barrows National Nature Reserve have been brought to the attention of the Lancashire Constabulary. English Nature has written to the chairman of the Lunesdale Hunt requesting a full explanation of the incidents, and has withdrawn permission for the Hunt to enter Gait Barrows National Nature Reserve. This will be reconsidered only once English Nature has received and considered a response.

  I understand the physical damage to the site is considered to be short term and the site will recover through natural processes.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tube trains were running in each year since 1994; and how many tube train drivers were employed by London Underground in each of the same years. [159276]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LUL) who have provided the following information on the total number of peak trains required for service as at July of each year.

  Year

  Total number of peak trains

  1994

  —

  1995

  —

  1996

  464

  1997

  476

  1998

  484

  1999

  489

  2000

  505

  LUL inform me that figures are not available for the years 1994 and 1995.

  In relation to the question on tube train drivers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to an earlier question on 9 April 2001, Official Report, column 386W, which contains information on the number of train drivers employed by London Underground (LUL) from 1995 to present. LUL inform me that information on driver numbers prior to 1995 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Fuel Transport
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions took place with the German nuclear authorities in advance of permission being granted for the recent resumption of spent nuclear fuel transport from Germany to Sellafield. [159730]

  Mr. Hill
  Discussions have taken place between my officials and those of the competent authorities in Germany, and other European countries, to ensure there will be no repetition of the circumstances of excessive contamination which led to the suspension of spent fuel transports from Europe to Sellafield in mid 1998.

  Euratom
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 85W, on Euratom, if, he will place in the Library copies of the Euratom nuclear site verification visit reports. [159755]

  Mr. Meacher
  Copies of the verification visit reports for Dounreay (10–14 May 1993 and 15–18 March 1999) and Sellafield (6–10 December 1993) are held by the Libraries of the House. The report for Dungeness (6–10 November 2000) has not yet been issued by the European Commission. Copies will be placed in the Libraries when it is published.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list those applications where incinerator ash or waste lime or dust was ultimately released to land by(a) site location, (b) year, (c) tonnage, (d) source and (e) end-use between 1990 and 2001; and if he will provide associated test results produced by his Department; [159491]

  (2) what regulations govern the use of incinerator ash, waste lime and dust, for chemical treatment; if he will list the (a) end destination, (b) usage of the residues and (c) end-product of such treatments and list sites where such material has been ultimately released to land, retail outlets or the food chain by (i) site location, (ii) year, (iii) tonnage, (iv) source and (v) end-use between 1990 and 2001; and if he will provide associated test results produced by his Department; [159489]

  (3) if he will list by (a) location, (b) year, (c) tonnage, (d) source and (e) specific end-use the sites which received site-specific authorisation to use incinerator ash, lime and dust in unbound construction applications between 1990 and 2001; what the nature of the ash was; and if he will provide associated test results produced by his Department. [159490]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The deposit, recovery or disposal of waste from incinerators is subject to the waste management controls set out in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 and the Special Waste Regulations 1996.

  No information is held on the use of incinerator ash, waste lime or dust for: chemical treatment; unbound construction applications; or any other applications, prior to the formation of the Environment Agency in 1996. The Environment Agency have advised that such information for the period 1996 to 2001 is not held centrally. No associated test results have been produced by my Department.

  However, the Environment Agency have also advised that they are currently carrying out an investigation into the destination of waste from municipal waste incinerators. I will ensure that, on completion of this investigation, copies of its results are sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Library of the House.

  Road Incidents (Terminology)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy when referring in official documents to road incidents to use the word crash instead of accidents and if he will make a statement. [159790]

  Mr. Hill
  No. It is well understood that many road accidents are due to the careless, if not reckless, action of some road users, but there is nothing to be gained from a change in terminology.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will place the register of interests of the board members of the Regional Development Agencies in the Library. [159526]
  591W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The English Regional Development Agencies' (RDAs) registers of members interests are the responsibility of the RDAs themselves and are available to the public on request. As such, the Secretary of State is not in a position to place them in the Library of the House.

  The Devolved Administrations are responsible for development agencies outside England (eg Scottish Enterprise, Welsh Development Agency).

  Local Government Act
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when regulations will be laid before the House to remove the inconsistencies in legislation as a result of the provisions of Part II of the Local Government Act 2000; and if he will set up an inquiry to investigate the reasons for the delay in discovering the problem and alerting local authorities to the situation. [159846]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our intention is to lay all the necessary orders for councils to operate from June 2001 leader and cabinet constitutions. The first of these orders was laid before Parliament on 27 April 2001. As highlighted in the guidance issued on 26 October 2000 these orders have been included in our implementation plans from the outset. With the extended parliamentary consideration of some of the other secondary legislation made under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000 and with the postponement of the local elections it was not possible to make these orders as soon as we had originally planned and local authorities were informed of this as soon as the Elections Act 2001 received Royal Assent. No inquiry is necessary.

  Travel Retailing Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place a copy of the full report entitled "Travel Information and Retailing Policy Review: Final Response" in the Library. [159946]

  Mr. Hill
  Cap Gemini Ernst and Young prepared a report entitled "Travel Information and Retailing Policy Review: Final Report" for my Department last July. The report was prepared to inform Transport 2010: 10 Year Plan and a summary was placed on my Department's website. The full report was not published at the time as aspects of it were considered to be commercially confidential. However, our concerns about commercial confidentiality have passed and I have today placed a copy in the Library. Further copies will be available from my Department.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to exchange imperial for metric measures for signs on public roads and for use in traffic laws. [159991]

  Mr. Hill
  Weight limit signs in metric tonnes were included in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981, and signs using imperial tons ceased to be valid from 1 January 1990. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 specify that signs indicating restrictions on vehicle width, length and 592W
  height may only show metric units in addition to, and not instead of, imperial units. We have no plans to change these Regulations to allow the use of metric distances on speed limit signs, distance plates placed with warning signs, or direction signs.

  East London Line
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Old Bishopsgate goods yard will be redeveloped as part of the East London line proposals. [159988]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced funding for the northern extension of the East London line on 2 April. It is intended that advance works for construction of the northern extension will be carried out by London Underground Ltd., and will start at the end of this year. The programme for the main works, which will include the Bishopsgate Goods Yard site, is under discussion between the SRA and LUL, and will be finalised later in the year.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Diesel
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) of 24 April 2001,Official Report, column 217, if he will set out the basis of the calculations for the cost per tonne of carbon saved for (a) biodiesel and (b) road fuel gases compared with ultra-low sulphur petrol. [159992]

  Mr. Hill
  As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury emphasised in her 24 April statement, the primary benefit of biodiesel is the carbon saved compared to fossil diesel, whereas that of road fuel gases is the improved air quality. Therefore, the Government do not seek to compare or base decisions on the two types of fuel on the basis of the relative carbon saving and their costs.

  The carbon cost estimates for biodiesel from oilseed rape quoted by my hon. Friend are based on the estimated cost of production, and the estimated greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil diesel emissions, including greenhouse gases emitted from the use of agricultural machinery, fertilisers and pesticides, and from the extraction, production and transportation of biodiesel.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions following the case in the Queen's Bench Division between L. Benson and Copeland borough council, what plans he has to seek to restore the previous position whereby the spouse of a licence holder could use a private hire vehicle for any purpose other than for hire; when the case was heard; and if he will make a statement. [159863]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on 26 July 2000,Official Report, column 611W.

  Footpath Closures (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he required
  593W
  Kent county council to conduct a risk assessment before it took decisions to (a) close all footpaths and (b) keep them closed. [159990]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has made a series of amendments to The Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 since 27 February this year, which conferred on certain local authorities, including Kent county council, the power to close public rights of way in the interests of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease. Those amendments did not require local authorities to undertake risk assessments before exercising the power. MAFF published a veterinary risk assessment on the risk of causing new outbreaks of foot and mouth disease if footpaths were open to the public on 22 March, which provided the basis of guidance to local authorities on reopening paths issued by MAFF on 28 March. This was supplemented with a framework, which my Department issued on 25 April, for assessing the risks associated with reopening rights of way, which is intended to help local authorities speed up the reopening process.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government propose to take to reduce the numbers of homeless households being housed in Bed and Breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [160120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The reasons behind the increased use of Bed and Breakfast are complex. I am therefore setting up a specific Bed and Breakfast Unit to look at what more can be done to help get people, particularly families with children, out of Bed and Breakfast and into more appropriate accommodation.

  We believe that people have a right to decent accommodation especially when at their most vulnerable. At the moment almost 10,000 homeless households are in Bed and Breakfast accommodation. I have told this House in the past that this figure is unacceptable. The Government have a clear policy on the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation for homeless families with children: it should be used only as a last resort. As well as the high financial costs of Bed and Breakfast, there are unquantifiable social costs in terms of health, education and lost employment opportunities.

  Many authorities are successful in minimising their use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation. I appreciate and commend local authorities' efforts in these areas. However, the circumstances and the performance of local authorities vary and some are struggling to meet their statutory duties on housing homeless people.

  The new Unit will look at developing solutions to help these authorities reduce their use of Bed and Breakfast. The Unit will be small and have a limited lifespan of two years to reflect the specific nature of its remit. It will be led by someone with hands-on experience and will work closely with existing bodies and practitioners from local authorities, RSLs and voluntary agencies. One of the Unit's key tasks will be to disseminate existing good practice to help authorities implement or pilot new ideas. It will help local authorities to set targets where appropriate, and to develop implementation programmes to meet those targets. As well as providing advice and
  594W
  support, the Unit will also influence wider debates and ensure that people working on regeneration and other related projects take into account the impact of their work on homelessness.

  Housing families in Bed and Breakfast is good for no-one—it is expensive, it is inadequate and it has unacceptable long-term effects. I am convinced that by working together we can find ways of reducing this unhelpful dependence on Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in concluding local Public Service Agreements. [160198]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have today concluded a third group of local Public Service Agreements (PSAs). The agreements are with the following authorities: Camden, Coventry and Newham. The three signed today, taken together with recent signatories Milton Keynes, Newcastle and Surrey, mean that local PSAs have now been signed with all the 20 authorities that took part in the pilot scheme announced last summer.

  Local PSAs will enable councils to deliver even greater improvements in services for local people. The targets set by councils have a direct impact on communities—from initiatives to tackle drug abuse among young people, dealing with abandoned vehicles, to strategies to reduce the number of deaths on the roads. We will be working with the pilot authorities and others to make them a success, and to roll out local PSAs to other upper-tier authorities over the next two years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Expenditure and Caseloads
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library information on social security expenditure and caseloads on a benefit by benefit basis. [160154]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have placed in the Library seven statistical tables showing breakdowns of historical and forecast benefit expenditure and caseloads for Great Britain. This information will be made available on the Department's internet site shortly.

  The tables show that social security spending is now firmly under control; the total cost of benefits and tax credits together is growing at under 2 per cent. this Parliament compared to 4 per cent. in the last Parliament—the lowest rate of growth for any Parliament since the Second World War.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the time it takes citizens to make contact with an operator regarding the Minimum Income Guarantee when telephoning 0800 028 1111 from Wales. [158836]
  595W
  Mr. Rooker
  There is no difference in the level of service offered by operators of the Minimum Income Guarantee Teleclaim service when answering telephone calls from customers in Wales. On average, operators are taking around a minute and a half to answer calls and the duration of an incoming call is four minutes or 20 minutes where a customer opts to be taken through the electronic claim form process.

  SERPS
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what entitlement to inherited SERPS remains after someone who has contracted out of SERPS into an occupational scheme subsequently transfers to a personal pension plan; and what action his Department has taken to inform people that they could lose out by making such a change. [159701]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1997, there has been no link between contracted-out pension rights and SERPS. A transfer of rights accrued since that date would have no bearing on possible entitlement to inherited SERPS.

  For the transfer of pension rights accrued before 1997 in a contracted-out salary related pension scheme, the situation will depend on an individual's circumstances.

  We therefore recommend that a person should seek independent financial advice before transferring pension rights from an occupational scheme to a personal pension.

  Pension Credit Consultation Paper
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the responses to the pension credit consultation paper (Cm 4900). [159704]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer on 24 April 2001,Official Report, column 210W.

  Euro Programme
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what work has so far been undertaken by his Department's Euro Programme team; what range of costs has been estimated by the DSS Euro Programme team for the cost of converting the social security system into euros; and when a report on the DSS Euro Programme team's work will be published. [159700]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is conducting work in accordance with the guidance given in the Outline National Changeover Plans and reported in the Fourth Report on Euro Preparations published on 6 November 2000. Should the UK decide to enter the single currency, costs to the Department will depend on the approach taken and this is not yet known. There are no plans to prepare a report on the DSS Euro Programme team's work.

  Fraud (Scotland)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the recorded rate of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud was in Scotland in each year since 1997. [159697]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available.
  596W
  At the start of April this year we began the Housing Benefit Review which will, for the first time, deliver a continuous, comprehensive, national measurement of programme loss through fraud and error in Housing Benefit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Incapacitated Patients
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many responses she has received to the consultation paper, "Who Decides? Making Decisions on Behalf of Mentally Incapacitated Adults" (Cm 3803); how many respondents were(a) in favour of and (b) against withholding food and fluids from incapacitated patients who are not dying; and if she will make a statement. [159181]

  Jane Kennedy
  Over 4,000 responses to the consultation paper were received. The question of whether respondents were in favour of or against withholding food and fluids from incapacitated patients who are not dying was not posed in the consultation paper. The consultation paper did ask whether the discontinuation of artificial nutrition and hydration should be lawful for defined patients if certain statutory criteria are met and whether"patients who have no prospect of recovery who are either unconscious or in a permanent vegetative state"
  is a suitable definition for this class of patients. There was a large and varied response to these questions.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list measures she has taken to tackle domestic violence since 1 May 1997. [159417]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government implemented Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, with the exception of section 60 of the Act, in October 1997. Part IV of the Act provides for a single set of civil remedies to deal with domestic violence and to regulate occupation of the family home, through two specific types of order: the occupation order and the non-molestation order. These remedies are available at all levels of court (magistrates, county, High) with jurisdiction in family matters. The remedies are available to both men and women. A much wider range of people are able to apply for orders under Part IV than under the previous law. In addition, police powers to deal with domestic violence have been strengthened. Consideration is currently being given to the implementation of Section 60, which provides for third parties to make applications under Part IV.

  During 2000, the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law proposed guidelines on child contact and domestic violence. These guidelines have recently been endorsed by the Government and have the support of the President of the Family Division. Although primary legislation is felt to be premature at this stage, the guidelines have been partially incorporated into law following the judgment in Re L, V, M. & H. The Government are promulgating the guidelines, with the help of the President of the Family Division, through the Judicial Studies Board and a variety

  597W
  of other sources. The Government will also monitor the effectiveness of the guidelines and keep under review the possible need for legislation in the future.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Transports (EU)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss transport of animals between EU states; and if he will make a statement. [158640]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to meet the President of the European Commission at ministerial level. However, officials have been working closely with the Commission on expected proposals to strengthen the European Union Directive on the protection of animals during transport.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will investigate the reasons why the chief executive of the Intervention Board has not replied to the letter dated 6 April from Shropshire county council's chief trading standards officer regarding concerns over the handling of the foot and mouth crisis. [159984]

  Ms Quin
  Johnston McNeill, chief executive of the Intervention Board, replied to the letter from Shropshire county council on 27 April. This was one day outside the target IB sets itself for replying within 10 working days, owing to the exceptionally high workload generated by the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how long he estimates carcases buried at Throckmorton will take to decay fully; [157065]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the length of time it will take for carcases buried at Throckmorton airfield to fully decompose. [157059]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Different parts of mammalian corpses decay at different rates (for example, horn and hair are slowly degradable). It is estimated that 60 per cent. of the carcase is readily degradable, 15 per cent. is moderately degradable, 20 per cent. is slowly degradable, and 5 per cent. is effectively inert. With respect to leachate production, it is estimated that within approximately 10 years the contaminant load will be reduced to background levels.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is giving pig farmers with a build-up of stock during the foot and mouth outbreak about the disposal of slurry when they have no on-farm disposal facilities and their normal outlets refuse to take the slurry for use on agricultural land; and if he will make a statement. [157014]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Advice for farmers on agricultural practices during the foot and mouth outbreak is included in MAFF's literature and website, and is also posted on the NFU website.
  598W
  The Environment Agency has issued guidance on the management of organic wastes on farms. The Agency recognises that storage capacity for slurry storage may need to be increased as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. Additional storage lagoons may be constructed provided they meet basic Agency requirements on siting, lining and construction in order to avoid any immediate risks to water. The Environment Agency should be contacted before proceeding with construction and use so that appropriate guidance can be given, and the location noted. The Agency can be contacted on 0845 933 3111 (9 am to 5 pm) or on their Emergency Hotline 0800 80 70 60.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specifications are required from rendering plants receiving foot and mouth carcases. [156857]

  Ms Quin
  Rendering plants must meet a list of specifications, drawn up by the Ministry, in order to be permitted to receive carcases. It is crucial that all rendering plants used for the disposal of animals slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak have adequate biosecurity measures in place. The Ministry also takes various factors into account when considering the use of a rendering plant, including the proximity of the nearest livestock holding and road access to the plant.

  Any effluence from, and air exhausted by, the rendering plant is treated to kill the foot and mouth virus, and strict procedures are in place to ensure thorough cleansing and disinfection of all people and vehicles coming into contact with carcases.

  Carcases for disposal at a rendering plant must be transported in leak-proof lorries. Leaks are checked for by part filling the lorries with water and tilting them to 30 degrees. All carcases are individually disinfected after slaughter and the lorries are covered with plastic sheeting, which is weighed down with straw or sawdust which is also heavily disinfected. The lorry is then covered with a tight fitting tarpaulin. This procedure reduces any risk of spread of the infection during transportation to a very low level.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning VAT default surcharges enforced on VAT liabilities subject to time to pay arrangements introduced in response to the foot and mouth outbreak. [156814]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: The Ministry has not raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Rural Task Force under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will look at aspects of costs and burdens relating to the rural economy that arise as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the final decision on the slaughter of individual infected herds and flocks was devolved to inspecting vets without reference to(a) regional or divisional departmental offices and (b) the Department's officer in London. [156654]
  599W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: During an outbreak, foot and mouth disease may be diagnosed clinically by the vet on the ground when there are links apparent to other cases. This has been the case from the early stages of the current outbreak.

  The normal practice is that the clinical diagnosis is phoned through to Head Office in London and authorisation to slaughter stock is then given during the same telephone call. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister and Chief Veterinary Officer advised on 27 March 2001 that the inspecting veterinary surgeon could authorise slaughter immediately to ensure the slaughter process was not delayed if any problem in communicating with Head Office occurred.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects that pigs at Manor Farm, Bucknell will be able to be moved for slaughter; [155655]

  (2) when he expects that cattle from (a) Marsh Farm, Fritwell and (b) Manor Farm, Chacombe, near Banbury, will be able to be moved for slaughter. [155656]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 April 2001, Official Report, column 256W.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what temperature the pyre is required to reach in the burning of animal carcases; how long it takes to reach that temperature; and what assessment he has made of the risk of airborne travel of the virus in the intervening period. [153954]

  Ms Quin
  The Pirbright Institute of Animal Health has informed the Ministry that the virus is inactivated at temperatures above 55 degrees centigrade. It is not possible to set a definite time required to reach this temperature. There may be small termo-resistant factions in which the virus survives up to 70 degrees, but the expert opinion is that these factions are insignificant in the possible spread of infection from pyres.

  Once rigor mortis sets in (approximately 24 hours after slaughter) lactic acid accumulates, destroying the virus in the muscles. Carcases are sprayed with an approved disinfectant before being burnt which destroys a large amount of the virus, greatly reducing the risk of spread of infection from the outside of the carcase. These procedures ensure that much of the virus is destroyed before the pyre is lit, and reduces the risk of transmission of the disease via plumes from the pyre.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the RSPCA in respect of the cull of sheep and cattle following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157898]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I have been in regular contact with the RSPCA who are also represented on the foot and mouth disease stakeholder group and the foot and mouth Animal Welfare Consultative Group. They also have staff at the Intervention Board at Newcastle. Along with local government officers and MAFF staff their assistance with identifying priorities for the Welfare Slaughter Scheme and help with feed distribution has made an invaluable contribution to protecting animal welfare.
  600W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the veterinary surgeon who visited the Heddon-on-the-Wall farm in February and found evidence of foot and mouth disease in the pigs was the same veterinary surgeon who visited on 25 January; and if some of the same pigs were inspected on both occasions; [158445]

  (2) if he will identify (a) the veterinary surgeons and (b) other personnel (i) employed by and (ii) acting on behalf of his Department, who visited the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall in Northumberland run by the Waughs (A) on and (B) near 25 January; and if he will list the movements of such persons in the previous four weeks. [158380]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 23 April 2001]: These matters are under inquiry. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment at this stage.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that no dead farm stock will be dumped at landfill sites adjacent to land on which sheep and livestock are kept. [157780]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: It may not always be possible to use only landfill sites without neighbouring livestock. We will, however, arrange to purchase stock on land adjacent to a disposal site, if there is a pressing need.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when animals will be allowed to be slaughtered for food. [157392]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: A licence to slaughter scheme was introduced on 2 March, with strict conditions to ensure that animals were moved directly to abattoirs approved by the Meat Hygiene Service on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

  In addition, from 23 April animals from farms in the Infected Areas may be moved direct to slaughter to an abattoir within the same Infected Area. These movements are subject to a veterinary visit by a MAFF Local Veterinary Inspector who will carry out an inspection of the animals to check for clinical signs of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that his Department's website is kept up to date with comprehensive and accurate information, with particular reference to the location of new outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [157370]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The website is updated a number of times every day. When new cases are confirmed, details of the infected premises are added to the site.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in(a) digging trenches and (b) burying carcases at Throckmorton airfield; and if he will make a statement. [157248]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The army has made good progress in constructing the mass burial site at Throckmorton airfield. The burial process began on 3 April 2001. As of 25 April, the carcases of 102,722 animals had been disposed of on site. This includes 89,404 sheep, 9,071 cattle, 3,842 pigs, 400 deer, three goats and two longhorns.
  601W
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average price for(a) a cow and (h) a sheep was at markets on 1 February; and what it is currently. [159175]

  Ms Quin
  On 1 February, the average price for clean lambs was 111.44p/kilogram liveweight. Liveweight sales are not currently taking place, but the average price reported by abattoirs slaughtering sheep for human consumption in the week ending 6 April (the latest week for which confirmed figures are available) was 193p/kilogram deadweight, equivalent to 91p/kilogram liveweight. Cows are not normally allowed to be slaughtered for human consumption and their market price is therefore determined by the rates of payment fixed under the over-30-months scheme. In February, the rate of payment was 50.936p/kilogram liveweight. The scheme is currently suspended but, were it operational, the rate for April would be 49.536p/kilogram liveweight. The change in rates results purely from movements in the euro/sterling exchange rate.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the market price was for a pig on 1 February; and what the current price is. [159349]

  Ms Quin
  The average weekly GB pig price on 1 February was 95.85p per kg dead weight. The equivalent current market price, as reported on 25 April, is 95.54p per kg.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the application of the welfare disposal scheme to livestock from restricted areas. [159258]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: We are conscious that there have been concerns about the ability of some farmers to dispose of animals through the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. The scheme applies in Infected Areas as it does in all other parts of the country. Where premises are subject to more stringent restrictions, on-farm slaughter under the LWDS remains an option, and we are assessing applications to ensure that the most pressing welfare cases receive priority. We are endeavouring to maximise other avenues of disposal for animals in these areas, both in the LWDS and through slaughter for the market.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the compensation payments for cattle over-30-months old that could not be moved to slaughter because of foot and mouth restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [159423]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The rates of payment for cattle entered into the over-30-months scheme are set by EU regulations. As far as we are aware, the Commission has no plans to review these. The Government art keeping the position of producers affected in these ways under review. In the meantime, cattle of all ages may be entered into the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme if the circumstances are appropriate.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consideration he has given to the possible re-introduction of the disease in determining the 'stamp out' policy on foot and mouth disease; [157590]
  602W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the effects of globalisation on the spread of disease to British livestock; [157592]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the probability of foot and mouth disease being re-introduced into Britain during the (a) next five years, (b) next 10 years and (c) next 20 years. [157591]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The UK and European Union import controls, based on recommendations in the International Office of Epizootics (OIE) International Animal Health Code, are designed to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases. This code sets out the conditions that will allow safe trade between countries of differing disease status.

  The last outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country was in 1981. Investigations at the time indicated that the likely transmission of the virus was wind-borne from France. A range of controls to prevent the introduction of foot and mouth disease (e.g. on imports and waste food disposal) have therefore been effective for the last 34 years.

  If the existing controls are fully observed, the probability of reintroduction of foot and mouth disease is low. In addition, my Department is looking at what lessons can be learned from the current outbreak. Including putting in place measures to strengthen our current controls.

  Once the country is free of foot and mouth disease, and in the event of any future outbreaks, our control policy will be in line with the EC Foot and Mouth Control directive and OIE's recommendations for re-establishing disease free status.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent his Department's headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons for(a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons. [160008]

  Mr. Morley
  Hydrofluorocarbons are used in air conditioning equipment, and refrigeration equipment in kitchens and tea points (e.g. domestic refrigerators).

  The equipment is maintained in good order, and is being replaced when maintenance becomes too costly or no longer feasible. Over the years only small quantities of refrigerant have been purchased to maintain equipment in good running order. Details of quantities purchased since 1995 are not readily available.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of(a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other relevant energy needs of London headquarters buildings and premises owned and leased by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [160007]

  Mr. Morley
  Maintenance is carried out by approved contractors, who supply refrigerants as necessary. It is anticipated that all equipment using hydrofluorocarbons will be replaced by equipment using more acceptable refrigerants within the present deadline.
  603W
  Following the earlier agreement to phase out the production of chlorofluorocarbons, an exercise was undertaken in the Department to convert or replace all equipment using chlorofluorocarbons. This was accomplished well within the statutory time limit. Most conversions/replacements involved the use of hydrofluorocarbons.

  As HCFC's are now being phased out another rolling programme is being planned to replace this refrigerant with environmentally acceptable alternatives.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which London headquarters building and premises owned or leased by his Department use(a) chlorofluorocarbons and (b) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other relevant energy needs. [160006]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) The Department has phased out the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  (b) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are used to a small degree in all London headquarters buildings owned or leased by MAFF.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the largest single payment made to an applicant was in 2000 under the arable area payments scheme. [159845]

  Ms Quin
  £1,644,270.61. In common with other recipients of substantial payments under the arable area payments scheme, the applicant concerned is a large scale farm business with many different production units, widely situated in the United Kingdom.

  Livestock Movements
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to carry out an economic analysis of the movement of livestock around the United Kingdom. [155615]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry has no immediate plans to carry out such analysis but will keep the matter under review. However, taking account of what we have learned from the current foot and mouth outbreak, the Government are consulting on proposals to introduce a 20 day standstill period for cattle, sheep and goats. Officials will be meeting with industry to discuss the implications of the proposals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to take steps to reduce the length of animal movements by securing an increase nationally in the number of abattoirs. [159597]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Despite the reduction in abattoir numbers over recent years there remains a spread of abattoirs across the country. However, where animals do have to travel, such journeys must comply with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 which sets out in some detail a variety of measures designed to protect animals, including maximum journey times, vehicle standards, transporter competence, etc. These rules are, of course, rigorously enforced.

  Farmers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prepare proposals to place before the next meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of the Community designed to permit the United Kingdom to adopt systems of support to farmers and their auxiliary services aimed at sustaining their income and economic security at levels approximating to their purchasing power in the financial year 1999–2000. [158813]

  Ms Quin
  The Government recognise that this is a difficult time for farming, and have introduced a wide range of measures since 1997 investing around £1.35 billion in the industry. This is over and above regular support for UK farmers available under the CAP, totalling about £3 billion each year.

  The CAP is clearly failing to deliver on its aim of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community. This is one of many factors underlying our commitment to secure a more economically rational CAP to enable the industry to react flexibly to consumer wishes without being constrained by the market-distorting nature of the current CAP.

  We are working closely with like-minded member states to put pressure on the Council to reform the CAP on the basis of proposals from the EU Commission which we expect to issue next year.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reinstate the special central unit of officials monitoring and enforcing statutory provisions relating to sheep exports. [157886]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The team in Animal Welfare Division concerned with policy towards the transport of live animals and the monitoring of international journeys has not been abolished. This function has always been part of the division.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department during the last four weeks have received a holding answer; and what was the average time taken after the date of the holding answer for a full answer to be given. [157178]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: In the four week period from 6 March up to and including 4 April, 96 per cent. of Named Day questions received a holding reply. This Department receives large numbers of named day questions, for answer on the earliest permitted date.

  Where full answers have now been given our records show the average gap between holding reply to full reply as 8.8 days.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to provide a substantive reply to the question about Dawn Cardington abattoir in Bedfordshire tabled for answer on 4 April; and what the reasons are for the delay in answering. [159183]
  605W
  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 April 2001,Official Report, column 258W.

  Environment Agency Report
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government will publish its response to the Environment Agency's "Lessons Learned" report. [159356]

  Mr. Morley
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 186W, I expressed the Government's welcome for this report and the work that we, the Environment Agency and others would be undertaking to pursue the lessons learned. I do not propose making any further response to the report at this time.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to help small and medium-sized abattoirs. [159371]

  Ms Quin
  The Government have agreed to transfer £8.7 million per year for the next three years to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to enable them to implement the principal recommendations of the Maclean Task Force Report on charging for Meat Hygiene Service inspections in abattoirs and cutting plants. The Taskforce considered that in view of what it saw as a serious threat to small and medium-sized abattoirs and cutting plants, the Government should contribute to the costs of meat inspection in Great Britain. The Taskforce recommended that the Government should therefore change their policy of requiring the Meat Hygiene Service to recover as much as possible of its hygiene inspection costs from the meat industry (since this is not required by EU rules on charging). It recommends that the current method of charging for meat inspections on an hourly basis should be changed and that, instead, all abattoirs and cutting plants should be charged the standard (headage) fees laid down in the EU Charges Directive or their actual inspection costs where these are lower.

  Implementation of the Maclean recommendations will significantly reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium-sized meat plants and will be of considerable benefit to rural communities. We will be monitoring developments and giving further consideration as to how to maintain a sufficient number of small and medium-sized abattoirs.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of slaughterhouses in the UK; and what assessment he has made of(a) the additional costs to farmers, (b) the animal welfare implications and (c) the impact on the environment from extra transport movements resulting from the contraction in the number of slaughterhouses since 1979. [159593]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Abattoir numbers have been declining year on year for more than 20 years, in response to commercial pressures and demand in particular areas. There is intense competition between slaughterhouses, both for throughput and for customers, and profit margins are low.
  606W
  Despite the reduction in abattoir numbers over recent years there remains a spread of abattoirs across the country. However, where animals do have to travel, such journeys must comply with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 which sets out in some detail a variety of measures designed to protect animals, including maximum journey times, vehicle standards, transporter competence, etc. These rules are, of course, rigorously enforced.

  BSE
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the report into BSE which he has commissioned from Professor Gabriel Horn. [159263]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The review of the origin of BSE chaired by Professor Horn is well under way. It is expected that the group will submit their report by the end of May. Their conclusions will be included in the Government's detailed response to the BSE Inquiry Report.

  Pigs (Whey Feeding)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of methods of disposal of whey as an alternative to feeding to pigs. [159434]

  Ms Quin
  We would assess alternative methods of disposal of whey in the event of it being banned as a feedingstuff to pigs

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what volume of whey was fed to pigs in England in each of the last five years. [159433]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: We do not hold figures on the volume of whey fed annually. However, figures resulting from consultation with the industry indicate that approximately 450,000 tonnes of pasteurised milk waste products, including whey products, are used by pig industry per annum.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs in England were fed with whey in the last 12 months; and what proportion they constitute of the national herd. [159432]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: It is estimated that up to 20 per cent. (or 1,051,600 pigs) of the British pig production sector utilises high moisture and moist co-products in pig feeds through liquid-feeding systems, which includes whey.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a simplified version f the husbandry report on bovine TB will be made available to farmers. [154031]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 April 2001]: The Government accepted the recommendation of the independent Husbandry Panel on the need for more effective guidance to farmers on reducing the risk of TB. We will re-assess the mechanisms used to deliver this

  607W
  guidance in the light of the Panel's advice, although the timeframe for this work will be extended because of the foot and mouth outbreak.

CABINET OFFICE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost was of employing special advisers in her Department from 1997 to date. [160039]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Details of costs for special advisers within individual Departments are not given, in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  The estimated cost for special advisers as a whole in 2001–02 is £4.4 million.

  The overall costs for the previous years since 1997 are as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  2.6

  1998–99

  3.5

  1999–2000

  4.0

  2000–01

  4.4

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the special advisers employed by each Government Department on 1 March 1997, the date on which each resigned, and the reason for that resignation. [151896]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  A list of special advisers in post on 1 March 1997 is as follows:

  Government Department

  Special advisers

  Prime Minister's Office

  Normal Blackwell

  Carolyn Fairbairn

  Katherine Ramsay

  Simon Walker

  Arabella Warburton

  Sean Williams

  Chief Whip's Office

  Shana Hole

  Cabinet Office1

  Andrew Caesar-Gordon

  Lady Eileen Strathnaver

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  George Osborne

  Ministry of Defence

  Alison Broome

  Department for Education and Employment

  Dr. Elizabeth Cottrell

  Nicholas Heslop

  Department of the Environment

  Keith Adams

  Gavin Barwell

  Tom Burke

  Liam O'Connor

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Graham Carter

  Department of Health

  Tony Hockley

  Tim Rycroft

  Department of National Heritage

  Andrew Honnor

  Home Office

  Patrick Rock

  Rachael Whetstone

  Privy Council Office

  Sophie McEwen

  Praveen Moman

  Department of Social Security

  Peter Barnes

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Greg Clark

  Department of Transport

  Lucy Miller

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Paul Gardner

  Anthony Teasdale

  Edward Troup

  Scottish Office

  Jacqui Low

  Gerald Warner

  Welsh Office

  Barnaby Towns

  1In addition, Sir Peter Levene was employed as Efficiency Adviser

  608W
  Information on the date of resignation of individual special advisers and the reason for resignation is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153523]

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects of her Department's policies and actions on the constituency of Houghton and Washington, East since 2 May 1997. [152995]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for a range of functions which cover England as a whole, or in relation to non-devolved matters, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. It is therefore not possible to say what their specific impact is on a particular constituency. Additionally any policy changes arising from reports by Cabinet Office units, such as the Social Exclusion Unit and the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, are implemented by the appropriate Government Department rather than by the Unit itself.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Disorders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison disorders have taken place in prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months; and if he will list the prisons concerned. [158387]

  Mr. Boateng
  The term "disorder" is understood as referring to incidents of concerted indiscipline. An incident is classified as concerted indiscipline when prisoners collectively: refuse to comply with a lawful order; or involve themselves collectively in disruption of an establishment's normal regime and the incident is not otherwise reportable in its own right, unless that reportable incident presents a wider threat to the good order or discipline of the establishment.

  During the last 12 months, 103 incidents of concerted indiscipline have taken place in prisons in England and Wales. The prisons at which the disorders took place are listed in the tables:

  Establishment

  Number of incidents in the last 12 months

  Full Sutton

  1

  Whitemoor

  8

  Woodhill

  4

  Lincoln

  1

  Ranby

  5

  Leicester

  1

  Wellingborough

  2

  Onley

  1

  Chelmsford

  4

  Highpoint

  3

  Hollesley Bay

  2

  Norwich

  1

  609W

  Establishment

  Number of incidents in the last 12 months

  Maidstone

  1

  Rochester

  1

  Swaleside

  1

  Dover

  1

  Garth

  1

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Forest Bank

  5

  Risley

  1

  Castington

  7

  Guys Marsh

  1

  Ashfield

  7

  Portland

  4

  Bullingdon

  4

  Aylesbury

  3

  Huntercombe

  3

  Cardiff

  1

  Pare

  1

  Birmingham

  3

  Blakenhurst

  1

  Stafford

  1

  Stoke Heath

  3

  Brinsford

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  Holloway

  1

  Send

  1

  Low Newton

  1

  Lindholme

  2

  Moorland

  1

  Wolds

  2

  Northallerton

  1

  Wetherby

  3

  Table of reported acts of concerted indiscipline including the duration of the incident, in date order, from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Prison

  Incident date

  Duration of Prison incidents (hours)

  Ashfield

  6 April 2000

  1

  Ranby

  8 April 2000

  3

  Whitemoor

  6 April 2000

  Less than one hour

  Ranby

  8 April 2000

  14

  Ashfield

  10 April 2000

  2

  Stoke Heath

  14 April 2000

  3

  Aylesbury

  25 April 2000

  Less than one hour

  Forest Bank

  25 April 2000

  1

  Castington

  29 April 2000

  3

  Forest Bank

  1 May 2000

  1

  Whitemoor

  8 May 2000

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  9 May 2000

  1

  Portland

  4 May 2000

  12

  Bullingdon

  14 May 2000

  Less than one hour

  Blakenhurst

  12 May 2000

  Less than one hour

  Highpoint

  16 May 2000

  3

  Bullingdon

  20 May 2000

  1

  Guys March

  21 May 2000

  7

  Chelmsford

  20 May 2000

  11

  Castington

  21 May 2000

  3

  Forest Bank

  31 May 2000

  Less than one hour

  Whitemoor

  27 May 2000

  48

  Chelmsford

  4 June 2000

  Less than one hour

  Bullwood Hall

  12 May 2000

  2

  Risley

  9 June 2000

  9

  Northallerton

  10 June 2000

  1

  Norwich

  12 June 2000

  Less than one hour

  Garth

  21 June 2000

  Less than one hour

  Chelmsford

  24 June 2000

  Less than one hour

  Huntercombe

  24 June 2000

  1

  Whitemoor

  26 June 2000

  2

  Huntercombe

  27 June 2000

  1

  Lindholme

  1 July 2000

  1

  610W

  Table of reported acts of concerted indiscipline including the duration of the incident, in date order, from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Prison

  Incident date

  Duration of incidents (hours)

  Full Sutton

  2 July 2000

  Less than one hour

  Swaleside

  4 July 2000

  Less than one hour

  Whitemoor

  4 July 2000

  Less than one hour

  Ashfield

  9 July 2000

  1

  Ranby

  9 July 2000

  19

  Whitemoor

  8 July 2000

  Less than one hour

  Castington

  14 July 2000

  Less than one hour

  Stoke Heath

  14 July 2000

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  23 July 2000

  Less than one hour

  Highpoint

  19 July 2000

  2

  Castington

  24 July 2000

  1

  Forest Bank

  30 July 2000

  8

  Birmingham

  2 August 2000

  Less than one hour

  Aylesbury

  3 August 2000

  Less than one hour

  Portland

  1 August 2000

  Less than one hour

  Whitemoor

  1 August 2000

  48

  Ranby

  6 August 2000

  17

  Stoke Heath

  6 August 2000

  3

  Send

  5 August 2000

  1

  Birmingham

  12 August 2000

  1

  Birmingham

  12 August 2000

  1

  Highpoint

  13 August 2000

  1

  Lancaster Farms

  15 August 2000

  2

  Wetherby

  22 August 2000

  1

  Ranby

  21 August 2000

  9

  Bullingdon

  24 August 2000

  Less than one hour

  Wetherby

  29 August 2000

  2

  Wandsworth

  1 September 2000

  8

  Castington

  14 September 2000

  Less than one hour

  Woodhill

  25 August 2000

  2

  Wolds

  18 September 2000

  1

  Aylesbury

  3 October 2000

  Less than one hour

  Chelmsford

  4 October 2000

  Less than one hour

  Castington

  10 October 2000

  4

  Woodhill

  11 October 2000

  1

  Lindholme

  11 October 2000

  9

  Woodhill

  10 October 2000

  Less than one hour

  Dover

  17 October 2000

  4

  Feltham

  21 October 2000

  6

  Castington

  23 October 2000

  3

  Ashfield

  5 November 2000

  Less than one hour

  Bullingdon

  9 November 2000

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  20 November 2000

  8

  Low Newton

  28 November 2000

  1

  Forest Bank

  29 November 2000

  1

  Ashfield

  30 November 2000

  2

  Portland

  4 December 2000

  1

  Brinsford

  17 December 2000

  1

  Ashfield

  25 December 2000

  6

  Wellingborough

  25 December 2000

  1

  Holloway

  27 December 2000

  2

  Moorland

  25 December 2000

  1

  Maidstone

  18 January 2001

  1

  Rochester

  30 July 2000

  1

  Onley

  24 January 2001

  6

  Woodhill

  25 January 2001

  2

  Ashfield

  26 January 2001

  4

  Stafford

  25 January 2001

  Less than one hour

  Portland

  31 January 2001

  1

  Huntercombe

  17 February 2001

  2

  Lincoln

  13 February 2001

  Less than one hour

  Swansea

  18 February 2001

  1

  Leicester

  22 February 2001

  2

  Wellingborough

  2 March 2001

  1

  Whitemoor

  12 March 2001

  1

  Wolds

  14 March 2001

  Less than one hour

  Wetherby

  17 March 2001

  1

  Cardiff

  19 March 2001

  Less than one hour

  Brinsford

  31 March 2001

  1

  Parc

  23 February 2001

  Less than one hour

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in deciding allocations of asylum seekers for dispersal to areas outside the south-east, he takes account of the number already coming in to such areas through ports of entry within the areas. [158914]

  Mrs. Roche
  The identification of suitable cluster areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers and their dependants is based on research conducted centrally by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Information is obtained from local authorities and other organisations with an interest in asylum. The presence of asylum seekers already in the area will also be taken into consideration.

  Only asylum seekers who request that accommodation be provided as part of a support package will be considered for dispersal. Asylum seekers making their claim in one dispersal area may, if they request accommodation, be required to move to another which is more suitable for their needs. An asylum seeker requesting support including accommodation who is already resident in a dispersal area may be housed here by NASS if his circumstances make this appropriate.

  Asylum seekers who do not require support or who apply for subsistence only can live where they choose.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications include dependant children; and if he will make a statement. [159436]

  Mrs. Roche
  The proportion of principal applicants who have at least one dependant (excluding a spouse) at the application stage who is under the age of 18 is estimated to be 8 per cent.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places have been provided for dispersed asylum seekers by(a) local authorities, (b) accommodation providers and (c) boarding houses since dispersal began. [159739]

  Mrs. Roche
  Bedspaces provided to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) for the dispersal of asylum seekers since 1 April 2000 are:

  Bedspaces

  NASS public sector providers

  18,742

  NASS private sector providers

  20,584

  No information is available on boarding houses.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what limits are placed on numbers of asylum seekers in any one property purchased by accommodation providers; and what guidance is given to them on the size of properties. [159737]

  Mrs. Roche
  All accommodation providers must as part of their contract with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) comply with the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. In addition providers must comply with local authority regulations relating to planning and environmental health and any local registration or licensing scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).
  612W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who authorises the purchase of properties for the accommodation of asylum seekers in cluster areas by accommodation providers; and who bears the costs if planning permission is refused; [159738]

  (2) which organisations commission and finance providers of accommodation for asylum seekers; and for how long their contracts last. [159723]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible for the commission and finance of accommodation for asylum seekers. The voluntary sector supplies initial emergency accommodation for asylum seekers while their application for support is being considered. Local authorities, registered social landlords and private sector companies provide accommodation in dispersal areas. The length of individual contracts varies from one to five years.

  Accommodation providers under contract to NASS are responsible for obtaining sufficient accommodation in cluster areas to meet the terms of their contract. Once obtained the accommodation is offered to NASS who decide if it is acceptable. If the property contains more than six bedspaces it will be subject to a 28-day consultation period with the relevant local authority.

  Accommodation providers would be expected to bear the costs of any unsuccessful applications for planning permission.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how he limits the numbers of properties and places private accommodation providers can purchase in each cluster area for asylum seekers; [159727]

  (2) how he ensures that no area receives a disproportionate number of dispersed asylum seekers; and how he defines disproportionate for this purpose. [159752]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) establishes cluster areas in consultation with local authorities. Accommodation providers are contracted to provide bedspaces in individual cluster areas up to the target specified in the contract.

  The proportionate distribution of dispersed asylum seekers is achieved on the basis of local population figures or consideration of particular local circumstances.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 57W, what evidence he has to support the conclusion that people seeking asylum are managing to combine their vouchers and cash to ensure they do not lose out; and what representations he has received to the contrary. [159813]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have received a number of representations from non-governmental organisations, hon. Members, members of the public, retailers and others about the impact of the "no change" rule.

  The issue is something we are looking at as part of the review of the operation of the asylum voucher scheme. As part of that review we have investigated asylum seekers' experiences and I have visited retailers and spoken to staff about the operation of the no change rule. We will make our conclusions available when the review reports.

  Life Prisoners (Appeals)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made to provide support to prisoners serving a life sentence who are released having had their conviction overturned on appeal; and if he will make a statement. [158895]

  Mr. Boateng
  The probation service does not have any obligation to provide support to such former prisoners since they are not on licence. However, where resources permit, they may be prepared to do so on a voluntary basis. The Government understand the difficulties that such former prisoners may face in resettling in the community and the Home Office has set up a working party to look at what might be needed, in terms of advice and counselling. A consultant has prepared a report and recommendations will go to Ministers by the summer.

  John Kamara
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support was provided to John Kamara following his release as a result of his conviction being overturned by the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement. [158896]

  Mr. Boateng
  Mr. Kamara has had voluntary contact with the Merseyside probation service since before his appeal was heard. Although there was no obligation on either side to continue contact after the successful appeal, there have been ongoing contacts with the probation service.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations the Government have received regarding allegations of UK financial institutions being involved in money laundering activities in respect of money transferred out of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [159245]

  Mr. Straw
  Allegations of money laundering activity involving any financial institution, or indeed any person, within the United Kingdom fall to be considered by the police. Reports are received by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, to be analysed and if necessary disseminated to competent authorities for further investigation. Such reports of suspicious transactions are received for the purposes of criminal intelligence and for the possible investigation of suspected criminal behaviour, and for operational reasons cannot be commented upon.

  Asylum Decisions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to reach an initial decision for applications for asylum is; and if he will make a statement. [159440]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 852W, which gives the available information on the average time taken to reach an initial decision for applications for asylum.

  Class A Drug Offences
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions there were for possession of Class A drugs in Luton in each year since 1991. [159415]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not available in the form requested. Information is not collected centrally on arrests for drug offences. Although information is collected on cautions and convictions for drug offences, published breakdowns are not available in the specific form detailed in the question. It would be possible to provide information on cautions and convictions for possession of Class A drugs only at disproportionate cost.
  The Area Table of the Home Office bulletin "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom" give breakdowns by main type of drug or by main offence type for individual police force areas. Copies of these publications for the period up to and including 1999 are available in the Library. Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide these figures by any other geographical unit.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the measures which he has taken to tackle domestic violence since May 1997. [159418]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most significant aspect of violence against women is domestic violence. It is a serious and abhorrent crime which the Government are determined to tackle effectively, and we have made it one of our key priorities. We have emphasised that the domestic context in which it occurs is an aggravating not a mitigating factor and that it is an issue which we expect the local crime reduction partnerships set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to cover in their audits of local problems and strategies for addressing them.

  Since coming to office, we have undertaken a broad range of measures to reduce the level of domestic violence and strengthen support for victims.

  I have mentioned the Crime and Disorder Act; other early measures were implementation of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and of Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. We followed this with the successful "Break the Chain" publicity and awareness campaign for domestic violence survivors and those who might be able to help them.

  Within the last year we have: issued multi-agency guidance to agencies dealing with domestic violence and specific guidance to Health Service professionals; issued a new Home Office circular to the police; included domestic violence within police Best Value performance indicators; provided £120 million additional capital funding for a new Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund for specified vulnerable groups, including the survivors of domestic violence; and, increased funding for Victim Support.

  Last summer we provided £7 million under the Crime Reduction programme for a violence against women initiative addressing domestic violence and rape and sexual assault by known assailants. That money is currently funding for development and evaluation until March 2002, 34 projects that will help us identify what interventions in what circumstances are the most effective

  615W
  and cost-effective in reducing crime. We have since announced, on 26 March, that we will be providing up to an extra £3.7 million to fund until March 2003 a further 24 projects addressing violence against women.

  Other current initiatives include work with the Association of Chief Police Officers on a circular on effective use of provisions in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the evaluation of probation service domestic violence perpetrator programmes; the development of a domestic violence toolkit on the Home Office's crime reduction website; research on possible future publicity work; and, the inclusion in the British Crime Survey 2001 of a special module on domestic violence.

  Ministerial Group on the Family
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Ministerial Group on the Family last met; and if he will make a statement on its current programme of work. [159009]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The Ministerial Group on the Family, as with other Ministerial Groups, meets as needed.

  The Government have a robust framework of family policies in place. We have made excellent headway in tackling child poverty by helping parents back into work and ensuring that hard working families are rewarded through increases to the Working Families Tax Credit, and through the new Children's Tax Credit. All families with children have benefited from increases to Child Benefit. On 26 April, we outlined proposals to break the long-term cycle of disadvantage by setting up the new Child Trust Fund, starting at birth, with further investments at five, 11 and 16, to give young people a savings base with which to start their adult lives.

  We have simplified and increased significantly maternity leave and pay, and announced the introduction of paternity pay ensuring that parents can spend time together as a family after the birth of a new baby. Parental leave provisions enable parents to take unpaid leave during the first few years of the children's lives. The National Childcare Strategy and free early education places for all four and many three-year-olds are providing an increasing number of high quality places for children, to enable parents to work. The Worklife Balance Campaign encourages employers to adopt flexible working practices which will enable employees to achieve a better work-life balance.

  The Family Support Grant provides funding to over 60 voluntary organisations working with parents to improve their parenting skills. These include Parentline Plus which runs a national freephone helpline providing a listening ear for parents, and the National Family and Parenting Institute which is raising the profile and importance of parenting. We provide core and project funding to a range of marriage and relationship support organisations including Relate—the largest provider of marriage, family and relationship support in the country.
  Locally based initiatives such as Early Excellence Centres, Sure Start and the Children's Fund provide a range of support services to children and their families in
  616W
  our most deprived areas. The new adoption framework and "Quality Protects" programme will help some of the most disadvantaged children and their families.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he(a) has set and (b) plans to set and what data he has identified to enable his Department to meet its PSA target to ensure just processes and just and effective outcomes in the criminal justice system. [159027]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Targets have been set to reduce the rate of reconvictions of all offenders by 5 per cent. by 2004 compared to the predicted rate, and of all young offenders by 5 per cent. by 2004 compared to the predicted rate.

  These calculations are based on evidence of "What Works" in reducing reconvictions. A range of interim targets have been set for effective completions of accredited Offender Behaviour Programmes including education and training for offenders in custody and those completing community sentences.

  Predicted two-year reconviction rates used in the measurement of Public Service Agreement targets are not statistical forecasts, but are adjustments made once actual reconviction rates are known which make allowances for variations in the age, sex, offence and previous criminal history profile of persons commencing community sentences. These factors are known to be associated with the risk of re-offending. The purpose of the "predicted" rate is to ensure that comparisons between the reconviction rate when an improvement target was set and the reconviction rate when improvement is measured are meaningful.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for the renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates were(a) received and (b) processed by West Mercia Constabulary in (i) 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2000, (ii) 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2000 and (iii) 1 January to 31 March; [159186]

  (2) how many firearm and shotgun certificates were (a) granted, (b) renewed and (c) varied by West Mercia Constabulary between 1 October 2000 and 31 March; [159184]

  (3) how many firearm and shotgun certificates fell due for renewal in each month in the West Mercia Constabulary area in the last 12 months; [159187]

  (4) how many temporary firearm and shotgun permits were issued by West Mercia Constabulary during the previous six month period to holders of firearm and shotgun certificates awaiting renewals and whose certificates had expired. [159185]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available from West Mercia Constabulary on the points raised is set out.
  617W
  Between 1 October 2000 and 31 March 2001 West Mercia Constabulary issued the following:

  Firearm Grants: 89

  Firearm Renewals: 302

  Firearm variations: 102

  Shotgun Grants: 445

  Shotgun Renewals: 3,182.

  West Mercia Constabulary also issued 369 replacement certificates during the same period of time.

  During the past six months, West Mercia Constabulary have issued 49 Firearm Temporary Permits and 59 Shotgun Temporary Permits.

  Between the following dates, West Mercia Constabulary received and processed firearm and shotgun certificate applications for renewal as follows:

  Firearms

  Applications

  Shotguns

  Applications

  1 January 2000 to 30 June 2000:

  Renewal (actual)

  475

  Renewal

  4,521

  Processed

  198

  Processed

  2,138

  1 July 2000 to 31 December 2000:

  Renewal (estimated)

  485

  Renewal

  3,700

  Processed

  250

  Processed

  2,792

  1 January 2001 to 31 March 2001:

  Renewal

  1—

  Renewal

  1—

  Processed

  160

  Processed

  1,694

  1Not Known

  These figures do not include cancellations, transfers out to other forces or applications for replacement certificates, which totalled 2,704.

  Information on the number of certificates falling due for renewal in each individual month is not collected centrally and could be done so only at disproportionate cost. It is estimated, based on the total number of certificates registered in the force area, that an average of 972 renewal applications would fall due each month.

  First Offence (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons convicted of a first criminal offence were sentenced to a term of imprisonment in each year since 1971. [159253]

  Mr. Boateng
  The readily available information is shown in the table. The data relate to males with no known previous convictions for standard list offences who were sentenced to immediate imprisonment for a standard list offence.

  Percentage of males with no known previous convictions sentenced to immediate imprisonment1, by age.

  Year

  Males aged 10 and over but under 21

  Males aged 21 and over

  1977

  4

  5

  1982

  4

  6

  1987

  5

  11

  1991

  4

  10

  1993

  6

  14

  1994

  7

  14

  1995

  6

  14

  618W

  Percentage of males with no known previous convictions sentenced to immediate imprisonment1, by age.

  Year

  Males aged 10 and over but under 21

  Males aged 21 and over

  1996 (old basis)2

  7

  18

  1996 (new basis)2

  7

  13

  1997

  7

  12

  1998

  6

  12

  1Includes Borstal training, detention centres, youth custody and young offender institution where appropriate.

  2A number of offences were added to the Standard list in 1996. "Old basis" figures exclude the additional offences.

  Court Fines
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned for failure to pay a court fine in each year since 1971. [159254]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information relating to people imprisoned for failure to pay a court fine since 1971 is given in the table.

  Provisional information for 1 January to 31 March 2001 shows that there have been 491 fine defaulters received into prison so far and that on 31 March 2001 there were 41 fine defaulters in prison.

  Number of fine defaulters received into prisons in England and Wales 1971 to 2001

  Year

  Number of receptions

  1971

  10,871

  1972

  10,980

  1973

  10,406

  1974

  12,622

  1975

  14,417

  1976

  15,911

  1977

  16,040

  1978

  16,442

  1979

  17,044

  1980

  15,938

  1981

  21,153

  1982

  24,492

  1983

  23,241

  1984

  21,761

  1985

  20,493

  1986

  19,159

  1987

  18,723

  1988

  16,817

  1989

  16,985

  1990

  16,659

  1991

  18,973

  1992

  19,826

  1993

  22,403

  1994

  22,469

  1995

  20,157

  1996

  8,555

  1997

  6,336

  1998

  5,374

  1999

  3,727

  2000

  12,314

  1Provisional data only

  Detention Centres
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the detention centres at Thurleigh, Harmondsworth, Aldington and Dungavel will begin to receive detainees. [159426]
  619W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The immigration detention centres referred to will according to the current programme receive their first detainees as follows:

  Detention centre

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre (Bedford) (formerly known as Thurleigh Detention Centre)

  August 2001

  Harmondsworth Detention Centre (Heathrow)

  July 2001

  Dungavel Detention Centre (Scotland)

  September 2001

  Aldington Detention Centre (Kent)

  No date available

  A date for the opening of the detention centre at Aldington cannot be given due to delays in the planning process.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the planned initial capacity and the planned full operating capacity is of(a) Thurleigh Detention Centre, (b) Harmondsworth Detention Centre, (c) Aldington Detention Centre and (d) Dungavel Detention Centre. [159425]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The planned full operating capacity of the immigration detention centres referred to will be as follows:

  Detention centre

  Places

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre (Bedford) (formerly known as Thurleigh Detention Centre)

  900

  Harmondsworth Detention Centre (Heathrow)

  550

  Dungavel Detention Centre (Scotland)

  150

  Aldington Detention Centre (Kent)

  300

  In each case there is no planned initial capacity and full operating capacity will be reached within three to four months of the centres opening, as agreed in the contract between the Immigration Service and operating contractors.

  Asylum Support Claims
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference are of his review of the targets for the processing of asylum support claims; when he will announce the conclusions of that review; and if he will make a statement. [159406]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The new target relating to decision times for asylum support applications can be found in the Home Office Business Plan for 2001–02 which was published on 2 April. The target is to reduce the average time taken to decide an application for asylum support by 20 per cent., by March 2002.

  Fraud Letters
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of whether advance fee fraud letters arriving from overseas(a) constitute a serious crime and (b) affect the economic well-being of the UK. [159693]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Any form of organised fraud is a serious crime. The offences of conspiracy to defraud and of obtaining property by deception both carry a maximum penalty of
  620W
  10 years' imprisonment. We hope that most people in the United Kingdom will have the good sense not to pay advance fees in response to unsolicited correspondence and that therefore the overall economic threat will be limited. Anybody who receives such a letter should send it to their local police, for onward transmission to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, who are considering means of tackling the problem.

  Motorcycles
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many motorcycles have been(a) stolen and (b) recovered in each of the last four years; [159565]

  (2) if he will make a statement on recent measures which have been taken to reduce motorcycle theft. [159566]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service has received additional Government funding to run a project aimed at tackling organised motorcycle theft. Crime prevention messages specifically aimed at motorcyclists will be included in the next phase of the national vehicle crime reduction communications campaign, which will take place in the current financial year.

  Local authorities now have powers to provide secure parking for motorcycles under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 provides for statutory regulation of the motor salvage industry, which will help prevent vehicles, including motorcycles, from being stolen to be broken up for spare parts or being "rung" (ie taking on the identities of vehicles which have been written off in accidents).

  Separate details of the theft and recovery of motorcycles are not collected centrally.

  Reparation Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reparation orders have been made under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which required reparation of the type specified in section 67(2)(b) of that Act. [159971]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A reparation order can require a young offender to make reparation either to the victim, or to the community at large. Section 67 (2) (b) is the provision requiring reparation to the community.

  The most recent figures from the Youth Justice Board indicate that between April to December 2000 a total of 3,818 reparation orders were made. Of these 2,738 (almost 72 per cent.) involved reparation to the community at large, 721 (19 per cent.) involved direct reparation to the victim and 355 (9 per cent.) involved reparation both to the community and to the victim.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [159980]

  Mr. Straw
  Implementation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is not yet complete. The interception (Part I Chapter I), covert
  621W
  surveillance (Part II) and oversight and complaints provisions (Part IV) of the Act were brought into force by the end of October 2000. The intention is to commence the outstanding provisions governing the acquisition of communications data in Part I Chapter II, and those governing access to protected electronic data in Part III of the Act, by the end of 2001.

  As with all new legislation, the Government will keep RIPA under review. In particular, the Government have undertaken to review the provisions in Parts I and III of the Act in order properly to assess their effectiveness and their impact on business.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been made under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [159970]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Following consultation with local authorities and the police we have proposed in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill currently before Parliament to extend the upper age limit to 15 and to allow the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to proscribe additional domestic terrorist organisations under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [159973]

  Mr. Straw
  As I made clear in the House on 13 March, I have no plans to add any organisations to the current list. But it is open to addition or subtraction at any future stage, and I will keep this issue under review.

  Children (Offending)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the results of the surveys conducted by MORI for the Youth Justice Board on offending by children in 1999, 2000 and 2001. [159968]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We shall place them in the Library this week.

  Council Compensation Claims
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have applied for compensation under the terms of section D of RPA Circular 442; what the total amount claimed to date is; and if he will make a statement. [159981]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Four local authorities have submitted claims for compensation for the additional costs they incurred. The total amount claimed is £634.80. The most recent claim was received on 20 April.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour 622W
  orders have been made under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and how many were made against persons under the age of 18 years. [159972]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A total of 104 anti-social behaviour orders were issued in England and Wales between 1 April 1999 and 31 May 2000. A breakdown by age for the orders issued in this period is not held centrally. However provisional data collected centrally from 1 June 2000 up to 31 December 2000 show a further 73 anti-social behaviour orders being made of which 31 were for persons aged under 18 years.

  Airwave Communications System
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Airwave communications system.[159975]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The final operational phase of the Airwave pilot, which started on 19 March, is continuing satisfactorily despite some technical problems. The service is now available in the two Divisions of Lancashire which are the subject of the evaluation. An interim review of the pilot began on 30 April and the final evaluation will be completed within five working days of pilot completion on 17 June.

  Preparations for the rollout in Greater Manchester and other forces are also progressing well and are currently on schedule.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost to his Department has been of answering a written question from an hon. Member asking about the effects since May 1997 of his Department's policies on a particular hon. Member's constituency. [159969]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Compilation of these responses has involved staff in various Home Office Units, the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams. Each answer has drawn upon information which is already collected by the Home Office, its Agencies or other partners.

  The exact time taken and hence the cost to the Department of answering these questions has not been collated as each response has been prepared. However, it is estimated that average cost to the Home Office of answering them has been less than £100.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the results for the latest DNA tests in connection with the murder of Hilda Murrell were; and if he will make a statement. [159985]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Forensic Science Service has completed the latest round of tests in the re-examination of materials from exhibits in the Hilda Murrell murder investigation. The tests have not produced any significant DNA profile which advances the investigation at this stage. However, the results suggest that there is a realistic prospect that the next level of testing may produce a profile. In line with a strategy of sequential testing
  623W
  agreed by West Mercia Constabulary and the Forensic Science Service, further examinations will continue in a systematic manner.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance MASS has issued to providers of accommodation for people seeking asylum on encouraging partnership working and promoting good community relations. [159774]

  Mrs. Roche
  All property providers who enter into contract with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are expected to meet the high standards of performance specified in the contract. They must provide a management system to assist the asylum seekers they are accommodating including help with registration with a general practitioner, getting children into school and access to the one stop services set up by the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to monitor the numbers of people seeking asylum housed in each local authority area under the NASS scheme; and if these figures will be made publicly available. [159773]

  Mrs. Roche
  Numbers of asylum seekers allocated accommodation by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are currently monitored within the regions and each cluster area. These figures are available from Immigration Research and Statistics Service.

  Currently there are no plans to monitor numbers of asylum seekers in each local authority area.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) private companies and (b) regional consortia that have entered into contracts with NASS to provide housing for people seeking asylum; how many bed spaces each one has provided; how many of those bed spaces are occupied; and how many of those bed spaces have been inspected by NASS inspectors. [159772]

  Mrs. Roche
  The following have contracts with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to provide accommodation for asylum seekers:

  Private companies

  Regional consortia

  Adelphi Hotels

  Scotland

  Angel Group Ltd.

  North East

  Accommodata Ltd.

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Capital Accommodation Ltd.

  North West (East Region)

  Clearsprings

  West Midlands

  Roselodge Ltd.

  Cardiff CC

  Safe Haven

  East Midlands

  The Landmark

  YMCA Glasgow

  Leena Corporation

  I am unable to provide information on the number of bedspaces provided under individual contracts since this information is commercial in confidence.

  As at 30 April, 80 per cent. of accommodation provided by the private sector and 4 per cent. of accommodation provided by the public sector had been inspected either by or on behalf of NASS.
  624W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if NASS will publish an annual report. [159771]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 86W.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for consulting local authorities before people seeking asylum are placed in their areas under the NASS scheme; and under what circumstances authorities would not be consulted. [159789]

  Mrs. Roche
  The identification of suitable cluster areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers and their dependants is based on research conducted centrally by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Information is obtained from local authorities and other organisations with an interest in asylum. Before entering into a contract with an accommodation provider NASS consults local authorities through the regional consortia. Local authorities receive weekly information of the numbers of asylum seekers dispersed to their area.

  Electronic Custody Systems
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the development and provision of electronic custody systems for the police; when such systems will be available; what is the expected cost of such systems; what has been the total cost of their development to date; and what was the planned date for such systems to be available. [159696]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work is in progress to develop an electronic custody system. Implementation within all forces is likely to be achieved within two calendar years of a product becoming available. There is currently no planned date for a custody product to be available. Development costs of the application have been at the suppliers own risk. Internal project costs are estimated as being approximately £2 million. Central government is to provide £46 million to implement the custody and an electronic case preparation system once plans have been agreed. The original delivery date for the custody application was August 2000 with roll-out to all forces by December 2002.

  Police IT
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to ensure that information technology systems and software provided to police forces offer value for money; and if he will make a statement. [159695]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All information technology systems and software are acquired through procedures to ensure that they offer value for money.

  Government and European procurement procedures ensure fair and open competition. Tenders are analysed to ensure that the bids represents value for money, and contracts are negotiated to ensure there is adequate protection provided to the Authority. Attention is paid to the selection of the right supplier and to working closely with the supplier through effective post contract

  625W
  management. Great care is taken through consultation with stakeholders to ensure that the requirement reflects their needs. Major projects are managed through a recognised project management procedure. This ensures user requirements and the original project brief are monitored and adhered to, so that the result delivers police needs and is value for money.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date. [160028]

  Mr. Straw
  I have two special advisers. Ed Owen has been in post since May 1997. Norman Warner, now Lord Warner of Brockley, held the second special adviser post from May 1997 until October 1998. His successor is Justin Russell.

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional authorisations he has made under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976. [160122]
  626W
  Mrs. Roche
  In the light of evidence about the particular risks posed to the effective operation of our immigration controls by some members of certain ethnic groups, I have made an authorisation permitting members of the Immigration Service to discriminate, where necessary, in the examination of passengers belonging to the following ethnic or national groups: Tamils, Kurds, Pontic Greeks, Roma, Somalis, Albanians, Afghans and ethnic Chinese presenting a Malaysian or Japanese passport or any other travel document issued by Malaysia or Japan.

  The decision on a passenger's entitlement to enter the United Kingdom will continue to be taken on the merits of the case in accordance with the Immigration Rules. The authorisation simply allows the Immigration Service to prioritise and manage its resources effectively in undertaking examinations necessary in order to reach that decision.

  The Race Monitor to be appointed under section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) will report to Parliament via the Secretary of State on the likely effect of authorisations made by Ministers and on how they are operated in practice by officials.

  A copy of the additional authorisation has been placed in the Library. Any future additional or amended authorisations will also be placed in the Library.

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

Osteoporotic Fractures
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost to the United Kingdom of osteoporotic fractures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the latest evidence suggests that the annual cost of hip fractures in the United Kingdom is in excess of £1.7 billion. Hip fractures are caused mainly by osteoporosis. Through the National Service Framework for Older People, the Government have signalled to the NHS the importance of addressing the issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I declare a non-financial interest as joint-chairman of the All-Party Osteoporosis Group. Is the Minister aware that, according to the national service framework to which he has just referred, 14,000 people a year die in the UK following an osteoporotic hip fracture? The National Osteoporosis Society and the Central Council for Physical Recreation both stress the importance of increasing physical activity as a preventive measure for older people to retain bone strength. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for prevention and treatment and that treatment is now available for osteoporosis?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the number of deaths as a result of osteoporotic hip fractures. My understanding is that osteoporosis affects one in three women and one in 12 men over 50. That is a striking statistic that the NHS should take seriously. Priority must he given to providing preventive services and treatment. I certainly agree that for most people osteoporosis can be prevented through lifestyle measures such as diet and exercise. That applies to all the population, not just to older people.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we, too, welcome the national service framework, but in view of what the Minister has said, is not information about osteoporosis vital? Is it not time that the Government started to think about giving more money for information services, particularly its grant to the National Osteoporosis Society?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that we need to give as much information as we
552
can to the public, particularly about issues such as lifestyle preventive measures. I also acknowledge that the National Osteoporosis Society does excellent work and we have been happy to work with it. It receives some funding from the Department of Health through Section 64 grants. We are always willing to consider further applications. However, I cannot commit myself to sums of money—and I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to do so.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the National Health Service followed up the work done at the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, which found that young male sheep-dippers were suffering from osteoporosis of the spine, resulting in wedge spinal fractures?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware of the outcome of that work. Although we focus greatly on women with osteoporosis, men also suffer from the condition. Little is known about osteoporosis in men, so doctors have had to use knowledge gained from treating women, which is clearly not ideal. The department's research and development programme contains a number of research projects looking into the issue of men affected by osteoporosis.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I asked exactly the same Question three or four years ago, when the Leader of the House told me that the annual cost in 1994–95 was £742 million. It has gone up a lot since then. Does the Minister agree that prevention is far better than cure? In view of the scarcity of densitometers, would it not be more efficient to screen patients with a simple, reliable blood and urine test that identified telopeptides and other bone markers? We should look for signs that are available many years before fractures occur.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord brings a great deal of expertise on the issue to the House. My understanding is that, as a result of the preparatory work for the national service framework, we have been able to produce more accurate figures on the cost of hip fractures. There has not been such a dramatic increase as the noble Lord suggested; we simply have a more accurate understanding of the cost now.
I agree with the noble Lord that if we can develop techniques for effective identification and screening, we should do so. The UK National Screening Committee, which advises Ministers on such matters, has advised us that at the moment there is not a simple, reliable test for osteoporosis that would meet its published criteria of being both clinically effective and cost-effective. However, we stand ready to review that and to ask the National Screening Committee to look at matters as they arise.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is causing great concern among specific groups, such as paraplegics, as people grow older? Is there any suitable medication to stop the development of osteoporosis?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that adopting certain lifestyle measures and ensuring the use of calcium and vitamin D in sufficient quantities are both important. As part of the national service framework and the original strategy produced by the Department of Health a couple of years ago, advice is given to GPs and consultants about the most effective form of treatment. However, while I accept the point that the noble Baroness has raised, I stress that a large part of our energies should be focused on lifestyle measures, targeting those at risk of developing osteoporosis.

Miners: Compensation
2.43 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the payment of compensation to former miners suffering from chest diseases as a result of their employment in the mining industry.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, more than £406 million has already been paid to miners in compensation for health claims. Of that, more than £142 million relates to chest diseases—some £30 million more since the noble Lord raised the matter in February. We continue to pay out over £1 million more a day.
Although substantial progress has been made, we continue to make every effort to speed up the process. In the past few months, we have taken measures to ensure that the oldest and sickest claimants are seen before the younger and fitter ones; we have written to all respiratory consultants in order to recruit more; we have opened two regional scanning centres; we have authorised the commissioning of two mobile testing units; and we have established links with Scottish, English and Welsh registrars to obtain death certificates directly. We are also prepared to consider any other suggestions for speeding up the process within the legal framework of the judgment.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that mining communities up and down the country will he pleased that progress is at last being made in paying compensation to the most deserving cases? Can he say whether any new fast-track schemes are envisaged? Will he look in particular at the plight of widows, who, it appears, are not included in any priority procedure? Will he give noble Lords an assurance this afternoon that the Government will take all necessary steps to try to remedy that situation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we prioritise claims from the most ill, the oldest and those whose screening spirometer indicates that they have the greatest injury to their lungs. I can assure my noble friend that widows are also prioritised. They receive priority points based on the age of the original
554
claimant. If my noble friend knows of any cases where that scheme appears not to be operating, I should be grateful if he would let me know and I shall see whether it can be remedied.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the substantial backlog of claims which still exists, will the Government consider whether, even at this stage, they could introduce a statutory scheme which would speed up the settlement? It would then be for claimants to choose whether to go through the faster, statutory scheme or to take their turn in the common law scheme.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, having embarked in 1996 on the scheme which involves the courts, I believe that it would be very difficult to introduce a scheme which essentially gives a flat-rate payment without employing the procedures that are now being put in place to make an exact assessment of the state of claimants. I shall certainly have a look at the matter. However, having embarked on the legal scheme, and particularly in view of the fact that there are now 145,000 claims, it is difficult to envisage a second scheme which would make no assessment of the validity of the claimants.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that pneumoconiosis is the worst and most frequent disease to the chest suffered by miners and that it is incurable, will the Minister say whether the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee is still functioning and still trying to persuade young miners to obey the rules which would prevent their getting pneumoconiosis?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that since those claims were made enormous steps have been taken in terms of control over working conditions. We are now dealing with completely different conditions in the mines.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, although I recognise the efforts that have been made to speed up the scheme, for which the miners are very appreciative, the situation is far from satisfactory and the delays are still not acceptable. My noble friend will be aware that on 15th March in the High Court Mr Justice Turner informed the DTI that if, in the near future, it could not produce an acceptable timetable to resolve all claims, he would have to undertake a difficult inquiry. Does my noble friend agree that it is now time for that difficult inquiry to take place?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am satisfied that within the DTI everything is being done to take the matter forward as quickly as possible. The main problem is in relation to respiratory consultants. We have taken a whole series of actions to try to increase the number of such consultants and are now employing on this work some 230 of the 600 respiratory consultants available in this country. As I said in my Answer, we shall try to adopt any methods or actions that may be suggested as a means of

555
speeding up the process. If Mr Justice Turner believes that he should hold an inquiry on this matter and can suggest ways in which the process could be made to work faster, we shall of course be only too happy to take action.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, since my recent visit to South Shields, the local paper has put forward a campaign for a local centre because, it said, it was too difficult for people to attend the referral centres mentioned by the Minister in his Answer. Can he tell me why people have to travel long distances to a centre? Is it because of the shortage of consultants, or is it due to the physical facilities? Could those people be assessed al a local hospital?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have set out a pattern relating to the location in which consultants will carry out that work. We are prepared to open those centres at any hour of the day and during weekends to suit the convenience of consultants. If there are particular instances in which there seems to be a case for having another centre—perhaps because people have to travel long distances—I should be very grateful for that information. We shall consider whether we can deal with that situation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks on respiratory consultants. Can he tell the House how many posts for respiratory consultants are now vacant, and what was the equivalent figure on 1st May 1997?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall be only too happy to write to the noble Lord with those figures.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am encouraged by the Minister's comments. Does he accept that many of the people who live in former mining communities had throughout their lives longed for—indeed, prayed for—a strong Labour government? I ask that because for the past nine years in my diocese I have been alongside many miners and former miners, some of whom have been waiting for compensation. They are deeply disappointed in this regard by the Labour Government's response so far.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's record on this issue is that on coming to power—almost simultaneously with the original judgment being handed down—we agreed right away and without taking other considerations into account to take forward compensation. We have done all that we can to do so as fast as we can. I have not heard it said that we have failed to take action that could have moved the matter forward sensibly. Our record in that regard is remarkably good. If we can do more, we shall do so. I appreciate that it is completely unsatisfactory for people to feel that although compensation was available for them, they had difficulties getting it. Nevertheless, as I hope that I have made clear, we are using all the resources that we can to deal with the situation.

Turkey: EU Accession
2.52 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they welcome the Turkish Government's national plan for European Union accession, published on 19th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government welcome publication of the Turkish national programme for the adoption of the acquis, and look forward to further clarification of the Turkish Government's proposals in due course. If the reforms that they outline are put into effect rapidly and effectively, the programme will represent a major step forward for Turkey and will mark real progress in the pre-accession strategy for Turkey, which was set out by the Helsinki European Council in 1999.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging Answer. Does she recognise that Turkey still has considerable problems, including those associated with Cyprus, the Kurdish question and human rights? Does she also recognise that the EU accession programme that she recently published proposed some 90 new acts to deal with that situation? In light of all that, what more can the Government do to encourage our EU partners to take Turkey's application seriously, given that it is a staunch ally of NATO and that it has a significant European history, culture, tradition and economy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we acknowledge that Turkey faces a number of challenges. As my noble friend rightly recognises, we have worked energetically with our EU partners to persuade and encourage them to join with us in persuading Turkey to meet those challenges. Since the Helsinki European Council set out a comprehensive pre-accession strategy for Turkey, the UK, with the EU, has worked hard to take the matter forward. The EU has doubled the pre-accession assistance for Turkey to nearly 180 million euros per year.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the importance, delicacy and difficulty of relations with Turkey require rather more attention at senior level from the British Government? I am struck by the fact that the British Prime Minister has, I believe, met President Putin, for example, five times in the past year but I am not aware that he has visited Ankara or Istanbul. Does she also accept that we have a forthcoming potential crisis over Cyprus? Negotiations between Cyprus and the EU are likely to be completed in the next year without a settlement of the conflict between the two communities. At that point, the Turkish Government are bound to object to Cyprus joining the EU well before Turkey does.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety about the

557
delicacy of the situation, which we of course share. I do not agree with his suggestion that attention at a senior level has not been paid to Turkey. The Government have been heavily engaged in this issue for some time. There is no sense that Turkey feels that inappropriate attention has been given to her difficulties. Political difficulties of course continue in relation to Cyprus. It appears that we have a better chance of resolving those difficulties now than we have had previously.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the United Kingdom's relations with Turkey are excellent and that Turkey has a unique position in its area and a unique and constructive role to play in the Middle East? We should continue to do all that we can to help it, especially in relation to its present economic difficulties, in the hope that it will qualify before long for accession to the EU.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's comments on the need to encourage and help Turkey. We have demonstrated our willingness and ability to do so. It is right that Turkey should be encouraged to meet all of the acquis criteria to the full, as any other aspirant to EU membership has to do.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least in the executive summary of the programme there is no mention of the Kurds in particular or of minorities in general? Does she agree that it is necessary for Turkey not only to put 90 promises on to a piece of paper but also to implement them in order to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord; we believe that Turkey must address the social and economic problems of south-east Turkey and the social, cultural and economic aspirations of the Kurdish community if that region is to enjoy stability. Our concerns are reflected in the accession partnership. Turkey's national programme includes details of the legal and administrative measures that the Turkish Government are putting in place to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria. Areas for reform include cultural life and individual freedoms. It is right that those issues should be continually highlighted and that Turkey should be encouraged not only to speak about those matters but, as the noble Lord said, also to deliver.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, despite the problems that were rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, does the Minister agree that Turkey is an important part of both the European security equation and the European economic equation? Given that, does she agree that every sympathy and understanding should be extended to meeting Turkey's doubts and problems about participating in the pre-decision planning and the operational planning for the proposed European rapid
558
reaction force? Will the Government be rather more supportive of that than they appear to have been so far?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have been very supportive indeed of Turkey's position in that regard. Of course we acknowledge that Turkey is a very important part of the security equation. Nothing that Her Majesty's Government have done in any way undermines that. We have to move forward and we have to do so together with our NATO partners with proper understanding and consultation and with unity.
Lord Marsh: My Lords does the Minister agree that by far the most important and pressing issue is Turkey's internal economic problems? With 1.6 million lira to the pound and raging inflation, 150 million ecu will not go very far. Is not the IMF the only organisation that can really help in a situation like this?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the IMF has in fact helped. A package involving the IMF meant that 10 billion dollars has been proposed for Turkey. That is a very important advance. We certainly hope that judicious use will be made of that money and that Turkey will avail herself of the opportunity to resolve some of her pressing difficulties.

Manufacturing Industry
3 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the effects of their economic and fiscal policies on the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, manufacturing output grew by 1.6 per cent in 2000, the fastest rate of growth since 1994. Both the Government and independent forecasters expect further growth this year.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that 350,000 jobs have already been lost in manufacturing industry. He will also know that thousands more are due to go in the new technology sector. He may also be aware that first quarter growth is down to a near recessionary 0.3 per cent. In view of all that, how do the Government propose to meet their high spending targets without increasing taxation and thereby depressing industry and investment still further?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the decline in manufacturing industry as a proportion of all employment in this country has been going on for many years. Indeed, Sir Kit McMahon reminded us recently that we have not had a surplus in exports of goods since the 1840s. In point of fact, the decline in

559
manufacturing employment in this country is now at half the rate that it was under the previous Conservative government between 1979 and 1997. Of course, it is still not satisfactory. But we have taken all of those facts into account in the Chancellor's Budget programmes.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the House's new Select Committee on Economic Affairs is looking at the whole issue of globalisation. In that context many multinational companies are larger in market capitalisation than many small countries. How does he suggest our Government, or any other government of this country, can help manufacturing industry here?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the committees of your Lordships' House have a distinguished record in looking at manufacturing industry since the outstanding report of the late Lord Aldington. I look forward with great interest to the conclusions of the economic affairs committee and to responding to them.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, can the Minister explain the logic behind government thinking to give a tax incentive to savings with the proposed baby bonds yet at the same time penalise pension funds, which are of such importance to manufacturing and every other industry in this country? What is the Government's logic?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, seems to have forgotten that it is only a couple of months since his own party was proposing considerable tax incentives for savings and criticising us for not doing so. I do not know on what basis he has now changed to criticising the baby bonds proposals.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will not the noble Lord now reply to the question of his noble friend Lord Barnett? How can this Government, or any government, affect the placement of manufacturing industry in this country when it is controlled in the global economy by companies whose budgets are much larger than many national units?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I acknowledge the truth of what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lord Barnett say. It is the case that multinational companies have great freedom as to where they place their investment. However, it is the fact that the UK has been punching well above its weight in acquiring its share of inward investment into Europe for a number of years. Despite the difficulties experienced and expressed in the questions, we still have a high proportion of inward investment to this country. Our flexible labour market conditions, our stability and freedom from boom and bust must have contributed to that.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend correct me if I am wrong? In recent months bodies such
560
as the IMF, the European Central Bank, the Commission of the European Union and the G7 have all praised the fiscal policies of her Majesty's Government and said that they have left the United Kingdom with an economic situation in which we are better placed than any other economy to withstand the threat of recession that currently faces us following the downturn in the United States.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have confirmation, both from my noble friend and the sources he quotes, of what I attempted inadequately to say in answer to the last question.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister remember when, in the long years of opposition, his colleagues in another place wore their hearts on their sleeves about the sad state of British manufacturing? Where are their hearts now that they themselves are presiding over an official recession in manufacturing and, as my noble friend said, the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I have already made clear in my answers that the continuing and long-standing decline in manufacturing jobs is not welcome to the people of this country or to Her Majesty's Government. However, the noble Lord is quite wrong in saying that we are under any definition of recession in manufacturing industry. According to the latest figures—for the three months to February of this year—compared with the previous year, manufacturing productivity rose by 6 per cent. manufacturing exports rose by more than 10 per cent, including more than 6 per cent to the European Union, and as I said in my first Answer, manufacturing output is still growing.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 13 [Designated public places]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) any area to which members of the public have or may gain access"
The noble Baroness said: In rising to speak to Amendments Nos. 30 to 34, I advise the Committee that I shall not move Amendment No. 29.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 22, after "been" insert "or may be"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 34.
A similar group of amendments was debated in another place with unsatisfactory results. The amendment seeks to increase flexibility on all sides in the hope that the on-the-spot hybrid can be workable without being too draconian for the vast majority of us who are law abiding citizens.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to bring flexibility to the use of the proposals to help local authorities respond to possible future situations. Perhaps I can give a brief example. A local authority may face a situation where, while its own football team enjoys the support of well-behaved fans, it is expecting the arrival for a fixture of a team whose fans carry a different, disruptive reputation. In that instance, our amendment would enable the local authority to respond to that fixture by designating the area surrounding the ground.
Amendment No. 31 seeks to protect the police officer who, in an instance where there is a need to act swiftly to abate an unpleasant, difficult situation, in all innocence exceeds his powers by acting in an area which is not in fact a designated public place. For example, a police officer may act in a situation where, unknown to him, the designation had recently been lifted by the local authority but the signs designating the area have not been removed.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 seek more flexibility to enable local authorities to meet the many different uses of public places. Public parks, for example, are regularly used these days for all kinds of activities—such as concerts and open-air theatre—which are beyond day-to-day dog-walking and sports, and, sadly, the gathering of those for whom the designated areas are intended. It would be a great shame if local authorities were unable, with relative ease and with the support of the local superintendent of police, to lift the designation on a temporary basis to allow concerts, and so forth, to take place.
Amendment No. 32 is intended to ensure proper accountability and transparency with regard to the use of the powers granted in the Bill. There is little doubt that local authorities will use many opportunities to designate areas under the Bill. Some will use a blanket approach to try to deal with the growing problem of anti-social behaviour, the "yob culture". It is questionable whether the designated areas will solve the problem, apart from alleviating it in that particular place. The underlying real problem will move and probably cause upset and unhappiness elsewhere. Unfortunately, no amount of legislation will necessarily change that. Perhaps I can briefly take time to say that a change in culture would, but, sadly, we can do nothing about that today.
Efforts on the part of police and local authorities are often hampered and compromised by mixed messages sent out to the public. A stark example is that of the killers of James Bulger. On the one hand, children and young people hear, "Let's get tough on yobs and fight the causes of crime" and then hear that young killers are rewarded with tickets to see Manchester United and with Playstations in order, we are told, to get them used to normal living. That is not normal living; it is privileged living.
Local authorities know that the problem will move, but not necessarily off their patch, in which case they will tackle the problem with multiple orders for designated areas. Our concern is to ensure that it is decided in proper open debate whether or not these areas should be designated and to ensure, so far as is practicably possible, that all layers and interests of local government are kept in the picture and are able to influence the process through their elected representatives. In addition—we believe this point is important—it is hoped that where there is proper communication and proper accountability at all levels of government, public awareness will assist in seeking across the board co-operation for these measures. Therefore, given the importance and impact that this part of the Bill is likely to have across the country, we firmly believe that only a meeting of the full council should have the power to designate areas for the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government consider that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 go too far in eroding the principle that the new police powers provided by Clause 12 should only be applied in public areas designated for this purpose by the relevant local authority.
The purpose of Clause 12 is that public drinking should be restricted only in certain circumstances. We have no wish to introduce a comprehensive ban on drinking in public, and consider that the clause powers should not be extended to all public areas. It is right that it should remain the responsibility of the locally-elected body to determine the justification for designating specific public places within its area for that purpose. In our view the amendments would undermine that important principle.
It is also right that people should be able to go about their lawful business in public places without interference, provided they are acting lawfully and causing no offence or problem to others. That is why we consider it important that the local authority decision to designate a public area should be based on evidence of the problem that this measure will seek to address. That is why we do not accept Amendment No. 30, which seeks to extend the local authority's power to designate areas which may in the future experience such problems rather than, as the Bill is

563
presently drafted, focus the justification for the local authority's decision on evidence of an existing problem associated with anti-social public drinking.
How can the local authority know with any certainty which public places will in future experience problems? There is the potential that every public place would fall to be designated if we were to accept the amendment because there is always the possibility—remote, I accept, in some instances, but still a possibility—that any public area could experience these problems.
There is no need to attempt to cover areas which may in future experience difficulties. Local authorities will be able to make designation orders in respect of such areas should they begin to experience problems, and they will be able to do so with less bureaucracy than is the position under the existing by-law regime. It follows from that that we do not consider it appropriate to write into the Bill exceptions to the principle that the new police powers should be exercisable only in areas designated for that purpose by the relevant local authority. We would do so if we were to accept Amendment No. 31. The effect of the amendment would be almost to render the designation process unnecessary if the police could exercise the powers in any public place.
The amendments run contrary to the spirit of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on its scrutiny of the Bill published on 26th April. In respect of the measures relating to alcohol consumption in public places, the committee noted that they,
"meet the needs of legal certainty and pursue a legitimate aim".
However, the report raised the question of possible additional safeguards to ensure that these measures are not exercised in an arbitrary or disproportionate way. The specific points raised by the committee fall to be addressed within the context of the regulations to be made under Clause 13(4). But the amendments, which erode the principle that the new police powers should be exercisable only in areas designated by the local authority based on evidence of an existing rather than a possible future problem, would be inconsistent with the emphasis that the committee placed on the need for the local authority to have evidence of "a current threat" of crime and disorder, and the significance of evidence of the frequency of alcohol-related crime or disorder over a period of, say, six months.
It is the Government's view that designation orders, which will be the trigger for the powers set out in the Bill, should be made by the relevant locally-elected body and not be delegated to one council member or an official in the council employ. However, this is essentially a procedural matter and it would be more appropriate to address this point, along with other procedural issues, in the regulations to be made under Clause 13(4). Those will be made by statutory instrument and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The detailed drafting of the regulations must follow the stages of the Bill but the Government have committed themselves to consulting the Local Government Association about the detail of the
564
regulations. That will include seeking the LGA's view on whether the regulations should specify that decisions about designation orders should be made only by the full council or whether they should allow for the possibility of delegation to a politically balanced committee of the full council.
Other relevant matters to be covered by the regulations include consultation prior to making the designation order with the police and others as appropriate to ensure that the local authority satisfies itself that the area concerned has experienced the problems associated with public drinking in order to justify the designation order; consultation with town and parish councils within the local authority areas about public places to be made the subject of designation orders and consultation with neighbouring councils where designation orders apply to places on the borders of different local authority areas. Other matters will cover publicity, including the need to ensure that such areas are clearly identified as being areas to which the powers will apply.
It will be in drafting the regulations that we shall address the issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights concerning the steps that local authorities should take when deciding whether to designate a particular place for this purpose and the possible need for additional safeguards in terms of the nature of the evidence of the problem it seeks to address.
I turn to Amendment No. 32A. The Government have some sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment, which is intended to ensure that the powers of local authorities to restrict public drinking in certain circumstances are not used in an arbitrary or disproportionate way. This is an issue which was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
While the Government have sympathy with the amendment, they consider that it could be too restrictive in that local authorities should have the possibility to designate a public place which is experiencing serious problems associated with anti-social public drinking, even if these have not been continuing for as long a period as six months. Where there are such serious problems, it may be unreasonable for local people to endure the disorder or crime for such a period.
The important issue here concerns the quality of the evidence that the local authority should have before it in deciding whether to designate a public area for the purpose. This will include evidence from the police of the seriousness of the problem. Where there is a significant problem, which may not have been continuing for a period of six months but which is nevertheless causing harm to the local community, we believe that the local authority should have the option of considering whether a designation order is appropriate in the circumstances. These matters will be further addressed in regulations.
The Government consider Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 to be unnecessary. It is right that the local authority's power to designate public places should be set out in such a way as to ensure that it is able to define

565
sufficiently clearly which public areas are designated for the current purpose. The power as currently set out in the Bill will enable the local authority to achieve that. It allows the local authority to identify the place "specifically" or "by description", and that should be sufficient for most purposes. We therefore consider it unnecessary to go further, as suggested by Amendment No. 33.
In bringing these powers on to the statute book, it is also the Government's aim to simplify procedures for local authorities and to allow for greater uniformity and a comprehensive approach in all matters. Amendment No. 34, which would allow local authorities to specify that designation orders should apply only at particular times, or on particular days, would take us well away from that objective.
The amendment seems to be based on the assumption that disorder and nuisance caused by public drinking will always occur at particular times or on particular days, almost as a matter of routine. That may be true in some instances. For instance, it may often be the case that such nuisance in city-centre areas arises in the evenings or at night when the pubs and clubs are closing, and most often at weekends.
However, that will not always be the case. We consider that it is right that once a local authority designates an area because it is experiencing the public drinking problems, the restriction on public drinking and the associated police powers should apply at all times. This will ensure that the area does not end up with the unsatisfactory situation of people drinking and misbehaving in that area, knowingly, at times other than as specified, with the police powers to deal with the nuisance significantly restricted.
We do, however, accept that there may be times when it is inappropriate for a police officer to exercise the powers in a designated place. That appears to be the principle behind Amendment No. 35. But the clauses as presently drafted allow for this, and the amendment, allowing for the suspension of designation orders, is therefore unnecessary.
It will not be an offence to drink alcohol in a designated public place. The offence will be to continue to do so after being required by a police officer not to do so. There may well be circumstances when the officer, using his or her discretion, considers it appropriate not to warn the individual to stop drinking. That would be right and proper. As with many other offences, the officer's discretion will be there to be used.
Similarly, there may be times or occasions when there is an activity, perhaps a festival, which takes place in an area which is subject to a designation order and which may involve some public drinking. Where such an event is sanctioned by the local authority and the police, there will be no need for the local authority to suspend the designation order. The more straightforward approach will be for the police to agree not to exercise the powers they have for the duration of the event in question. Where the drinking is orderly, acceptable and causing no nuisance or
566
offence, there will be no need for police officers to require anybody to stop drinking and no offence will be committed. The police will however retain their powers in these circumstances, which could be used to useful effect should proceedings at such an event get out of hand.
I have gone into some detail about the various points raised in the amendment. I have given a full response and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 32A, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McNally. Although the Minister has been kind enough to address the amendment, he has not yet heard anyone speak on the specific subject.
We have tabled the amendment in order to enable the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, referred to by the Minister, to be directly before the Committee in considering this and other parts of the Bill. I emphasise that the wording of the amendment is not that of the Select Committee but is my own attempt to reflect what the Committee will find, in particular in paragraph 19 of the report.
Perhaps I may first comment on the Select Committee. It has been in existence for fewer than four months. I am sure that my colleagues present today and who also have the privilege of serving on the committee will agree that we have managed to make effective and practical advances in our role, among other things in scrutinising legislation. We have been greatly helped by a most able chair in the form of Jean Corston MP and by some outstanding officials; the legal adviser, Professor David Feldman, and the two Clerks from each of the two Houses. It is fair to say that we have developed a spirit of joint enterprise which reaches well beyond parties and that our decisions have been unanimous. It is good to know that the Minister and his colleagues have taken our work seriously. We were greatly helped by the written and oral evidence given by representatives from the Home Office, lead by the Minister of State, Mr Charles Clarke MP, and by the way in which the department was forthcoming in giving its reasons for the compatibility statement made by the Home Secretary on the face of the Bill: that is, its reasons for considering the Bill to be compatible with the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Human Rights Act. I shall say that only once—I shall not repeat it—because it is right to have it on the record.
Furthermore, we have done our best in the report to be practical and well focused. It will be for Members of the Committee to judge whether this is the kind of report they find useful and we shall no doubt learn from experience in our future work or that of our successors on the committee.
We have been sparing in the issues we have addressed. We have not adopted a scatter-gun approach. We have tried to single out those few issues that are of particular importance. We have not

567
addressed the underlying policy, the political policy, behind the legislation but have looked at it against the standards of the human rights convention.
Amendment No. 32A focuses on the principle of proportionality to be complied with in the designation of public places by local authorities under Clause 13. We are worried about the need for safeguards against abuse. There are several possible safeguards. One is to write safeguards on to the face of the Bill, which is what Amendment No. 32A seeks to do. Another is to write safeguards into the regulations. A third is to safeguard the courts which, under the Human Rights Act, have the power to review the compatibility of the statute and the regulations against the standards of Article 8, which is the right to personal privacy and private life in the Human Rights Act and the convention.
The Select Committee pointed out that the width of the power as it stands in the Bill is open to abuse. It expressed the hope that steps will be taken to reduce the risk that aggrieved persons would feel the need to challenge the decisions in court. We pointed out that in evidence the Minister accepted the need for the Government to monitor the use of the power and we expressed the hope that the method of monitoring would enable the Government to ensure that the powers were being used in a proportionate way.
Obviously, this is a probing amendment, but perhaps I may probe the matter a little further in the light of the Minister's very helpful answer. The real question is whether in drafting the regulations the Government accept that it is necessary to include adequate safeguards of proportionality to make sure that the lawful power is not used to excess and that the recent history of the area will play a significant role in the decision to designate. We do not seek to place an arbitrary requirement on local authorities to make designation a mathematical or quantitative analysis of how many incidents have occurred in an area, or to set out a fixed time-limit which must expire before an order can be considered redundant. But we need some assurance that the principles set out in our report will be reflected in the regulations. We all trust the Government—famous last words—to be able to translate the principles into practice in the regulations, and we have to approve those regulations affirmatively. However, if the Minister can give some assurance as to the principle, not the detail, that will meet the needs of the committee and this amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: There is a marked contrast between this part of the Bill and the debates which we had yesterday on the first part which dealt with fixed penalty notices. Without repeating what was said then, the concept of a fixed penalty notice is fundamentally misconceived, offends against the principles of justice and is unlikely to achieve its objectives. But that was yesterday's debate. The Committee has moved on to consider new powers to combat what is acknowledged as a widespread social evil. There is no doubt that excessive consumption of alcohol in public places is often a menace and is only too easily recognisable, but,
568
as so often when dealing with the unpredictabilities of human nature, the problem lies in how best to counter it. Where should the line be drawn between behaviour that is simply offensive and unacceptable to many people who are affected by it and the point at which legal intervention is justified?
There is nothing new in legal restrictions on excess drinking. The entire licensing system—local magistrates, by-laws and so on—is of long standing, but the question now is whether there is scope for further statutory intervention to combat excess consumption in public places; and, if so, what measures are most likely to be practicable and proportionate to the scale of the offensive behaviour. This follows the theme of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
The main provision is the power to make orders designating specified public places as alcohol-free zones. That is an ambitious objective. The second is a power for senior police officers to make a closure order in respect of certain licensed premises for a period of up to 24 hours.
The Committee is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for drawing attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is a distinguished and highly informed member. That report was published as recently as last week. Welcome though it is, it is a matter of regret that the report of a Joint Committee set up several months ago, which has been working diligently for a considerable period, is able to be published—I know not whether the fault lies with the committee or those to whom it delivered its report—only on 23rd April, after the lengthy proceedings on this Bill had been completed in the House of Commons. It was therefore impossible for the other place to take account of the findings of the Joint Committee. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the report lays down a number of guidelines which can be of great value and usefulness to us as we complete our consideration of this Bill.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord on the Front Bench that it was welcome to me and, I am sure, other Members of the Committee that in answer to the first amendment the Minister referred several times to the contents of the Joint Committee's first report. Therefore, it is unnecessary at this stage to reiterate what he has already said. However, we shall be vigilant.
Lord Goldsmith: Also as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I should like to speak particularly to Amendment No. 32A. First, I should like to make one observation on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the pleasure and privilege of being involved in the Joint Committee. In those cases where the committee decides that it wants to scrutinise particular legislation, its new challenge is to decide how that will fit into the parliamentary timetable.
I am very glad that we were able to produce a report before Committee stage in this House. In all the circumstances of the establishment of that committee,

569
it was not possible for it to complete any work before another place completed its deliberations, but I hope that at least the report as it stands is of benefit to this Committee as it considers the Bill.
The particular point on which I wish to touch is that which is covered by Amendment No. 32A. The background is very straightforward. It is not the job of the Joint Committee to determine policy or second guess it; that is a matter for Parliament. There was a very strong endorsement of the policy, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, yesterday evening, in that in the interests of all of us it is important that certain public -places which in the past have been associated with disorder and drinking should be made alcohol free. In that way we can all enjoy the centre of Brighton or, in my particular case, Liverpool, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred yesterday.
As I understand the report, the committee does not take the view that the clause as drafted is incompatible with the Act. If the legislation is enacted in that form, it will be compatible. The point is a rather different one. A power is being granted and, as in the case of so many powers, it is possible that it can be abused and used in an inappropriate circumstance. What kind of inappropriate circumstance? One sees the conditions in Clause 13(2). I believe that the critical point is the designation of places which have been associated with nuisance or disorder and the consumption of alcohol. That is not intended as a punishment for the owner of a shopping mall or a person who is in charge of a particular public place. As I understand it, it is intended as a way to prevent disorder in the future.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is intended to ensure that the attention of the local authority which makes the order is focused on the purpose of the power and has regard to past evidence in regard to drinking to determine the degree of risk that in the future there will be disorder again. My noble friend the Minister has already made the point that six months might look like an artificial period. I do not believe that the committee intended its recommendation to amount to any kind of statement that this power should be limited to cases where one can say that there has been one, two or three incidents within the past six, 12 or 18 months. Indeed, one can imagine circumstances where disorder and drinking are associated with a particular event which perhaps happens once every one or two years.
The real point is to ensure that local authorities look at the evidence in order to see that they are designating an appropriate place. There are different ways of so doing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for tabling the amendment because it enables one to raise that issue. But, fundamentally, so long as there is a recognised safeguard and some way of ensuring that the power is used properly, it is an entirely appropriate provision.
I add one comment on the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It would not be appropriate for a police officer to be able to require someone to give up their glass of wine or beer where the place was not designated as an alcohol-free zone, 570
even if it was entirely reasonable for the police officer to believe that it still was, because if the person did not give up their drink the consequence would be that that person could be guilty of a criminal offence. The important point in those circumstances is that the person should not be guilty of a criminal offence if the police officer has made a mistake. It may be a reasonable mistake. There may be no reason to discipline the police officer or anything of that kind, but the person should not be guilty of an offence. I do not support the amendment. Perhaps the noble Baroness will not press it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. We have had an interesting debate on this subject from all parts of the Committee. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Windlesham for his support in reaffirming the point that it is important to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the proportionality in relation to the way these measures are used by local authorities and by the police.
I accept for the most part what the Minister said. I thank him for the reassurances he has given in relation to the proposed statutory instruments which will make express reference to publicity and to the way that these designated areas will be implemented, so that their effect will be communicated to everyone.
I have one question for the Minister in relation to the notices that will go up in relation to these designated public places. The noble Lord made absolutely clear that mere drinking in a designated public place will not necessarily be an offence. It will only be one if an individual refuses, when asked or pressed by a police officer, to surrender that alcohol. Will that be made clear on the notices? I ask the question because it is tremendously important that the public understand where they stand in relation to their behaviour in a designated public place, particularly as we have been questioning the matter in this House and it was questioned in another place. That is extraordinarily important.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before I have to decide what to do about Amendment No. 32A, can the Minister indicate whether the Government will ensure that the regulations meet the principle of proportionality? That is to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, myself and others.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought I would enable the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to consider her position first before taking the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We have probably gone a little out of order.
To answer the question of the noble Baroness, yes, we would expect that information to be made plain on the notices. I expect that any sensible local authority would want to give considerable publicity to the designation of an area. Certainly, if I were the leader of the local council—I have held such a position—I would want to see it widely advertised in local newspapers and perhaps even in the council's own

571
news outlets, newspapers and newsletters. It is obviously in the interests of law enforcement and compliance that everyone knows exactly where they stand.
Perhaps I may turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his very helpful contribution. In my earlier comments when I looked at the particular amendment I said that obviously these matters would be further addressed by regulations to be made under Clause 13(4). Those statutory instruments will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That will in part satisfy one of the noble Lord's concerns; that your Lordships' House and another place will have the opportunity to ensure that in debating these matters it is made plain to the local authorities that when they are deciding whether to designate a particular place they will need to be aware, as the Joint Committee said in its recommendations in paragraph 20, first,
"of the need for evidence of a current threat which makes the designation of that place appropriate and necessary";
and, secondly,
"of the need to take particular note of evidence about the frequency of occasions of alcohol-related disorder or crime in the area over the period of six months starting before the decision is taken".
In all those circumstances the local authority will want to be—to use my favourite word—"proportionate" in its approach.
I can confirm that Clause 13(2) requires the local authority to be satisfied that there is a history of nuisance or annoyance to the public associated with alcohol consumption. The regulations will require careful consultation with the police, the local authorities and others. No doubt locally they will have to consult with the local licensed victuallers' association, pub owners, managers and so on. I hope that with those assurances— picking up on the important points made to my honourable friend Charles Clarke in another place on this matter and the points made at the committee—we have satisfied any residual human rights concerns. Having answered those points and the point raised by the noble Baroness, I trust that your Lordships and the noble Baroness will not press the amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. While there are some areas that I would have liked to have pushed further, I accept what he has said today. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 35 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 12, after "or' insert "and related to"
The noble Lord said: We now move into the next group of clauses regarding the closure of pubs and other licensed premises by the police in cases of disorder. These are unlike powers we have previously discussed in a number of senses. Not least, these are essentially short-term closures in response to disorder as opposed to the designation of a public place for at least a matter of months, if not more or less for ever. Therefore, there is a different character to these clauses.
The Bill sets out three instances where pubs may be closed: first, where there is likely to be disorder; secondly, where there is disorder; and, thirdly—this is a slightly different category—where there is disturbance through excessive noise. I shall come back to the noise point when we come to the next group of amendments.
The power to allow the police to stop a person doing business when he does not want to stop is a draconian one. Of course, when there is disorder, either in the pub or in the area round about, publicans may wish to close voluntarily. Quite a number of businesses in London are closed today because of the expected disturbances and no doubt more have closed in the course of the day. But those are voluntary closures where the businesses in question decide that it is better for them, in the light of what is expected to happen, to close. We all respect that. However, the proposed power is not of that character. This is the police forcing the business to close because of disorder even though it does not wish to do so, with obvious effects on the business itself, the owners and proprietors of the business and also the staff and the customers of the licensed premises.
We therefore thought it right to give some consideration to the precise nature of the provisions. In paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 179A(1) the Bill refers to the closure being necessary in the interests of public safety. In Amendment No. 37 we suggest that it might be better if the power were attached to disorder involving the premises in question. In Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 we are asking whether closing the pub will really help. If the police are to force someone to shut his business, it seems right that consideration should be given to the fact that closing the pub will help with the matter. The Bill refers to disorder "in the vicinity", which is a vague term. The Bill as drafted concerns only present disorder or future expected disorder. It does not concern past disorder in an area or in particular premises. We are dealing essentially with a short-term power.
The other amendments in the group concern the appeal that can follow to the licensing justices. If the police initially close the business, that is their decision and is, comparatively speaking, short-term. They can then go to the licensing justices to seek to ensure that the closure persists for a while. Amendment No. 39C seeks to ensure that if the matter comes before the justices the publican will have the opportunity to be heard on the issue of the closure and whether it should be allowed to continue. That seems only fair. Amendment No. 39B suggests that, in order to permit the publican to have that opportunity, he should be given at least three hours' notice. That is not wry long,

573
but we are talking, after all, about a short-term situation and a short-term renewal of the closure order.
The other three amendments concern the way in which the licensing justices are to pursue their role in this instance. During the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Windlesham referred to the fact that the role of magistrates in these matters is longstanding and respected; but not for much longer it seems. We read rumours that tomorrow the Government are to publish a document stating that they have now decided to do away with the powers of licensing justices and give them to local authorities. If that is so, all these clauses will need to be changed, even though we have not yet passed them, in order to institute some other system of appeal to local authorities. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us more about that as it clearly bears on the Bill. It is a pity to be passing legislation that will be made redundant almost as soon as we have passed it. But there we are. That seems to be the position we are in.
Incidentally, the proposals apparently seem likely to suggest that licensed premises could apply to be open around the clock. That would have profound effects and could make these clauses and the powers contained in them much more important, not least the powers relating to noise, to which I shall return in a later debate. At the moment, late night licences are extremely difficult to obtain from the licensing justices. Those who obtain such licences feel that they must behave extremely well so as not to lose them. In the West End of London, there has been considerable investment in such premises. That investment has benefited from the fact that the licences have been quite difficult to obtain. That has also been an important factor in cleaning up the West End. Those holding the licences feel nervous, given their rarity value and their important investment value.
If that increase in the number of hours were to happen, the clauses could become all the more important, which makes it all the more necessary that we consider the wording of the tough powers that we are being asked to give to the police. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a large group of amendments. I shall try to deal with each of the amendments carefully in turn. Perhaps I may begin with Amendment No. 37. The Government do not believe that a restriction of this nature is appropriate. The police should not be prevented from taking effective action to protect the public from possible injury in cases where the closure of premises is necessary to defuse the threat of disorder, irrespective of the cause of that trouble.
The amendment may be prompted by a concern that a closure order could be made merely because there was a threat of disorder in the vicinity of the premises, even though the potential disorder was entirely unrelated to those premises and outside the control of a licensee. However, I hope to persuade the noble Lord
574
that that is a groundless fear. An order closing premises under the new Section 179A could be made only if the closure is necessary in the interests of public safety. There is, therefore, already a causal link between the closure and the disorder. In other words, any likely disorder would inevitably create the threat to public safety, and closure of the premises must be necessary—let me emphasise "necessary"—in the interests of public safety. It follows that the closure of those premises must impact on the threat caused by the likely disorder. In consequence, the pub and the disorder must be connected, and because of that I would argue that Amendment No. 37 is not necessary.
I shall turn now to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. This closure power has been designed generally so that the police may use it only if the disorder on or in the vicinity of the premises causes a threat of possible injury to members of the public and it is necessary, in the interests of public safety, to close that particular premises. We consider that the form of words used already sets a high threshold which must be met before a closure order can be made. But the effect of this amendment would be to make the threshold even harder to meet. Under those circumstances, closure would be possible only if the police officer believed that the disorder would in fact be encouraged or aggravated by the premises remaining open.
It would not be appropriate to limit this power—which would be the effect of these amendments—to situations where the closure of the premises would depend on whether the disorder would continue or be aggravated without weight being given as to whether the safety of the public, including innocent customers, would be affected. For those reasons, I do not feel able to support these two amendments.
Amendments Nos. 39B and 39C were proposed in another place and were debated quite fully. They reflect anxieties in the licensed trade that there are no procedures set down on the face of the Bill which require that the licensee should be notified of the hearing before the relevant justices or that they should have a right to make representations to the court on the issue of closure. However, again, we feel that the amendments are not necessary.
The relevant justices at the initial hearing will operate according to normal magistrates' courts procedures and in accordance with human rights law. I am confident that the licensee or manager served with a closure order will be notified by the court about the time and place of the hearing. They will have the right to appear before the justices, if that is what they wish to do, to be legally represented and, most importantly, to make legal representations.
Our concern has been that, in the interests of all, these proceedings should be expedited as quickly as possible. That is why a single justice will suffice and why the best and swiftest means of notifying the licensee has been left to the court to decide. This allows the court the maximum flexibility. It will cut down the need for any police extensions and put the matter in the hands of the justices as swiftly as possible.

575
I believe that this is entirely in the best interests of the licensed trade. New Section 179F(5) is a failsafe device intended to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations on procedural matters if any justifiable concerns arise about the practices adopted by the courts or if the courts themselves consider that they need additional and exceptional procedures to be set down. However, I do not expect such regulations to be needed. As I have said, I am confident that the courts will establish just and fair proceedings in this context. I would therefore suggest that these two amendments should not be pressed.
In our view, Amendment No. 39D would have a very imprecise and confusing effect. Section 188 of the 1964 Act enables the police, where riot or tumult is anticipated in an area, to seek an order from local justices closing licensed premises within the area where the riot or tumult is expected for any period of time that the justices think fit. These powers can be used to deal only with especially serious instances in which widespread disorder is anticipated.
Section 188 orders could be for any length of time and not necessarily to the next licensing sessions. It is by no means clear to us that the licensing justices acting at the next licensing sessions could overturn such an order. Such orders should not be made save for the period in which the riot or tumult is expected, so how should this relate to closures, which focus on excessive noise and disturbance and thus have little or nothing to do with disorder?
Finally, there is no system of appeal enshrined in the 1964 Act which addresses orders made under Section 188, but there is a system of appeals set out in Section 179G against decisions made by the relevant justices under Section 179B. We feel strongly that the amendment would be a recipe for confusion by attempting to overlay one set of specific court powers on others in a way which was never intended by the original legislators and which deal with quite different matters.
An order can be made only by the relevant justices under Section 179B(3)(b) if they have considered the issues set out in Section 179B(4)(a) or (b). These set out specific tests which make it clear that closure should be necessary in the interests of public safety or should be necessary to ensure that no disturbance is or is likely to be caused to the public by excessive noise. The power is limited by having force only until the licensing justices consider the matter, and any order made may be appealed. This is a tightly drawn section which extends the court's powers only to the extent necessary to protect the public. For those reasons, we feel that it is important that it should be both clear and precise.
Amendment No. 40 would restrict the relevant justices, at the first stage of scrutiny of the police closure order, to making an order which relates only to the opening or closing of the affected premises. We believe that the restriction imposed by this amendment is not appropriate. The justices should have the discretion, as part of the options available to them in subsection (3) of Section 179B, not only to decide whether the premises should be closed or reopened,
576
but also to impose other supplementary conditions if they decide that certain measures can be taken by the licensee to prevent the disorder or disturbance from occurring in the future.
Amendment No. 41 would introduce a form of words which is less precise than the existing version. The purpose of subsection (4) is to set out the factors to be considered by the justices in ordering the premises to be closed or to remain so. As presently drafted, the words at the start of subsection (4) make it clear that the conditions for closure should be considered only when the justices are considering whether to keep the premises closed. We believe that our current version is more precise and, again, we think that the amendment would be inappropriate.
As regards Amendment No. 44B, in cases where the relevant justices decide to keep the premises closed, I understand the concerns being expressed among those in the licensed trade that the revocation hearing before the justices should follow as quickly as possible. However, there is good reason for a minimum gap of 14 days.
First, under Section 179E(4), the licensing justices must give notice seven days before the commencement of the licensing sessions concerned of the grounds on which they propose to revoke the licence or of their reasons for attaching any conditions to it. Thus the licensing justices must have time to give initial consideration to the matter and then give seven days' notice.
It is important to emphasise that this is in part to ensure fairness to the licensee by allowing his or her legal representatives time to prepare a case defending their position. It should also be understood that a revocation hearing will not focus only on the single incident which might have led to the serving of a closure order. The hearing will need to examine the full licensing history relating to the premises over a period of perhaps up to three years, or since it was last renewed or granted. The chief executive to the licensing justices will have to prepare those records and, of course, the police will need to prepare their material on the premises over that time frame.
In those circumstances, balance is required. We would argue that 14 days is a sensible period, while being sufficiently speedy to ensure fairness to the licensee, whose business may be losing income.
Finally, let me emphasise that the relevant justices have authority to keep the premises closed during this period only if they consider it necessary in the interests of public safety or to prevent further disturbance to the public. For those reasons, I hope that Amendment No. 44 will not be pressed.
The noble Lord raised one or two more general issues in relation to licensing and possible forthcoming announcements. We are likely to announce our view on licensing reform in the future. The Home Secretary has been considering responses to the White Paper. His announcement will include a decision as to whether control of liquor licensing should be given to local authorities or to magistrates. I can say no more than that. Many of these matters were flagged up

577
carefully in the White Paper and I am afraid that the Committee will have to await future announcements. I am sure that Members will wait with baited breath.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I certainly shall not hold my breath until we get these announcements; they have been some months in arriving. I noticed that they are still described by the Minister as "possible forthcoming announcements". Quite frankly, it is not satisfactory that we should be altering all this detail in the licensing laws when much of the basis on which it rests—notably the licensing justices—is likely to be removed within a few months.
Collectively, in Parliament we do a great deal of fiddling about with legislation. If we passed less legislation less frequently—legislation which was more connected with itself—it would be to the benefit of the country. However, that is an observation which is not immediately related to these amendments, although they will be very much affected by what is likely to be announced. As usual, Parliament is in the position at the moment where all that has happened is that we have read it in the newspapers. No doubt we shall have more authoritative announcements in due course.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 39B and 39C, the Minister was reassuring about the procedures to be followed. In the light of the decisions in Pepper v. Hart, his statement that the pub and the disorder must be connected seems to achieve much of what we were trying to achieve in the earlier amendments in this group.
As I said, these are quite draconian powers. One can think of some pubs which are never likely to be affected by them and others which may be. I remember that many years ago the Craddock Arms was the first pub I ever went into. That pub is unlikely to be affected by these provisions. It may he that others share that distinction, but I can think of a few others that will be affected. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert—
"() A closure order may only he made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c) if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance."
The noble Lord said: The amendment brings me to the third of the three reasons why a policeman may make a closure order on a pub temporarily under these powers; that is, because a disturbance is being caused to the public by excessive noise from the premises themselves. Clearly, this is directly related to the licensed premises in question and to the noise obviously emitted from those premises. It is related to the pub and the people within the pub who are creating the disturbance.
Again, the power that the police have to close it is quite fierce. This modest amendment suggests that, when it is a question of a closure on noise grounds, the police must have told the licensee that they intended to make such an order and must have given him a period in which to quell the disturbance, in which to put his own house in order. It is always better if the licensee and his staff can deal with the matter rather than having the police intervene. If the police intervene, it weakens the authority of the licensee for the future in some respects. It is better if he or she is able to deal with the situation, hence our suggestion in this modest amendment that a warning should be given and that the licensee should have an opportunity to quell the disturbance. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If the noble Lord, Lord Cope, lets me know where the Craddock Arms is, at the conclusion of these deliberations on licensing matters I shall happily ensure that a pint is drawn at my expense. I should love to be able to take the noble Lord to my own first watering hole but, sadly, the village has suffered two pub closures—one of which is the Red Lion—and so I cannot make the invitation in return.
The amendment would inevitably mean that the public would be exposed to a longer period of disturbance before the police could take action. Although well intentioned in spirit, in practice it would mean that the police must first visit the premises and warn the licensee about excessive noise. The police would then have to wait for some unspecified period—there is nothing in the amendment that sets out how long they would have to wait—during which time the licensee would make his attempt to eradicate the disturbance.
Licensees are well aware of their responsibilities to their neighbours and of the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996 not to create excessive noise nuisance. Where the noise nuisance is the result of equipment such as music amplifiers, it can be seized. But there is a gap in the law where noise is caused by people. There is usually a long gap before action can be taken to end the nuisance, and residents who simply want a peaceful night's sleep often have to endure these problems for a very long time indeed.
The purpose of Section 179A(1)(c) is to produce an instant solution. Building in delay is simply not sensible. I have no doubt that the police will, in practice, give licensees warnings and opportunities to reduce noise levels rather than embroil themselves in the protracted court proceedings described in the remainder of Clause 17. However, they must, in our view, have the power to move swiftly to end serious disturbances to the general public. For those reasons we feel that we must resist the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The location of the Craddock Arms is a very exclusive piece of

579
information; it is not shared by all that many people. I should have to take advice before passing it on more widely in case it should lead to a disturbance.
I take the Minister's point about delay in quelling the noise. We deliberately did not suggest any period of time in the amendment, which would have left it open for the police to say, "We will give you five minutes to quell the disturbance", or whatever period they felt appropriate in the circumstances. I take the Minister's point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39B to 41 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 11, line 16, after "a" insert "single"
The noble Lord said: We move on now to the part of the Bill which deals with what happens at the end of the 24 hours. I explained that the intention is—in the case of either disorder or noise—that the police should close a business for 24 hours only in response to an immediate difficulty. But the Bill provides that the closure can be extended. Under the Bill, the police can go on closing premises, day after day after day, for a long period of time until the justices are brought into the situation and a longer term decision can be taken.
I believe that, generally speaking, the disorder will have blown over in a day or two, or even more quickly if it is related to the pub and the pub is shut. The likelihood is that it will he over in a matter of minutes when people have had time to disperse—unless the closure makes the situation more difficult in which case it may continue for an hour or two. The chances of the disorder continuing for a number of days seem remote and in such a case the justices have power to deal with it.
We therefore suggest that the police should be able to put the pub out of business for 24 hours initially, as suggested by the Bill, and for only one extension period. The same point is covered by both amendments. The proposal does not mean that the pub has to reopen after 48 hours, because the powers of the justices exist; but it limits slightly the draconian nature of the police powers. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Proposed new Section 179C permits the responsible senior police officer to extend a closure order for up to 24 hours in the circumstances described on an unlimited number of occasions. However, under proposed new Section 179B(1) the senior police officer is under a duty to apply to the relevant justices as soon as is reasonably practicable after the coming into force of a closure order for them to consider it or any extension. Similarly, under proposed new Section 179B(2) the relevant justices are under a duty to consider the matter as soon as is reasonably practicable. The fact that one justice will suffice gives real flexibility to move at speed. So the occasions on which the police will need to exercise their powers under new Section 179C more than once will be rare, although not impossible.
580
We cannot foresee every possible difficulty that might arise for the courts, particularly around national holidays or where, for example, a justice who has undertaken to make himself available falls ill. It would be wrong in circumstances where the police believed that the premises being open constituted a danger to public safety if they could not act to continue the closure pending efforts by the courts to overcome their difficulties.
We can well understand the anxiety of the licensed trade that the police might use their powers to extend closure orders repeatedly without court involvement, but that simply will not happen. I am also aware that many in the trade do not realise that when an order for the extension of a closure is made, the police must meet the same tests as apply when they make a closure order initially. This is no simple right to extend the order. The tests which the senior police officer must meet in proposed new Section 179C do not represent a simple hurdle, and the duties on the police and the justices will ensure that the matter proceeds speedily to a resolution. We must, however, allow for exceptional circumstances, and the amendments must be resisted on that basis.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has explained the Government's position clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 43 under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, leave out lines 7 to 28.
The noble Lord said: It is suggested that with this amendment we should discuss Amendment No. 43 and also Amendment No. 44, which deals with a slightly separate point.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 relate to the fact that under the provision in proposed new Section 179I the police are to be exempt from liability for damages. I made the point at the beginning of our debate on this group of amendments that we are giving the police a very strong power. It will have considerable effects on a business and on the employees of that business if it is closed for a length of time. Even if the closure lasts only a day, that period of time is still important; if it continues for a number of days the matter becomes progressively more important.
The fact that in no circumstances can the police—an individual officer, the chief constable or the police generally—be held responsible for any of the financial consequences of the closure offers tremendous protection for the police but tremendous exposure, as it were, for the licensed trade. Amendment No. 43 merely suggests that if the closure has been made in "bad faith", as suggested in the Bill, the possibility of claims for damages might arise. I am not quite sure

581
what "bad faith" means in practical terms in law. We suggest the addition of the words, "disproportionate use of force". We are talking about a time when there is trouble in an area and when damage can be caused if the police use force disproportionately. It seems to me that it should at least be possible to award damages against the police and in favour of the person to whom the damage has been done.
Amendment No. 44 deals with an unrelated point, but it is convenient to discuss it under this grouping. Proposed new Section 179J concerns offences by a body corporate and makes clear that where an offence has been committed by a body corporate the directors, managers, secretaries and other officers can be held to be liable and can, if necessary, be punished: that is, if the act has been committed with their consent or connivance or is a result of their neglect. It is a small drafting point; however, it seems to us that a wilful omission on the part of a director or other person might also give rise to a potential claim. That is the provision that Amendment No. 44 attempts to insert. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We believe that the police should be able to use the closure power in good faith in the interests of public safety and the community generally without fear of claims for compensation for any commercial or other monetary losses resulting from a closure. However, under the relevant provisions, this immunity would not cover cases where the police acted in bad faith or where their action was found to be unlawful under the Human Rights Act. So it is a limited immunity, which is not without precedent. A similar immunity was granted by Parliament to the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services Act 2000.
Prior to introducing this provision, the closure powers were discussed carefully with the police service. Senior police officers were concerned that officers might hesitate to use the powers if they felt that they could become embroiled in legal action to recover losses. It would be quite wrong for there to be hesitation where public protection is an issue. Such fears could defeat the object of this clause; namely, giving the police an option to take quick action in appropriate cases to protect the public.
Turning to Amendment No. 43, the use of disproportionate force by the police would be covered by the existing condition contained in subsection (3)(b) of proposed new Section 179I: that the immunity does not apply to actions which are unlawful under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act. This provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. In any circumstances where the police used excessive or unnecessary force when exercising the closure power under this clause, they would, almost by definition, be breaching an individual's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For that reason, we do not believe that this amendment is either necessary or required.
582
As regards Amendment No. 44, we believe that the existing provision in new Section 179J of the 1964 Act—namely, that the designated officer would be liable if he were at fault because of "connivance" or "neglect"—is sufficient to cover cases where that person had wilfully failed to act. The wording of new Section 179J is widely used in other statutes. I believe that it is well understood by the courts. Provisions relating to offences by bodies corporate in substantially identical terms appear in, for example, Section 273 of the Transport Act 2000, Section 400 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and Section 39 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, as well as in Clause 26 of this Bill. Using different wording to achieve essentially the same ends would merely throw doubt upon those other provisions. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Therefore, with those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw all of his amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have a certain sympathy with this amendment, although I believe that the problem it seeks to explore is probably dealt with, as the Minister indicated, in a very complicated way. Perhaps I may briefly explain my difficulties about this exemption from liability as it stands.
As is well known, there is a general problem in English administrative law. If a public authority—whether the police or anyone else—abuses its powers in a way that causes direct economic or financial loss, English law, unlike the law of most other civilised countries, especially those in Europe, gives no right for damages. We have a very strange principle in English law in general. The remedy is to obtain a "stop it" order; in other words, an order quashing a decision or preventing a similar decision from being taken again. But the luckless victim who suffers financial or economic loss (in this case in respect of property), does not have a right under English administrative law to compensation. Some judges have pointed out what unfair results that situation can create, and how the remedies seem to be the wrong way round. Very often, compensation matters more than the draconian remedy of, say, a quashing order.
The exemption from damages in proceedings for judicial review—which is what I have just been talking about—or for the tort of negligence, or even for misfeasance in public office—which is, basically, bad faith in exercising one's public powers—would, on the face of it, be a very startling exemption. Certainly, if it went beyond property, it would be most likely to breach the right of access to courts under the European human rights convention. Indeed, there are cases such as Osman, Tinnelly and another now pending before the European Court, which are all concerned with that issue.
However, the Government have obviously been advised that they cannot keep such a broad exemption. Therefore, as I understand it, they have clawed back

583
the position from a blanket exemption by means of subsection (3) of new Section 1791, which says that the exemption will not apply,
"if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith",
or if the immunity would,
"prevent an award of damages made in respect of an act or omission on the ground",
that it would breach the Human Rights Act 1998.
As I understand it, it works as follows. There is a right to property in Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Human Rights Act. If there were an unnecessary interference with that right to property by the exercise of the closure powers, there would a breach of the human rights convention and of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. It would mean that the police officer would have acted tortiously in breach of the Section 6 duty, and a direct action could be brought against his superior for damages under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been successful in ensuring that only mean damages awards will normally be given, and has sought to do so in the way that the Human Rights Act is drafted—he is probably right in having done that—there will, nevertheless, still be the right to recover compensation for an abuse of power involving an interference with the fundamental rights and enjoyment of one's property.
If it had been left to me, I certainly should not have drafted such a provision in this way because one would have to go through the process that I just outlined and unpick it—deconstruct it—to understand what is really happening. I see that the Minister is not indicating any disagreement with me in this respect. Therefore, if my understanding is correct and that is roughly the position, I am satisfied that the immunity will not go wider than is necessary in this particular case.
The Minister referred to the immunity given to the Financial Services Authority under a separate statute. I believe that I advised at the time that that immunity might well go too far if it were abused. However, that provision does not have the same kind of built-in safeguards as those provided by this Bill. I hope that I have given a helpful, not obfuscating, explanation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As far as I am concerned, that explanation is entirely helpful. It is difficult to come to this House on any day without learning something. Indeed, one sometimes learns a good deal; for example, that "bad faith" turns out to be misfeasance. The net result of both the Minister's and the noble Lord's speech is that I wish to seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 44A:
Page 16, line 5, after "to" insert "open and"
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to a small point concerning the definition of "a manager". The Bill says that a manager is someone who can
584
"close the premises". However, many people can close premises; it seems to me that the manager is the person who can open them. That is exactly what the amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall try to make my response almost as brief as the noble Lord's introduction. Licensed premises are legitimate business concerns. So long as their licence is in force and no closure order or extension of it exists, they may open within permitted hours as set out in the Licensing Act 1964. The only authority relevant to Clause 17 is the authority to close the premises, making the person an "appropriate person" on whom to serve closure orders. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to re-define "a manager" in the manner suggested in the amendment. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thought that the amendment contained a useful suggestion. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44B not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 44C:
Page 16, line 26, leave out ", or is supplied with,"
The noble Lord said: This is another modest looking amendment, but one which would have slightly more consequences. The position under the Bill is that if a pub or other premises are closed, the manager, or any member of the staff, cannot supply either food or drink in the normal way; in other words, beer, and so on, cannot be sold on the premises.
Nevertheless, the manager and his family may want to continue to eat there if the closure goes on for any length of time. It is in order under the Bill for the manager to supply his family with food that would otherwise have been sold in the restaurant. However, the Bill does not allow the manager to supply food to anyone else. The manager may wish to give a policeman a cup of tea. He may have people in his household to whom he is not related; who are not members of his family but nevertheless are in his household. For example, he may have a partner rather than a wife. I do not believe that a partner would count as a member of his family.
As I say, other people may live in the household who are not related to the manager. There is also the question of his staff. Under the Bill the manager cannot feed any staff who remain on the premises in the hope that they will be reopened. My amendment seeks to allow the manager to continue to supply—but not to sell—any item of food or drink to the persons I have mentioned. I do not propose that he should be allowed to sell those items or continue to run his business. However, the amendment would allow him to give a cup of tea to a policeman. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hope that the landlord would be able to give a policeman a cup of tea. I am

585
not unsympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, at present the relevant premises would be considered to be open if any person other than the licensee or the manager or their family entered on to the premises and purchased or was supplied with any item of food or drink or any item normally sold there. The amendment would enable a licensee or manager of the premises to supply food and drink but not sell it.
That is not at all unreasonable. It is, after all, commercial trading that is at issue. I am sure that the noble Lord intends that that licensee should be able to supply personal friends with food and drink or a "copper with a cuppa", as it were, perhaps in a private part of the premises, and perhaps supply a cup of tea to a builder or electrician or other workmen working on the premises. However, sadly, I believe that the amendment would drive a hole through the enforcement provisions included in the clause.
Four people eating a quiet meal together in the private residential areas of the premises may be acceptable, but what about 30 people drinking in the bar behind locked doors? The police would have to decide whether those on the premises had been given their drinks for free. Those present could have paid either by ticket prior to entry or in the normal way across the bar. How could the police acquire the necessary evidence if customers and licensee conspired to tell the same tale? How could the police prove that that was trade rather than a private party?
To make this amendment would, therefore, create a serious loophole in Clause 17. The licensee could continue trading behind closed doors after service of a closure order in the way in which so-called "lock-ins" occur now. For those reasons I must resist the amendment.
In enforcing this aspect of the closure arrangements, we shall need to rely on the good sense and experience of the police and the courts. A quiet dinner party or drink in the residential parts of the premises are unlikely to attract police attention and, if they did, I am sure that the police in their usual pragmatic and no nonsense fashion would be unlikely to pursue a prosecution. As the White Paper, Time for Reform, published last year, indicated, we shall issue guidance to the police on the use of the new powers. I am confident that we shall be able to address the question of when premises should be regarded as being open when we issue that guidance. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: Before the Minister sits down, is it not the case that under present licensing laws the "after hours" rules, as it were, extend beyond the family of the licensee to all his known friends? Could not that be included in the amendment?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose that it could. However, as I said, we must rely on the good sense of
586
the police. That is what we are trying to foster and encourage through the guidance. The noble Earl makes a valid point to consider in those circumstances.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have every confidence in the good sense of the police the vast majority of the time. However, it is not satisfactory that the Government are, as I understand the Minister's reply, making it strictly speaking illegal for the landlord to supply food or drink to someone who is not a member of his family even if that person lives on the premises and even if it is unlikely that the police will prosecute a landlord in such circumstances. That does not seem to me a satisfactory way in which to leave the law. We shall need to give further consideration to the matter between now and whatever subsequent stages of the Bill take place. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Closure notices]:
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 17, line 3, after "being.' insert ", or within the last 24 hours have been,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 45, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 and 53. The effect of these amendments is to clarify that the power contained in Clause 19 to issue closure notices can be used against premises which, to the satisfaction of the police or the local authority, have been used for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor at some time within the previous 24 hours.
As presently drafted, the provisions in the relevant subsections of Clause 19 could be interpreted as meaning that a closure notice could be issued only if the use of the premises for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor had continued up until the serving of that notice. This restricted effect was not intended, especially as it would not cover cases where the use is not continuing when the police or the local authority wish to serve their notice, although it has occurred in the previous 24 hours and is more than likely to recur at a later date.
The purpose of the measures in Clauses 19 to 28 is to allow action to be taken against particular premises where there is either continuing offending or previous offending within the past 24 hours. These amendments, therefore, make technical changes which confirm that action may be taken where the illegal use has taken place within a previous period of 24 hours. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 17, line 4, after "liquor" insert "or the supply or sale or offering to supply or sell any controlled drug"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 46, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 52. Clause 19 of the Bill deals with the closure of unlicensed premises. Our amendment is intended to

587
use this important opportunity to tackle an insidious, all too common problem whereby such premises are used for the illegal supply and sale of drugs. That the premises are unlicensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor may not by itself be the problem.
My honourable friend in another place, the Member for Surrey Heath, Mr Nick Hawkins MP, gave the sad example of Leah Betts to illustrate that premises may be unlicensed and yet supply and sell the illegal drug Ecstasy. In that case the effects were made far worse, and in the case of Leah Betts fatal, by the drinking of water. In other words, it does not matter whether the premises are licensed for alcohol. If drugs are present, there is an inherent problem.
Given the tough powers in the Bill to close unlicensed premises, we believe that it does not make sense to leave this amendment out of the Bill. When a similar amendment was debated in another place the Minister argued that it would apply in a small number of cases. But will the Minister now tell us whether that is an adequate reason for not supporting it? Murder does not take place on a day-by-day basis but we still see fit to legislate against it.
Amendment No. 52 is a simple amendment. It removes the discretionary power of local authorities and police to cancel a closure notice and instead makes it a responsibility of the local authority and/or the police to cancel a closure notice when the circumstances permit. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 46 was put forward by the Opposition during the Bill's passage in another place. As explained then by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, the provisions in Clauses 19 to 28 address a separate and different problem from that presented by drugs dens or crack houses. There are several reasons why Clause 19 is not the right approach to this aspect of the drugs problem.
First, unlike the sale of drugs, the sale of alcohol in this country is legal if it is licensed or permitted by some of the exceptions made under licensing law. The problem with unlicensed drinking dens is that innocent tourists and other members of the public will have no idea that the sale of alcohol in these clubs is illegal. The clubs are more often than not confused with legitimate outlets. Innocent people are often attracted to the clubs by people in the street brazenly advertising the premises. The advertising is often blatant because the owner or operator, sometimes living abroad, does not fear police action in arresting his staff or confiscating the alcohol on the premises. The profits are so high that the premises will often be restaffed and restocked within days. The Bill provides a solution by ensuring that the premises cannot be used once a closure order has been made by the courts.
Premises being used for the sale of drugs are unlikely to advertise their existence and as such do not attract innocent members of the public or innocent tourists. People frequenting such premises know they are acting criminally and taking the very serious risk of involving
588
themselves with drugs—perhaps even in the tragic circumstances to which the noble Baroness drew attention. Drugs dens are very often in residential accommodation, which raises quite different issues from drinking dens. We shall come to that point later. If premises are closed down and boarded up, there may be residents to re-house. The property will very often be owned by the local authority, a housing association or an innocent landlord who knows very little of his tenants' activities. Major criminals controlling drugs distribution networks will rarely own, lease or rent premises at which drugs are sold and used in this way. So the amendment misses its target, and would potentially hurt innocent parties who own or control the properties rather than the people making money out of others' misery.
When the police move in and arrest those working in these illegal drinking dens, it is often impossible to track down the owner of the property to take action against him. So he profits while his staff are prosecuted. These provisions give the police and local authority a means of protecting the public and preventing the absentee owner or organiser from generating more profit.
Clauses 19 to 28 are a measured response to a very particular problem which the police indicate is focused on the West End of London. The solution in the Bill is equally sharply targeted and perhaps the only comparable situation is that in connection with some illegal sex establishments.
Amendment No. 52 is clearly well intended but again, I think, misunderstands the purpose that the closure notice serves. As explained on government amendments to Clause 19, the unlawful use of these premises as drinking dens will almost certainly be brought to an abrupt halt when raided by the police. The staff would be arrested and the stock seized. However, experience shows that the criminals behind these enterprises will restaff and restock the premises and at a point in the future resume the illegal use of the premises.
The closure notice will therefore almost invariably be served when illegal trading on the premises has ceased. The closure notice does not close the premises down. It puts the operators on notice that if the illegal trade resumes, the police or the local authority will seek a closure order from the courts. So if the police or local authority were required to cancel a closure notice if the circumstances described in subsections (1) and (2) no longer applied, the entire scheme would be undermined. As I said, at the point in time when any closure notice is served the circumstances described in subsections (1) and (2) will have ended. The task is to prevent them resuming.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I accept what he said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 51:
Page 17, line 8, after "being insert ", or within the last 24 hours have been."
Page 17, line 13, leave out "being"
Page 17, line 13, leave out from "premises" to end of line 16.
Page 17, line 27, leave out "being"
Page 17, line 36, at end insert "or (as the case may be) does not recur"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 18, line 2, leave out "being"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Termination of closure orders by constable or local authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Confiscation of alcohol containers from young persons]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert "or any item containing such liquor"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 57. The amendments relate to the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, commonly known as the "Bob Spink Act" because he was the Member of Parliament, and one of my honourable friends, who introduced the Bill in another place.
The purpose of the clause is narrow, as is the objective of the amendment. It is to ensure that if alcohol is confiscated it includes the container in which it is found. Amendment No. 57 raises the question of whether a sealed container should also be confiscated. If a youth is drinking from a can of beer and has another in his pocket, the police can confiscate the can from which he is drinking but not the one in his pocket. That is not a satisfactory arrangement.
The clause gets round what I think of as "The Merchant of Venice" point. Part of the action of that Shakespearean play concerns whether, when taking flesh, one is permitted to take blood at the same time. How to take the alcohol without taking away the tin in which it is contained is a similar dilemma m some respects. I am taking the issue a little further and suggesting that the tin in the offender's pocket—which he has not yet started, but will the moment the policeman turns round—should also be subject to confiscation, under the terms of the Act. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Home Office briefing does not deal with "The Merchant of Venice". I understand the problem that the noble Lord
590
mentioned, but he may acknowledge that we also see a problem. We have some sympathy with the purpose behind the amendments, which would amend the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 to give the police a power to confiscate alcohol in a sealed or open container from those under 18 in any public place. However, that would create a distinction between the powers of the police in respect of young people and adults. Clause 13 explicitly precludes the confiscation of sealed containers from adults.
The Government are keen on measures that will help to reduce the problem of under-age drinking, but we are concerned that the extension of police powers to confiscate alcohol in sealed containers may be disproportionate to the purpose of the clauses and of the original Act, both of which focus police powers for confiscation on circumstances in which there is a reasonable suspicion that the alcohol will be consumed by a person under 18 or by any person in a designated public place under Clause 12.
The police will reasonably have such a suspicion if the alcohol container has been opened, but the case becomes less clear if it is sealed. We feel that there would be disputes about whether the alcohol was to be consumed in the public place or to be lawfully consumed elsewhere. Clause 12 will enable the police to prevent public drinking and to move individuals on. The confiscation powers in the 1997 Act apply to persons over 18 if the officer has a suspicion that the alcohol will be consumed by a person under 18. The amendments would allow for the confiscation of sealed containers in those circumstances. That would inevitably lead to more disputes about the individual's intentions and would probably be open to challenge.
For those reasons, the Government do not support the amendments and consider that the clause should stand as drafted to achieve consistency between the powers provided by the Bill, which will apply to juveniles and adults alike, and those provided by the 1997 Act, which apply only to those under 18.
I accept that that does not entirely cover the noble Lord's point, which he has made well, but giving a power to confiscate closed or sealed containers would probably create a bigger problem than he envisages.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This time I was going to rely on the good sense of the police to decide whether to confiscate a sealed container, whereas earlier the Minister was trying to do so. I would not want Clauses 29 and 12 to be inconsistent and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 23, line 29, after "for" insert "written"
The noble Lord said: We now move to the question of establishing the age of young people who seek to buy alcohol in a pub or other licensed premises. The idea behind the amendments is that some form of proof of age card is the best way forward. We all know that it is sometimes difficult to tell the age of a young person and to be sure whether they are entitled to buy liquor. That problem arises in both directions. As well as under-age people attempting to buy liquor, sometimes young people who are of an age to buy liquor may be thought to look younger than they are and may be refused a drink, which can be embarrassing for them, given the sensitivity of young people to these matters.
Proof of age cards are one method of getting round that problem. They have been widely used unofficially in recent years. They seem to be extremely helpful. A number of them are in fairly wide circulation, including the brewers' "Validate UK" card and the Portman Group's "Prove It!" card, while others circulate on a local basis.
Having a large number of different cards circulating makes it more difficult for the publican or his staff to rely on them. The suggestion incorporated in the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 62, is that the Secretary of State should do his best to select ones that he thinks are satisfactory and well run. Bar staff could then rely on those cards.
We are not suggesting a national identity card or anything compulsory. The cards are currently voluntary, but they are widely carried. Those of the appropriate age feel that it is an advantage to carry them and they are a great assistance to bar staff and a great help in enforcing the particularly difficult but important distinction that the law attempts to make between young persons of a similar age.
The amendments are not necessarily perfectly drafted. I am not relying on that. However, it would be valuable to hear the Government's thinking on proof of age cards. I think that such cards, on a voluntary basis, have a contribution to make and that it would be better made if the cards had a more official character on the general lines suggested in the amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Sandwich: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his reasonable amendments. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the Government have departed from previous thinking on the subject.
Lord Davies of Oldham: This is an interesting debate. I recognise the tentative way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, expressed his view of the validity of the amendments. I shall not rest too heavily on the precision of the drafting. I shall deal with the main issues in the amendments, which were also tabled by the Opposition in another place.
Clause 30 imposes a duty on persons selling intoxicating liquor in licensed premises to take positive steps to ensure that they do not sell to those under age. The intention is to place on all staff in on-licensed and off-licensed premises an obligation to
592
satisfy themselves, before selling or serving alcohol, that customers are not under the age of 18. In appropriate cases, they would be required to ask young customers to provide proof of age.
The clause amends the defence available in Section 169A(2) of the Licensing Act 1964 to a person who is charged with the offence of selling intoxicating liquor to a person under 18 in licensed premises. Currently, the defence in that section would be effective if the defendant could prove that he had no reason to suspect that the customer was under the age of 18. That is a relatively low obligation which does not require the taking of positive steps to check the age of the customer.
Clause 30(1) increases the obligation so that the defendant would have to prove, first, that he believed that the customer was not under 18, and, secondly, that either he had taken all reasonable steps to establish the customer's age or that no one could reasonably have suspected from the customer's appearance that he was under 18.
Under the first part of new Section 169A(2)(b), the defendant will be deemed to have taken "all reasonable steps" if he asked the customer for evidence of his age. However, if the prosecution proves that the evidence of age was such that no reasonable person would have been convinced by it, the defence would fail.
The effect of the second part of new Section 169A(2)(b) is that staff in licensed premises will not be under an obligation to ask for proof of age if the appearance of the customer is such that no one could reasonably have suspected that he was under 18. That means, for example, that I would not expect my local publican to challenge me when I enter his bar. It also provides a defence to bona fide staff who are confronted with such an abnormally old-looking 17 year-old that no one would reasonably have suspected that he or she was under age.
However, we recognise that the closer an individual is to the age of 18 the finer the judgments will become. A judgment as to whether the defendant's view was reasonable would be made in an objective test in accordance with what a reasonable person would have thought in the same situation. That is an important change. An existing subjective test becomes an objective one.
Amendment No. 58 would affect the defence which staff in licensed premises may put forward if charged with selling alcohol to a minor. I hope that my pronunciation is accurate and that people recognise that I am talking about those under the age of 18 and not "miners"; otherwise, I should be in serious trouble with many people whom I know very well.
The "all reasonable steps" defence would be viable if the defendant had asked the minor for written evidence of his age. This could, for example, cover a birth certificate, which is written evidence but is far from proof of age. "Proof of age" necessarily implies three things: a photograph to match the face of the purchaser; a date of birth on the same document; and a document of some credibility bearing the first two items.

593
Therefore, the evidence has several components, not all of which, as in the case of photographs, could be described as "written". In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise why his amendment, as it stands, cannot be accepted.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 62 seek to introduce a system whereby the Secretary of State would prescribe either one or several proof of age cards which, if produced by the customer, could then be used as evidence to support the "all reasonable steps" defence. The Secretary of State cannot sensibly prescribe certain existing proof of age cards in the way that the amendment suggests.
The reason is one of practicality. Tens of millions of tourists visit this country every year and many, of course, are youngsters. Some will want to eat, drink and enjoy themselves in our pubs and restaurants and buy from our off-licences. If we prescribe certain cards, an 18 year-old Canadian who dutifully presents a perfectly valid Canadian national identity card may well be refused service. While we strongly support many of the existing proof of age card schemes, such as the "Prove It", "Validate" and "Citizen Card" schemes, it would simply not be practical to prescribe every form of ID, photo-driving licence and proof of age card from every country that might be acceptable.
As the clause stands, it becomes a matter for the courts to decide on the evidence whether the proof of age seen was such that it would have deceived a reasonable person. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press these three amendments.
We consider Amendment No. 60, which concerns obvious forgeries, to be unnecessary. The current wording of Clause 30 ensures that a person will be treated as having taken all necessary steps only if the evidence produced would have convinced a reasonable person. That is a clear and objective test which the courts will understand fully. In cases where the purported evidence clearly did not belong to the young person producing it, or where the evidence was an obvious forgery, the defence would fail.
In any event, forgery is not the main problem in relation to these cards. Many existing cards are produced to a very high standard and are not easily forged. The main problem concerns children who use lost, stolen and borrowed cards. Very often, the faces do not match the cards and the users rely on retailers being casual and inattentive. The clause will certainly penalise those who are casual or inattentive about the law on sales to minors. However, those who accept their responsibilities properly have nothing to fear from these provisions. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Amendment No. 61 presupposes that the Secretary of State should issue guidance about proof of age cards. The Intoxicating Liquor (Sales to Persons under Eighteen) Act 1923 first prohibited the sale to or purchase by persons under the age of 18 of alcohol. That measure has been with us for a very long time, and we are not placing an entirely new duty on licensees. The position should be relatively simple. If a
594
licensee has any doubt whatever about the age of a potential purchaser, then no sale should be made. It really is as simple as that. Indeed, the British Institute of Innkeeping provides that advice in its courses for licensees who seek national qualifications.
The ultimate responsibility cannot be abdicated by the licensing trade. The judgment must be made by staff in licensed premises who are presented with a potential customer bearing a card purportedly showing his or her age. They must decide whether the card is genuine, forged or wrongfully held. Ultimately, they must decide whether the purchaser is at least 18 years of age and, if they are not completely confident, they should refuse to sell. Therefore, again, I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
I mention in general terms that cards which have validity and which are recognised and encouraged can be strengthened. In that respect, I believe that the Government will prove one dimension to be helpful. The DfEE "Connexions Card" for 16 to 19 year-olds who are in education may have a role to play in supplementing the existing voluntary cards, photo-driving licences and passports currently in use because they clearly bear the age of the young person concerned. Those cards, bearing people's ages, will become available to, and be in the possession of, a large number of young people over the age of 18 who are entitled to drink as well as, of course, being available to those under that age.
I emphasise that we recognise the points that have been made by the Opposition in proposing these amendments. However, we are unable to accept them because the issues are already covered by the Bill as drafted.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hope that members of the Committee will permit me to say that I consider these provisions to be daft. The proposal, as the Minister said, involves an objective test relating to the belief of the licensee or bar staff who are charged with serving intoxicating liquor to a person who is under 18. How on earth is a court to determine objectively that nobody could reasonably have suspected from a customer's appearance that he or she was under 18? Is it assumed that that person will be summoned to court and asked to dress as he or she was on the particular night and, if a young lady is involved, will she be asked to make herself up in the same way so that the court can come to an objective view of the licensee's belief? The proposal would cause an awful lot of trouble if it ever came to court. At least the opposition amendments propose a way of enabling a court to ascertain whether what has been done by the person serving the customer is correct. To that degree I support the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for the support that the ideas in the amendment have received. I am disappointed by the Minister's rather dismissive attitude to the possibility of proof of age cards. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, hinted just now, the powers

595
of make-up are remarkable—I have observed that occasionally in the course of my life! That makes it extremely difficult for bar staff.
I recognise that the Government are taking a short step towards my amendment with the proposal involving the Connexions card. However, that by definition would apply only to those in education and it will, as it were, be a substitute in this regard for a student union card.
The Minister's response was not at all satisfactory. We shall certainly return to this matter not necessarily in relation to this Bill but in the course of further discussions about the way in which to progress licensing laws. Proof of age cards may not be perfect, but they are the best approach in this difficult area. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Drunkenness or disorder on licensed premises]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 24, leave out lines 31 to 35.
The noble Lord said: I find proposed new Section 172A(2) extraordinary and, frankly, rather offensive. It requires that if someone is drunk in a pub or other licensed premises and the bar staff fail to control him, and if the bar staff finish up in court, the bar staff somehow have to prove that they "took all reasonable steps" to prevent drunkenness in the premises. The burden of proof is reversed. The prosecution will not have to prove that the bar staff permitted drunkenness; that will be fairly obvious if the drunkenness was had enough.
Somehow or other the bar staff have to prove that they took all reasonable steps. That is not a sensible reversal of the burden of proof. It will be extremely difficult for bar staff to live up to this burden of proof in court. We are dealing, after all, with a pub, club or other licensed premises in which by definition there are drunken people—or at least one drunken person. However, when there is one drunken person there is often more than one. Bar staff attempt to deal with such situations. Explaining all of that later in court and imposing the reverse burden of proof on the poor bar staff—whether the manager or the more junior staff, including perhaps a barmaid and others who were serving—will be extremely difficult.
This is a very onerous provision. Bar staff, managers and others have a duty, which we all accept, to do their best to prevent drunkenness and to take proper action. They do so in the interests of having a well-run pub. It is not to a pub's advantage if there are many completely drunk people making life difficult for other customers, who are trying to enjoy a quiet drink. It is the duty of staff—and, to a certain extent, customers—to do their best to prevent drunkenness; that is also in
596
the interests of all staff. Reversing the burden of proof and attempting to give the necessary explanations later in court will be very difficult. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered Clause 32. Our views on it appear in paragraphs 31 and 32 of our report. I shall sum up our position.
We sympathised with what the Minister told us; namely, that,
"the nature of the licensed industry has changed significantly over a period, away from a large number of individual licensees and publicans to a number of major organisations who employ and retain staff to run their pubs and clubs, and so on. We think that there needs to be absolute clarity in the legal rights and responsibilities. There should not be an argument that so and so was not the licensee and therefore has no responsibility".
We also welcomed the Minister's commitment to legal certainty. We said:
"We consider that certainty could be further enhanced by revisiting the definition of the offence".
We referred to the archaic language that is used in that context and to the phrase,
"any violent quarrelsome or riotous conduct".
Although "quarrelsome conduct" might not disfigure the proceedings of this House, one can imagine heated arguments in a public house between political opponents being defined in that way.
We said that such language was,
"not self-evidently in tune with the requirements of legal certainly in an era of human rights. We consider that the clause engages the right of patrons of bars to freedom of expression under Article 10"
of the convention. We observed:
"In the course of his oral evidence to the Committee, the Minister accepted that imposing a legal duty on bar staff to remove a person for quarrelsome conduct could indirectly interfere with that person's right to freedom of expression, and that even the word 'drunkenness' might not be as certain as had originally been thought, despite having been in",
old legislation. We said:
"We are therefore glad to learn that the Government arc reviewing the whole of liquor licensing law".
We recognised that one could not expect that to be done simply in this Bill. We expressed the,
"hope that the opportunity will be taken to ensure that adequate legal certainty and proportionality can be achieved in the definition of criminal offences. In the meantime, it is important"—
this deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope—
"that bar staff are not unfairly treated, and in particular that clause 32 is operated in a way which respects the Government's intention, as expressed to us, that expulsion from licensed premises will be reserved for seriously disruptive or threatening individuals"'.
Elsewhere in our report, we argued that the classic problem of the reverse onus of proof did not arise. I hope that that adequately summarises our views and that the Minister will respond to those concerns.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I warmly support what my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley said in moving this

597
amendment. We must be careful to ensure that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. To say that, merely because one person gets drunk or seems to be drunk, the burden of proof shifts and the onus is upon the barman or proprietor to prove that everything had been done to prevent that drunkenness, is neither feasible nor just. I hope that the Government will consider this point carefully.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I had intended to mention on clause stand part those matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on this amendment, though with respect to the noble Lord they go slightly wider than this amendment.
I should like the Minister who is to reply—I am sure with his normal courtesy to this Chamber—to give us a clear and simple definition of "quarrelsome behaviour". That is the test which apparently this clause lays down of a criminal offence potentially to be committed by someone who is helping to hand out drinks in a busy public house.
The clause states:
"A relevant person shall not permit … quarrelsome … conduct to take place in licensed premises".
If the bar person contravenes that provision he shall be liable to a fine. It is therefore vitally important that we should be able to tell that person, working in that public house, what is meant by "quarrelsome conduct".
I see the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, sitting on the other side of the Chamber. If we enter a public house and choose to have a disagreement about our political affiliations, are we indulging in quarrelsome conduct or are we merely having an argument? Where is the line to be drawn? One person's quarrelsome conduct may be an expression of opinion with which somebody else totally agrees. Before we make phrases like "quarrelsome conduct" criminal offences, it is important that the Minister gives a clear definition to the courts to enable them to say whether or not a person is committing an offence if he allows the behaviour to occur.
Earl Russell: I extend a warm welcome to the report of the human rights committee. It is an extremely valuable innovation for this House. It will save a lot of time and unnecessary argument. It will add a lot of weight to necessary argument and, in cases such as this, it will narrow a potential ramified argument down to a definable and useful point. It is a welcome development. I congratulate my noble friend, the Government and all those concerned on the setting up of the committee.
But the problem of the clause is a little wider, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, suggested. What are reasonable steps for a person in authority in a bar may depend on how careless that person is of their own safety. Authority over a bar, like authority over a bus, in the last resort depends on consent. Authority stretched too far may destroy consent.
598
I am told this used to be a maxim in the American army: never give an order which is not going to be obeyed. I hope the Minister will concede, with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind, that the requirement of reasonableness does not require anything further. Also, can the Minister tell me of any bar, in any country, in any century, where quarrelsome conduct has not taken place?
Lord Goldsmith: This debate ranges wide and I rise not to pick a quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, but to pick an argument with him.
Two points have been raised, but in relation to both of them what is relevant is what this clause is doing in the context in which it arises. As I understand it, the present licensing law imposes upon licensees of premises the obligation,
"not to permit drunkenness or any violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct".
The clause adds another category of person to that obligation, that category being those who are not the licensee but who cannot be said to be the agent of the licensee. Case law demonstrates that certain people—managers and employees—may not be agents of the licensee and therefore, if drunkenness is permitted, without this clause nobody would be responsible.
It is right that the Committee should consider the language. For myself, I feel that in the context of,
"violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct",
it is clear what is meant. Most people would recognise "quarrelsome conduct" when they see it in the context of,
"violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct".
But my honourable friend Mr Charles Clarke told us that there is an intention to review the legislation in relation to licensing. That was an important statement to make. That is the right time at which to review and revisit all of these questions, otherwise the difficulty would be that it would not be sufficient to put this new prohibition on one category in specific words; it would be necessary to go back to the existing legislation and try to adjust that.
That is the point the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, raises on this amendment, but by way of an observation on clause stand part. I do not know the answer to the question but I hope that my noble friend will be able to say whether the reverse onus which appears in proposed Section 172A(2) is in fact the same provision as that which applies at the moment in relation to licensees. If that is right, it means that no change is taking place.
In any event I make this observation. The onus is not on the defendant to demonstrate all of the requirements. The words state:
"If … it is proved that any person was drunk".
So the onus of proving that the person was drunk, which is the start, remains entirely on the prosecution. The only proof required from the defendant is that the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent that drunkenness. What does that mean? I am sure that the noble Earl is right in saying that "reasonable" means

599
"reasonable"; it does not mean all possible steps. In the circumstances of someone who is found drunk in a pub, there is a limit to the number of steps that can be taken—not to serve him any more drink when he appears to be drunk and to try to get him to leave. I do not regard it as a great obligation to prove that. If the clause had gone so far as to say that if anyone is found in a pub the licensee has to prove that they are not drunk, that would be going too far. As it stands, this is on the right side of the line and therefore I do not support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: A number of useful points have been made. The Government's perspective is quite clear. We take the view that Section 172 is a necessary modernisation of the 1964 Act. I can confirm that the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is correct; that is, that the reversed onus on bar staff is the same as that currently on licensees. His interpretation is entirely accurate and it makes sense that that is the case.
We are arguing for modernisation of the Act in this section. There is an irony which I think Members of the Committee have clearly spotted; that is, we are seeking to put into legislation wording which dates back to 1872. It has certainly been the case since 1872 that it is an offence for a licensee to permit drunkenness or any violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct on his premises. This act of modernisation is reliant upon some rather old and quaint language. Nevertheless it is modernisation which makes things proportionate and right in the circumstances.
It is the duty of a licensee to preserve good order on the premises. That duty goes back to the days of Henry III. I was not around at that time but I can believe that that was the case and am prepared to take it as given. The offence is currently contained in Section 172 of the 1964 Act. The existing Section 174 of that Act gives the licensee power to refuse to admit drunks and the disorderly or to expel them from the premises.
Modern operating practice in pubs and other licensed premises often involves a manager operating the premises and the licensee being generally absent. It is therefore important that managers should be under the same duty as any licensee to prevent drunkenness, preserve good order and have the same powers to expel those who are drunk and cause problems for good and orderly customers. New Section 172A would do exactly that. Drunkenness in licensed premises must be deterred. Those responsible for running licensed premises have known for several centuries that the law puts them under a duty not to permit drunkenness. Levels of public drunkenness in licensed premises are a significant public concern.
We argue that Amendment No. 63 would create an inconsistency between the rights of any manager and the rights of any licence holder operating a pub in similar circumstances. The burden on the prosecution in trying virtually identical offences would differ between one person and another. That would be wholly unfair, improper, inconsistent and plainly wrong.
600
There may be circumstances and concerns that a drunk could be present without the licensee's or manager's knowledge. However, because the offence is one of permitting drunkenness—I am sure that the Committee will agree that permission implies a degree of knowledge—a licensee or manager could riot be convicted of this offence unless a drunk had been present in his premises and the licensee or manager had known about it.
A natural defence to mount when prosecuted under these sections is that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the drunkenness. But it must be remembered that under Section 174 of the 1964 Act the licensee or manager has powers to expel the offending drunk from the premises and the right to require police assistance to that end. The police are under a statutory duty to provide the necessary assistance. That is well-established law which the courts well understand.
If the prosecution is able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a drunk or drunks were present on the licensed premises, the burden shifts to the defence, who must prove, on balance of probability, that they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the drunk's presence. In our view that is not an unreasonable or unfair proposition. As I have said, the courts have a great deal of experience in dealing with the issues arising.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to commend the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its work in this field. Had he been here earlier—I am sure he was detained on important business—he would have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lester, put exactly that argument, and valuably so. As I said earlier, we are grateful to the joint committee for its observations on this piece of legislation. It is a valuable innovation which has been well received. That committee observed that we are reviewing the whole of our liquor licensing laws. I would argue that in those circumstances we should perhaps consider modernisation, not just of the powers and duties but also the wording of the legislation. That is the proper place for that to be done, not in this piece of legislation, which is wide-ranging in its intent.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that there is probably not a pub in the world where there has not been a quarrel of some sort, but we are not attempting to restrict people's rights to disputation. We are attempting to focus on the "quarrelsome" argument, which is associated with drunkenness and violence. I rely on the Oxford English Dictionary for an interpretation. It states that the word quarrelsome means "inclined to quarrel". It goes further with the word "quarrel" and includes this definition, which is plain:
"contend violently, break off friendly relations, become inimicable or hostile".
It is in those terms that this piece of legislation and this wording are understood.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I thank the Minister for giving way. If one takes a certain current dispute in a

601
particular political party between its leader and two of its members, I fully accept that the quarrelsome nature of what is happening there is not akin to violence, and if they all met in a public house—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If it might lead to violence it is best to do it over a drink.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Does the Minister agree—I think he does—with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the word "quarrelsome" takes its colour, if I can use that word in the context of what I have just said, from the other words and has an association of violence? Therefore, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights urges that in the interval before the licensing law is amended, the prosecutorial function—which is not the responsibility of the Government—but nevertheless the Government's intention would be that it would be reserved for seriously disruptive or threatening individuals where drunkenness or violence was associated with the quarrelsome behaviour and nothing less than that. I believe that is the question which my noble friend Lord Russell also raised.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has been most helpful. It is in precisely those terms that we were thinking. I believe that the word needs to be understood in context. That is our case and that is why we are satisfied with what we have set out in the legislation. It is for all those reasons that we feel the need to resist the amendment.
Lord Renton: I believe that the Minister has overlooked a variation in human capacities. The trouble is that no two people are quite the same so far as concerns the effect upon them of alcohol. A man who has just had one pint of beer may ask for another. Judging by his behaviour then, it may be quite reasonable to give him another pint. However, because of his own physical limitation, the second pint may make him drunk. Is the barman to be prosecuted and the burden of proof upon him to be shifted simply because he did not anticipate the possibility that he might be a man who got drunk on a second pint?
Those are the sort of circumstances which unfortunately the Government must anticipate and which are difficult. If there is doubt in such matters, surely the burden of proof should remain on the prosecution and not be shifted to an innocent barman.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The discussion has been widened from the amendment. Perhaps I may address the wider point. It came as a slight surprise to me to realise that pubs were not supposed to be quarrelsome places. I have met a good few people in my time who go to the pub for a good argument. That is part of the attraction of the place. I suspect that it is also part of the attraction of people—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is certainly enhancing the quality of his experience in the Craddock Arms every time he gets up and speaks about public houses.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is another matter. I have never met anyone there who went for a good argument. There are other places where some people go for a good argument. Some people try to get elected to Parliament because they like a good argument but others find it easier just to go to the pub. Therefore, it is curious that the provision appears in the legislation.
We are, however, told that a review is forthcoming and that the wording will be considered. That brings me back to the amendment, which also needs consideration. The Minister's principal defence was given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith: that is, the reverse onus of proof is the same in the Bill as regards the bar staff as it is in existing legislation as regards the licensee. I take that point on board. However, it was not much help to say that the burden of proof is only partly reversed. Someone has to be drunk in the first place and the bar staff do not enter into proof of whether the individual was drunk.
I believe that the reversing of the onus of proof needs to be rethought in the context of rethinking licensing law. Clearly, it is sensible that the same burden should apply to the licensee and to the staff.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I want to ask him to clarify one issue. Is it not the case that under the clause as it stands the burden is on the prosecution always to prove that the relevant person has not knowingly permitted drunkenness or any violent conduct? That is the ultimate burden of proof on the prosecution.
However, as is often the case with criminal offences, the burden is then shared. While that ultimate burden remains to a criminal standard of certainty, if circumstances are such that it is fair to require the person to demonstrate that he took reasonable steps he can do so. Is that not the way it works? Is that not fairly common in the criminal law as a shared burden? Therefore, the provision is not an extreme classic reverse onus of proof.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept that it is not a total reversal of proof because the onus of proving that someone was drunk remains with the prosecution. As regards whether the relevant person permitted the drunkenness, he must go through the business of proving that he took all reasonable steps. The burden of proving that lies with him.
It is sensible that the same should be required to be proved as regards the licensee, the manager and staff. Therefore, I hope that when considering the wording as a result of the review that element will be taken into account in addition to our discussion relating to the word "quarrelsome" and so forth.
Finally, I sincerely welcome the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was introduced into the discussion after I had spoken. The timing of the report was raised. Of course it was inconvenient to another place that it was not published until after its consideration of the Bill. However, the committee is new and is only just getting going but it must make arrangements to report as often as possible and in time for both Houses to consider its recommendations.

603
I was interested to see that the committee in its report drew attention to the fact that it is important that bar staff are not unfairly treated. That seems to me to go exactly to the point of the amendment. It is put in a relatively modest way—not in a direct way— but that is in accordance with the self-denying ordinance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He pointed out that the committee had done its best to confine itself to human rights points and others to which it was particularly directed, not to wider policy points. That is entirely proper. Its duty is to look at the obligations under the different statutes, conventions and so forth and ascertain whether the Bill is in accordance with them. That it did.
However, it took the opportunity to refer to the point made indirectly in my amendment. But given the fact that the matter is to be reviewed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Power to make travel restriction orders]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): If Amendment No. 64 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 64A because of pre-emption.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 25, line 39, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 64 has been tabled to reflect the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its first report. In that report, the Joint Committee sets out its concerns regarding Clause 33(1) and Clause 35(3). Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Bill sets out provisions for dealing with crime and disorder. Clause 33 gives powers to the courts via the Secretary of State to make travel restriction orders for certain offenders who have committed serious offences.
While we would want to support that power if used sensibly and if targeted properly, we are concerned that the Government have acted outside their authority under the terms of the interpretation of the Human Rights Act and/or our international treaty obligations.
The Joint Committee stated:
"We therefore draw the attention of each House to these clauses, which we do not believe to be compatible as they stand with the international obligations of the United Kingdom under the ICCPR [the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. The provisions should make it clear that travel restriction orders are to be made only when they serve a legitimate aim under Article 12.3 of the ICCPR, and are proportionate to that aim. The provision should also make it clear that orders are to be suspended or revoked when they no longer serve a legitimate aim or are not, for the time being, proportionate to such a legitimate aim".
We consider that Clause 33(1) and Clause 35(3) should be amended in order to secure compliance with the ICCPR.
The ICCPR provides that:
"Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own"
Obviously, a passport is needed to exercise this right. As I understand it, the concerns raised by the committee are in relation to the discretionary nature of the order as well as the essence of the order; any impact that might have on the family of the offender; and the offender's right to a family life.
In making an order under Clause 33, the committee believed that future intent and likely foreign travel should be expressly stated. We could spend many hours discussing the merits of all of these matters, the needs to balance rights with obligations and the need to balance public protection and individual liberty, but that must be for another day. However, I have two issues that I want to raise with the Minister.
First, when the Minister made the statement printed on the front of the Bill attesting to the fact that the Bill was compatible with the convention rights, was he aware of any concerns which the Joint Committee might have? Can he tell us what legal advice he took to ensure that his statement was correct and will that advice be published?
Secondly, do the Government agree with the findings of the Joint Committee and what plans do they have to amend the Bill and rectify these possible breaches of our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 64A, 66A and 67A which are grouped with this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is incorrect in one very important respect. Although we are glad that the noble Baroness referred to the report of the Select Committee on Human Rights, if she reads it carefully she will see that there is no question of any breach of the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act, which gives direct effect to convention rights The problem is more subtle but just as important; namely, there is a possible breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a different international treaty that has not been given direct effect in our courts.
The problem which concerns the committee is that a British judge has no authority to apply the provisions of the international covenant when giving effect to the very wide powers conferred by Chapter 3 of the Bill in imposing travel restrictions on drug trafficking offenders. That is why the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McNally, to which I have referred, seek to give effect to the Select Committee's observations, not by leaving out the whole of the relevant part of the clause as the noble Baroness's amendment would do, but instead by introducing necessary amendments.
Amendment No. 64 would insert at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 33 the test of proportionality in relation to the power to make a travel restriction order. Amendment No. 66A would do the same thing

605
in respect of Clause 35 for the revocation or suspension of a travel restriction order, and Amendment No. 67A would do the same in the appropriate place. In each case the criminal court shall determine,
"whether the order remains appropriate and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others".
That is what the international covenant requires. Unless the Government make some such change to the legislation, a serious gap will remain and the domestic courts will not be able to give effect to the covenant rights.
There are additional protocols to the International Convention on Human Rights, in particular the fourth one, which have not yet been signed or ratified by the United Kingdom. If they were ratified and given domestic effect they would incorporate the equivalent of the covenant rights into domestic law. It is precisely because that could not happen at the moment that the Joint Select Committee took a particularly serious view of the gap and wished to draw it to the attention of both Houses. I very much hope that other Members of the Committee who participated will be able to amplify what I have said. I do not deal with the detailed reasoning in the report, which everyone can read for himself or herself.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I have tabled a series of amendments dealing with this part of the Bill in the hope that the Committee will have the opportunity to learn from the Minister the purpose of the proposed new power and how he sees it working in practice. Yesterday in the course of Committee stage my noble friend Lord Cope said that in many ways this measure was a ragbag of a Bill. When one has a Bill which covers, understandably, many different issues and matters, the trouble is that one may possibly introduce, as I suggest is being introduced into this clause, a new power—perhaps a penalty of an important nature—without the Committee having adequate time to consider that which is proposed.
The Committee is considering the proposed power of the court to implement a travel restriction. I looked to see what had been said about it in this Chamber. In the whole of the Second Reading this part of the Bill was covered by one sentence. The Minister said that,
"Clauses 33 to 37 will be an effective tool in restricting the activities of those who deal in drugs".—[Official Report, 2/4/01; col. 656.]
If one looks at the Explanatory Notes, this measure is described as a sentencing option. If one considers the explanation given in answer to the questions posed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in general terms it is said that it is a sentencing option which also has preventive intentions.
The proposal in Clause 33 is of major importance. It requires a court when dealing with any case involving drug trafficking, where it imposes a sentence of four years or more, to consider whether it is appropriate for the sentence to include the making of a travel restriction order; and, if it does not consider that it is appropriate, to state its reasons. I believe that that
606
implies a presumption that a court when imposing a sentence of four years or more for a drug trafficking offence will think it right, or will be required, to make a travel restriction order.
It has been said by the Home Office that the whole purpose of taking the limit of four years is to distinguish between those which are serious drug trafficking offences and those which are not. Therefore, this new power will be limited to what can be described as serious drug importation or drug trafficking offences. With great respect, I do not believe that to be so. While it is true that four years has always been accepted as the appropriate distinction between short and long-term sentences, the vast majority of cases where people are convicted of importing or supplying Class A drugs are likely to attract a sentence of more than four years' imprisonment.
If one considers the case of Aramah, which the Attorney-General knows well, it has been said that for major cases of importation the appropriate sentence is one of at least 10 years. In that case it was said that seldom would the courts consider a sentence of less than five years for supplying Class A drugs. I declare an interest as a former member of the Court of Appeal of the Channel Islands. The court placed the starting point for dealing in, or the importation of, Class A drugs far above the limit of four years as the dividing line between "serious" and "not serious" as suggested in this Bill. The reality is that in the vast majority of cases which involve either the importation or supply of Class A drugs the courts will be expected to add to the sentences that they pass a travel restriction order. What is that travel restriction order? It is the removal of an individual's passport for a minimum of two years and for an undisclosed maximum, which, presumably, is for life.
At the time of sentencing, on what basis will a court decide that such an order is appropriate? I accept that everything possible which is "an effective tool"—to use the Minister's own phrase—must be done to fight the horror of drug importation and drug supply. I accept that at the moment in this country drugs form a large proportion of serious crime, but we must be clear that that which we are proposing will have some effect.
I ask the Minister—this is clearly relevant, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, to the human rights issue—is the purpose of the power preventive? If so, it may well be within the international obligations. Or is it meant to be a purely punitive power? As I understand the matter, Mr Clarke has said it is really both.
What happens? A person charged as a courier on a major drugs importation appears before the court. He receives a sentence of six years. That means that he may come out at any time after three years. Let us assume that he serves two-thirds of his sentence and comes out after four years. On what basis is the court at the time of sentencing to decide that it is part of a punishment to require that he is unable to leave the country after he has completed the period of his

607
sentence? Personally, I do not like the idea of attempting to impose conditions on an individual's freedom which go beyond the overall period of the sentence imposed by the judge at the time of the hearing which is considered appropriate for the seriousness of the offence.
Suppose we believe it is possible that people may change their minds and may—even on the basis that it was not worth the candle—decide to give up drug trafficking. We say, "Well, you have served your sentence". The man says, "I want to get away from my old associates. The best way is to start a new life elsewhere". Are we going to prevent him from doing so because he is not allowed to leave the country for some unlimited period of years? What if he decides to go straight and he joins a company and is required to work in Europe? Does he have to say, "I am terribly sorry, I can not go and work in Europe because I am still subject, although I have completed my sentence, to a travel restriction order which prevents me from going abroad"?
There are real practical questions that need to be asked and answered as to the intention of the proposal and how it will work in practice. The Minister may say, "But of course there are powers that if a person changes his mind any travel restriction imposed by the judge at the time of the imposition of the sentence can be suspended or removed". But let us be clear; the travel restriction cannot be removed unless the man has served the minimum period of two years beyond the period when he comes out of prison. There is no power for him to go elsewhere in those two years.
So far as concerns suspension, the restriction can only be suspended—it is set out in Clause 35(3)—if in fact there are,
"exceptional circumstances … that justify the suspension on compassionate grounds".
We all know that "exceptional circumstances" is a phrase that has been interpreted very narrowly by the courts. It is difficult to see what would cover the phrase "to allow a person's travel restriction to be suspended on the basis of exceptional circumstances of a compassionate nature". Therefore, there are issues that need to be raised before we pass this new power. Are we satisfied that it is a preventive measure? Is it otherwise merely a punitive one? Is our climate really so bad that it is a penalty to have to stay here after one has completed one's period of imprisonment? If it is merely punitive, what is its effect in practice on someone who may wish genuinely to break away from his previous life? Those are the kind of issues that have not yet been addressed in introducing this power. I apologise to the Committee for speaking too long.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I share the anxieties raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I, too, am troubled about these provisions. In certain circumstances the ability to make a travel restriction order may have value. But the clauses, as currently drafted, are insufficiently targeted and are likely to have unintended consequences of the kind that the noble Lord has indicated.
608
If the purpose of these measures is to prevent further offences, why are they not confined to those involved in importation, or at least offences which have some foreign element? It is quite clear that the definition of "drug trafficking offences" also includes those involved in production and supply in this country— in other words, no foreign element at all—and therefore the removal of the passport need have absolutely no connection with offences committed in the past.
If the intention is purely one of punishment, why is the provision then consigned simply to drug trafficking offences and those who have received sentences of four years? If the removal of the passport is a legitimate punishment for a crime of that nature, presumably there are other offences too of equal gravity which also might enjoy the same sentencing option. I am unhappy for the reason that it is not clear from the way these measures are set out what the Government intend. It is, however, clear that a judge will be required to consider this option and, if he decides that it is not appropriate, to give his reasons why.
If punishment is the intention—we understand that that is part of it—how does that lie with the concept of rehabilitation? The unintended consequences which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has referred to are clear: someone may want to make a new life abroad; someone may want to take legitimate work abroad; or someone may want simply to resume family life which presumably on occasions involves a holiday abroad. None of those situations appears to qualify under the requirement for compassionate grounds before the passport can be restored under Clause 35(3).
Therefore, I ask the Minister to give us some further help about the circumstances in which it is intended that these orders shall be used, and also to allay, if he can, the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and which trouble more than a few Members of the Committee.
Lord Windlesham: There are many novelties in the Bill that bear on the integrity of the criminal process. Was I alone in the Committee when my heart sank when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, justified some of the earlier changes on the grounds that they were modernisation? The criminal process depends on some enduring principles that should be preserved from the changing fashions of the day. Clause 33 and the clauses that are linked to it are a dangerous oddity. The way that a legal system treats some of the least desirable persons within its jurisdiction is a test of a civilised society. Yet here we have a legislative requirement imposed on a criminal court to add a travel restriction order to any sentence of imprisonment of at least four years in duration for trafficking in Class A drugs.
As such, it is not surprising that the proposal attracted the attention of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its first report published only very recently—and not before the House of Commons

609
had considered the Bill—the proposal took up three closely printed pages. The Joint Committee on Human Rights stated on page XVII of its report:
"We therefore draw the attention of each House to these clauses, which we do not believe to be compatible as they stand with the international obligations of the United Kingdom under the ICCPR. The provisions should make it clear that travel restriction orders are to be made only when they serve a legitimate aim under Article 12.3 of the ICCPR, and are proportionate to that aim. The provisions should also make it clear that orders are to be suspended or revoked when they no longer serve a legitimate aim or are not, for the time being, proportionate to such a legitimate aim. We consider that clause 33(1) and clause 35(3) should be amended in order to secure compliance with the ICCPR".
The question we must ask in this Committee is whether the Government are proposing to amend Clauses 33 to 37 in response to the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee and in the light of the powerful speeches they have heard in this debate, not least from their own Back Benches in the speech eloquently delivered by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
Lord Goldsmith: The report of the Joint Committee has rightly provoked debate about this important and potentially wide power. I start by recognising that one of the most difficult problems faced by any government at the moment is dealing with the scourge of drugs, which are corroding our society and are particularly affecting, it is sad to say, the young. Weapons in the armoury to combat drugs and serious drug offenders are important. None the less, the provisions as they stand give rise to the questions that have been raised from all sides of the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, put his finger on the point by saying that one has to be clear about the purpose of the provisions. If they are there to prevent further offences—my honourable friend the Minister, Mr Clarke, gave good evidence that there are international connections in important drug offences—the Bill needs to be capable of being applied in that way. If, on the other hand, the purpose is punishment, I look at it as someone who might, as a Recorder, have to exercise these powers. My concern—I look to my noble friend the Minister for assistance—is as follows. If I have taken the view that the right period to restrict the liberty of a defendant, having regard to the offences that he committed, is five, six or seven years—it may be 10 or 12—how do I judge what is the appropriate additional period of restriction of liberty to add? If it appears to me that an extra period of five years of restriction of liberty is appropriate, what does that do to the sentence I had in mind?
That does not mean that the proposed power should not be taken. It means that we should look very carefully at how the power is to be exercised and the way in which it is to be put forward. I recognise that the Joint Committee report has arrived quite late on the Government's desk and that the Government will need some time—I hope that they have had some time—to consider exactly the right way to deal with it. I wish to draw attention to two provisions, the first of which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady
610
Mallalieu. The first provision states that if a court does not impose a travel restriction order it must give reasons. Many courts would interpret that as a presumption that a travel restriction order must be imposed in all cases unless there is a good reason for not doing so. I should be grateful to hear from my noble friend the Minister whether that is the intention. The second provision states that there is no power to suspend except in closely circumscribed circumstances, which may not correspond with our international obligations.
Finally, I turn to our international obligations. It is important to recognise that what the committee was concerned with was not a potential breach of the Human Rights Act but of a different international obligation—the international covenant. That has two important consequences. First, it does not make the Bill incompatible in terms of thecompatibility statement signed by the Minister. There is nothing wrong with that statement. It is not affected by this point. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was right, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to say that the question she put to the Minister was not an appropriate one in the sense that the answer is that his certificate was perfectly proper.
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act—this point needs to he developed—the courts have an obligation to interpret legislation in a way that is, so far as possible, consistent with our obligations under the European Convention. Therefore, if we pass legislation that is a little vague, we can still rely on the courts to apply it in a way that will be consistent. That obligation does not exist—or does not exist in the same strong form—in relation to other international obligations. The courts will still attempt to construe legislation in a way that is consistent with our international obligations, but it is not as strong an obligation as that which is in the Human Rights Act.
While the fight against drugs is an important government objective, the questions raised in relation to these provisions need to be further examined.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 65 and 67. I shall merely repeat what has already been so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and other speakers, particularly speakers from the Government Benches.
What we are all seeking here is a way in which this power, if granted, can be constrained and limited to appropriate cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out, not every case involves a defendant who has been engaged in the international smuggling of drugs. Many defendants come before the courts who have had nothing to do with international drug trafficking, although it is prevalent and is the original source of the drugs.
The amendments that we have put forward are designed to remind the court passing sentence that the purpose is not to punish, but to prevent further criminal activity. That is enshrined in Amendment No. 65. So far as concerns Amendment No. 67, it is impossible for a sentencing court to determine today

611
what will be the circumstances of an individual in 10, 15 or 20 years' time; that is, after he has served a long sentence of imprisonment. It may be that during the period of that imprisonment, he has been rehabilitated. He may have attended courses and may come out with an entirely fresh view, wishing now to engage in the ordinary circumstances of family life. That may involve taking a foreign holiday. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, he may wish to work abroad. All these are matters which should be taken into account by the court when deciding whether such an order should be lifted at the end of the period of imprisonment.
That is the purpose of the amendments which we have put forward. By and large, we support all that has been said during the course of the debate on this grouping.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been an important discussion. Again, it proves the validity of the work undertaken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Certainly some of the points which have been so well developed during the course of this debate are reflected in the report from the committee, as were certain points made in earlier deliberations, although not in quite the same context. These are important matters for our consideration. In working through the group of amendments, I shall attempt to respond to as many of those points as I can.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 64. It is the Government's clear intention that the travel restriction order should been seen as part of a package and be regarded as an innovative way—football disorder legislation aside—of providing a further sentencing option. It adds to the range of powers made available to the courts to deal with drug trafficking offenders who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four years or more. In other words, it applies to those who have been sentenced for very serious offences. That is an important point.
My noble friend Lord Goldsmith spoke of the scourge of drugs. Indeed this is concerned with the scourge of drugs and addresses the ways in which very serious drugs offences are dealt with. Travel restriction orders would make it much more difficult for drug traffickers to travel overseas. We contend that the application of this part of the sentence would go a long way towards disrupting their activities.
Travel restriction orders are intended as a specific measure to deal with drug traffickers and are not intended to apply to any other offenders. They are a measure targeted specifically on those who traffic in drugs in order to make it more difficult for them to travel overseas, thereby helping to prevent and disrupt drug trafficking.
In relation to Amendment No. 64A, I should like to address the concerns quite properly raised in this Committee and also by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in respect of these clauses. In the case of travel restriction orders, the joint committee finds the Bill as drafted to be incompatible with the United
612
Kingdom's obligations under Article 12 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I am grateful to those noble Lords who in a sense added a corrective judgment to the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who quite rightly put her point of view. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Goldsmith were right in their interpretation.
The Government have examined the views of the joint committee carefully; we take them seriously. We do not consider that the Bill's provisions are incompatible with our obligations under the article. Rights such as that set out in Article 12.2 of the covenant,
"Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own",
are not absolute under the covenant. That point has been made by many Members of the Committee in the past. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made the same point in the course of other debates. Article 12.3 confirms that such rights are subject to restrictions provided by law as are necessary to protect, among other things, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
Countries do have a degree of latitude in determining and developing their social and criminal policies. That much at least is now well established. Travel bans of the kind envisaged in the Bill, which are imposed at a court's discretion in respect of individuals convicted of drug trafficking, are considered to be an appropriate, justifiable and, I would argue, proportionate way of punishing those activities, while at the same time helping to ensure that they are not repeated; namely, that they are prevented.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wonder whether the noble Lord will bear with me if I seek further to clarify the position here? He is quite right to say—the joint committee also pointed this out—that the right to travel is not absolute and this is a question of striking a fair balance between ends and means. However, if he is not willing to accept any of the proposed amendments, can he explain to the Committee how the sentencing judge is to know what are the legitimate aims of the power? Furthermore, where is the direction to the judge which he can use to assess the proportionality of the means to achieve those ends?
If one looks at the relevant clause, is it not the case at the moment that it is literally standard-less; namely, it does not guide the judge either as regards ends or means in the way that is required by the covenant. Is the Minister also aware that in the footnote to the main text of the report, attention was also drawn to the general comments made by the Human Rights Committee, a quasi-judicial body. It explained clearly that the very essence of the right must not be impaired, that the relationship between right and restriction must not be reversed and that the laws authorising the application of the restriction should use precise criteria and may not confer unfettered discretion on those charged with their execution.

613
Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. How on earth can this standard clause be said to comply with the standards required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall refer the noble Lord in part to the draft legislation as it stands. What the court will have to consider is whether in the circumstances it would be appropriate for the sentence imposed in regard to the offence to include the making of a travel restriction order. That is enshrined in subsection (2)(a). In other words, the court will know the circumstances behind the offence. It will have background knowledge of the circumstances which have brought a particular offender before the court. The judge will be able to understand the context in which the conviction and penalty are sought. In those circumstances, the court will have to form a judgment as regards the appropriateness of making such an order.
If it is the case that the trafficker is, as it were, an international operator, drawing part of his strength from being involved in an international web of drug trafficking, I believe that one could argue validly that this order-making power would be appropriate in those circumstances. Clearly if a history is attached to the criminal activity, a reasonable argument could be sustained that it is most appropriate.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Obviously this is very important to the Committee. The word "appropriate" goes to the legitimacy of an aim. But the clause does not use the well known word "necessary"; it does not guide the judge on proportionality. Is the Minister saying that the intention behind this clause and other related clauses is that the judge should apply the principle of proportionality to ensure that the power is used only to the extent necessary to meet a pressing social need? If that is the Government's position, will they please reconsider the language of the clause in order to steer the judge in that direction?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the noble Lord's point and I can see where he is coming from. I would expect a judge to be reasonable—I am sure that most people would expect a judge to be reasonable—and proportionate in his application of that part of the sentence. However, it does not necessarily follow that we need to revisit the wording of the legislation as it is currently drafted.
Lord Goldsmith: When the Minister was giving evidence to the Joint Committee, he was asked about the possibility of guidance to judges. My noble friend may be intending to deal with this. It is mentioned in the first special report of the committee, which is not the same as the report which contains our conclusions. At page 60, question 35, the Minister said in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester:
"I agree with your fundamental point which is should there be proper guidance about the inter-relationship between this law and the relevant international documents for judges…I completely
614
agree with that and that needs to be the case. If it is helpful to give the commitment to the Committee that I will work with my colleagues and other government departments to achieve that, I am happy to give that commitment this afternoon".
My noble friend may have been going on to deal with that, but some Members of the Committee would like to know where that particular issue has gone. It may at least go some way—perhaps more—to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others in the Committee.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I had marked precisely that point at paragraph 42 in the Joint Committee's report. Clearly, the commitment given by my honourable friend Charles Clarke at the Committee hearing is an important one. There is no doubt that guidance will be paramount in these matters, not least because of the Minister's commitment to ensuring that the relevant international documents for judges on proportionality should be visited and understood and those points met. That was a most helpful intervention and I am most grateful to my noble friend for it. I hope that that answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may ask a question along similar lines. Is it intended that a judge should be told that in cases which do not have an international element a travel restriction order ought not to be imposed? Or is it the Government's intention that there should be a presumption that the court should make a travel restriction order if it is imposing a sentence of more than four years for drug trafficking, and only in special circumstances—which the judge is required to state—should it not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was coming to that point, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, also raised. I shall deal with it now. There is no presumption that an order should be made. There is an obligation on the court to consider making an order where it convicts of a drug trafficking offence and sentences to four years or more. So it is not a presumption; it is a consideration in those circumstances.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said as well, the very wording at the moment is that if the court determines that an order is not so appropriate it is required to state its reasons for not making a travel restriction order. Those of us who are in practice know that that means there is a presumption that the court is likely to make an order. Is the Minister not prepared at least to look at those words again?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought I was making it plain that there was no presumption; that there should be a consideration at that point. I was about to say that a court should only make an order where it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so. It is plainly and obviously open to the court not to do so but, in declining to take that option—as I said earlier, it is a sentencing option as a part of a package—it should provide its reasons for not doing so.

615
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has further prompted me to say that we will, of course, review—as we always do—the finer detail of the wording. If it can be improved in some way I am happy to ensure that it is. I shall need to consider and reflect further on the matter.
Perhaps I may now develop the argument that I was making before the very helpful interventions. I do not believe that anyone would suggest that the rights under Article 12 would override, for example, a prison sentence and that serving prisoners are entitled to travel abroad. A travel restriction order—which forms part of the original sentence and commences on release from custody—is, I think one could argue, a much less severe restriction of personal freedom. In the Government's view, it is a legitimate restriction imposed in accordance with Article 12.3 of the covenant.
I do not believe that adding an extract from Article 12.3 of the covenant—which I think even the best of draftsmen would concede is, of necessity, expressed in very general terms—would assist a court in deciding whether or not it was appropriate to make a travel restriction order in all the circumstances of the individual case it was considering.
Amendment No. 65 would require the courts to have regard to whether a travel restriction order would be likely to deter re-offending. The Government intend that such orders should be an effective and useful new sentencing tool. To this end, we intend to leave it to the discretion of the court to decide in serious cases of drug trafficking whether a travel restriction order is an appropriate penalty. That must be quite properly for the court.
The judgment that we wish the courts to make is set out in lines four to five of Clause 33 of the Bill; namely, whether a travel restriction order, in all the circumstances of the individual case, is an appropriate sentencing option. This requires a broader sentencing judgment than that suggested by Amendment No. 65, which would require the court to speculate unreasonably.
Similarly, the Government are not suggesting that the mere imposition of a travel restriction order will necessarily prevent re-offending. Again, I do not see how a court could reasonably be asked to make such an assessment. It would be mere speculation. In our view, the amendment would also limit the courts applying travel restriction orders where they consider this to be an appropriate punitive sanction.
As I said earlier, overseas travel is a common prerequisite for drug trafficking offences, and it is right that the court should have the option of punishing those who abuse the freedom to travel with an appropriate sanction.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I promise not to intervene again on this issue but, if I may, I should like to make one last attempt. The Minister has repeatedly referred to the judge deciding what is appropriate. The problem is that what is appropriate—unless it is interpreted to mean what is necessary to meet a pressing need—does
616
not include the principle of proportionality. I do not understand how the Minister can answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about exactly how the judges are to be guided in a legally binding way as to the international obligation on proportionality unless the wording of the Bill is amended. I do not understand how the guidance can be anything other than something written in water so far as concerns a sentencing judge unless it is embodied in legislation. Therefore, please will the Minister and his colleagues consider ways of modifying the language so that at least the principle of proportionality can be put before the judge without necessarily slavishly writing in the text of the international treaty itself?
Lord Windlesham: It may help the Minister if I make a suggestion. He is not going to convince the House, although he is doing his best and no doubt has a lot more to say. Will he be good enough to report this debate to the Home Secretary? Mr Straw was good enough to come and meet members of all parties before the Second Reading debate. He assured us that the views of the House would be given careful attention. I believe I am right in saying that no concession has been made in the course of these lengthy debates. Now, as the Minister must recognise, there is all-party criticism of the provision. I have been in the Minister's position; I know that he cannot go against his brief. However, would it shorten the proceedings if he were simply to say, without any commitment, that he will raise this matter personally with the Home Secretary and see whether he is willing to give it consideration?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that both noble Lords are trying to be helpful. I shall try to be positive in my response. First, perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. As I confirmed earlier, there will be guidance on these matters. I understand the temptation to attempt to deal with them on the face of the Bill. It is a temptation for each and every legislator. However, it is not always possible. We are dealing with complex notions of proportionality. I believe that these matters can safely be left to guidance. Although I fully respect and understand the noble Lord's point, that would be the more appropriate course. There will be guidance on these powers and it will include a reference to the rights under the covenant, together with many other relevant factors which will have to be expressed and taken into account in deciding on an appropriate sentence.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was, as ever, courteous and helpful in his intervention. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary reads our debates in Hansard with great alacrity and interest. I shall no doubt feel obliged, having listened to the noble Lord's wise words, to report to the Home Secretary the serious and important issues that have been raised. I know that he will take a close personal interest in the points raised in the Joint Committee report.

617
Before turning to the remaining amendments, perhaps I may conclude my remarks on the points that have been raised. The Government believe that in the cases of individuals convicted of drug trafficking offences whose lifestyle involves frequent overseas travel for pleasure or other purposes, the imposition of a travel restriction order may be a very effective element in the overall punishment as well as an appropriate and justifiable way of preventing further unlawful activity. So, as my honourable friend in another place, Charles Clarke, has said in other circumstances, this combines the preventive and the punitive. The preventive is what we are after here.
In reference to Amendment No. 66A I have outlined why we reject the conclusion of a reference to Article 12(3).
Amendment No. 67 would enable the courts to suspend the prohibition imposed by a travel restriction order not only on compassionate grounds but also on grounds of a major change in the circumstances of the offender. Suspension is intended to cover circumstances where overseas travel is needed for urgent exceptional compassionate reasons whenever that need might arise after the restriction order takes effect.
This amendment would weaken these provisions. That needs to be understood. The Government believe that the applicable test should be that of "exceptional" circumstances, not merely a major change in other circumstances. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the amendment. We believe that Clause 35 properly balances the need to respond appropriately in genuine exceptional compassionate circumstances with the desire to operate an effective sentencing tool. That is the point from which I began my comments in response to the observations made.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, raised the issue of how frequently we expect such orders to be made—at least, I understood that to be the point on which he was inviting me to comment. This is a discretionary power. Ultimately it will be for the courts to determine how frequently it is used. Our estimate, based on 1998 sentencing data, is that the number of offenders liable to such a ban under these proposals will be in the region of 300 to 400. It is not a large number, but it is significant. It indicates the level of seriousness with which we are attempting to deal in adding this provision as part of the armoury of preventive, effective and punitive restrictions on people's ability to exercise one of those freedoms when they are released from custody.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked for the Government's legal advice to be provided. There is a long tradition of confidentiality, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. It is not our practice to publish our legal advice. Colleagues of the noble Baroness, many of whom have had experience in government, will remind her of that point. However, I can assure her that the provision of both the ECHR and the ICCPR were carefully taken into consideration in preparing the provisions in the Bill. That is an important consideration.
618
I hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised. I apologise if I have not dealt with every single detail. I know that not all Members of the Committee will be entirely convinced of the Government's case. But we have given this matter very careful consideration. We want to see this as part of a package of measures available to the courts. We see this power being used in extreme and profound circumstances, where we believe it will have a long-term and beneficial impact on drug related criminality of a serious kind. We recognise the important issues raised in the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Notwithstanding the important observations that have been made, we resist the amendments.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the Minister sits down, will he consider one matter? He said repeatedly in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it is the Government's intention that guidance will be issued to the judges as to how the new power is to be used. In view of the separation of powers, how will either the executive or Parliament give guidance to the judges unless it is on the basis of the words in the Bill? That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was making. If guidance is to be issued in the manner the Minister has suggested, surely he should at least agree at this stage to consider taking the matter back to the Home Office for a decision as to whether a change of wording is needed in the clauses to indicate to the judges the wishes of Parliament in the appropriate way; namely, through the wording of the statute.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is every good reason for me to take away the contents of this important debate because it has tended to widen the scope of the issue. I sense that there is an acceptance that this is, if you like, the broadening of the range of options available for sentencing. Noble Lords focused precisely on that point. I am, therefore, happy to take away the contents of the debate and to ensure that further reflection is given to the points that have been raised.
However, I should point out to the noble Lord that I drew attention to Clause 33(2)(a). It is within the context of the court considering the appropriateness of this penalty for preventive and punitive reasons that the guidance will be issued. I believe that we can at least trust the executive to offer wise words in deciding what is "appropriateness". I suppose that that returns us to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about proportionality. Obviously, those issues need to be carefully linked.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As explained in recent years by the Minister on the Floor of the House, the sentencing judge normally obtains guidance as to how to sentence, first, from decisions of the Court of Appeal in which principles are set out in the interpretation of legislation; and, secondly, from the words of the Act of Parliament. I did not receive a direct answer to my question as to whether there is a

619
presumption that this power is to be exercised in the ordinary case, save in special circumstances that must be outlined.
However, what I did hear from the Minister—it is something that I am sure every counsel mitigating in a case involving drug trafficking will use—is that this power is to be used in "extreme and profound circumstances". I should like that phrase to be underlined three times because that is the expression that the Minister used. Does the noble Lord wish to stick with those words because, from what he has said, that is the guidance that any sentencing judge will take? Alternatively, will he accept reasonable amendments to the Bill as put forward by my noble friend Lord Lester, as well as, it is to be hoped, ourselves and others? Surely it would be far better to have the matter expressed in proper parliamentary language than for counsel to be saying, "Well, when he introduced this power, the Minister, Lord Bassam, said that it was to be used only in extreme and profound circumstances".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the advice offered by the noble Lord to heart. However, I believe that I made the case that such "extreme and profound" circumstances are those where there is a real prospect that the convicted person will be involved in international drug smuggling or in a major crime; and, indeed, may well be a real live "Mr Big". Where it is plain that someone is profoundly involved in major drug-running businesses, we believe that it is important to have this potential power to restrain him from travelling abroad.
It is worth reminding the noble Lord that this is a discretionary power. I thought that I made that plain when I went through the issue of presumption. I should like to make it plain again that there is no presumption that an order should be made. If there is any doubt, I have now made it clear for the record repeatedly: a court will make an order only where it is appropriate to do so. The "appropriateness" is the most important consideration.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I shall now break my promise. I have been provoked by the discussion to intervene. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is completely right to say that there is a principle of our constitution under the separation of powers that Parliament makes the law but the courts interpret and apply the law. Here the Minister is asking Parliament to give the courts a statutory power and a duty. The noble Lord said that both he and his colleagues propose to advise judges about how that power is to be exercised.
It is no good relying upon the wretched case of Pepper vHart, which I wish I had never won. I am afraid that that disfigures our proceedings and those of the courts and allows what Ministers say here to be treated in some sense as relevant to the law of the land. It is not relevant. All that is relevant is what is in the Act of Parliament. It is no use the Minister saying that he is to give guidance to the judges. Unless directed by the Lord Chief Justice or by Parliament, the judges
620
would be acting improperly if they were to follow that guidance in their sentencing functions. Therefore, I beg the noble Lord to take away the debate and put the language of the Bill into a proper form in terms of legal certainty, as well as proportionality.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever, the noble Lord is clever in bringing the issue to the fore. I understand very well the point that he makes. As I said earlier in response to the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Windlesham, we shall certainly reflect upon the debate. I said so without commitment. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would accept that there are many areas of law where codes of practice and guidance are given outside the legislation. The legislation provides for the guidance or codes of practice to be made available. Clearly there is an understanding that the courts will interpret the legislation in that light. The noble Lord referred to Pepper v Hart. Yes, that is the case. I can understand the noble Lord's regret. But what we say in Parliament is clearly important and has a bearing on such matters.
I conclude by returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The power that we are talking about is available only in serious circumstances—that is to say, conviction for a drug-trafficking offence with a sentence of four years' imprisonment. Those are very serious circumstances. Where a major crime is involved, perhaps one of international proportions, where very large quantities of drugs are being shifted into this country, thus ruining the lives of countless thousands of people and destroying the communities that are very much at the heart of our inner-city areas, we are simply arguing that it is entirely appropriate for the courts to have the opportunity to use the discretionary power that we are placing in the Bill. Those are the important issues, some are political and some are juridical. Nevertheless, they are important matters in the context of all issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall be brief. I believe that I speak on behalf of all Members of the Committee when I say that there is no question of any of us wanting to prevent provisions, or measures, that are intended to fight the illegal trafficking of drugs. The debate has highlighted the difficulties of how the powers envisaged in these clauses will be used. We have heard extensive arguments from noble Lords, especially from my noble friends Lord Carlisle and Lord Windlesham. The points that they made are tremendously important.
There are clearly questions that still remain outstanding, particularly in relation to the point about guidance for judges. My noble friend Lord Windlesham was right when he politely put it to the Minister that he should draw this debate to the attention of the Secretary of State and take him carefully through the points that have been raised. There are a number of issues that are plainly fundamental to the clauses. In the circumstances, We

621
shall consider such issues with care in the hope that we can return to them on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 64A and 65 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I made the remarks I wished to make during the course of the debate. I do not propose to speak to individual clauses.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Meaning of "drug trafficking offence"]
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I spoke to the clause in the earlier debate. As I said, I do not wish to speak to individual clauses.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Revocation and suspension of a travel restriction order]:
[Amendment No. 66 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 66A to 67A not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Offences of contravening orders]:
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Saving for powers to remove a person from the United Kingdom]:
Clause 37 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"Permitting use of controlled drugs on premises
For paragraph (d) of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) (offence of knowingly permitting cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to be smoked on premises) there shall be substituted—
"(d) administering or using a controlled drug which is unlawfully in any person's possession at or immediately before the time when it is administered or used.""
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 68, I wish to speak also to Amendment No 146. These amendments are closely related. I wish to explain why the Government oppose the new clause in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The amendment to Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 tabled in my name would have the effect of strengthening police powers to prosecute those occupiers or other persons concerned in the management of premises who knowingly permit the illicit use of controlled drugs on their premises. Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act currently makes such
622
persons liable to prosecution if they knowingly permit the smoking of cannabis or opium on their premises. The new power resulting from the proposed substitution of paragraph (d) will extend this liability to the illicit use of all controlled drugs, including, and in particular, crack cocaine. It is therefore a far more comprehensive amendment than that proposed in respect of paragraphs (c) and (d), for it is not just crack cocaine that is used on such premises.
The amendment to Clause 139 of the Bill (Amendment No. 146) is consequential to the Government's amendment. Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 extends to the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 146 ensures that the extent of the amendment is the same.
The Government believe that the amendment we propose to Section 8 will facilitate police action against closed drug markets such as crack houses. I hope that it will receive general support and I know that calls for such a change have been made by Members of both Houses from all parties.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is currently an offence for the occupier or manager of premises knowingly to allow illegal drugs to be produced or supplied on those premises. But liability in respect of the use of illegal drugs extends only to the smoking of cannabis or opium. This very much reflects the drug misuse patterns that prevailed at the time the Act was introduced.
Police enforcement success against open street dealing in drugs has led to greater use of "closed" drug markets such as crack houses. Such closed markets present particular challenges for the police, especially with regard to the gathering of evidence sufficient to sustain a prosecution.
The Government have considered measures which would best assist police enforcement and concluded that an amendment to extend Section 8 to the use of all illegal drugs on premises is appropriate—it is not just crack cocaine that is used on such premises. The amendment will assist police enforcement in that where charges of supply or even possession cannot be laid, any evidence on the premises of the drugs themselves or drug paraphernalia discarded there could help construct a charge that the premises had been used for drug taking purposes.
Crack houses are simply one example of closed drug markets. Crack cocaine is highly addictive and users often have to turn to crime to feed their habit. This can be highly destructive for the communities in which such establishments take hold. Making the owners or those concerned in the management of such establishments liable to prosecution will strengthen the police's hands in tackling the problem. The change is supported by the police. The Government are nevertheless mindful that such provision should not go forward without consideration of the need for certain very important safeguards.
Successive governments have undertaken to review Section 8 of the 1971 Act to consider whether its scope should be extended to the use of all controlled drugs. The sticking point has always been the need to

623
incorporate a balancing protection for parents, housing authorities and those in the voluntary and treatment sectors who work with drug misusers. In particular, it is recognised that, in extending the police powers under Section 8, nothing must jeopardise the partnership approach and co-operation that tackling drug misuse self-evidently requires.
The Government have considered whether it would be possible to provide some form of statutory defence under Section 8 but have concluded that this would not be workable as it would serve to confuse the law and be likely to hinder legitimate prosecutions. The issue of guidance in the form of a Home Office circular, agreed with the police and Crown Prosecution Service and upon which relevant government departments and key outside interests would be consulted, is judged to be the best way to proceed. This consultation process would take account of the views of the voluntary, treatment and housing sectors. A commencement order bringing the change to Section 8 into force would not be laid until the guidance was ready to be issued.
We shall ensure that those lawfully entitled to possess controlled drugs will not be affected and we shall issue Home Office guidance agreed with the police and departments with an interest, to ensure that any valid concerns of the voluntary, treatment and housing sectors are addressed.
I hope that the Committee will agree that it is preferable to deal with all controlled drugs in this amendment rather than only with crack cocaine, as in the Opposition Amendment No. 97. I should also say that that amendment is technically defective in that crack cocaine is not a controlled drug under the terms of the 1971 Act. It is simply one form of a substance for which the correct technical term is "cocaine". I believe I am right in saying that it is a derivative. I propose that the measures in my name stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I speak to government Amendments Nos. 68 and 146 and also to our Amendment No. 97. I accept what the Minister said about the difference between the amendment that we tabled on crack cocaine and that of the Government which contains a wider power. We are pleased that the Government are now responding to strong pressure from Her Majesty's Opposition to amend Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with regard to an arrestable offence.
These amendments represent the closing of a frustrating, glaring loophole in the law given the now sadly prevalent use of crack cocaine by illegal drug users. Indeed, on 23rd January my noble friend Lady Hanham laid down a challenge to the Government to crack down on crack houses. We were pleased that the Minister was grateful to her for "drawing this out usefully".
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, alluded to the depressing excuse of the Government in using the word "modernisation" to justify some aspects of the Bill. I suggest that the amendments respond to one of the rare occasions
624
when the word "modernisation" is right. It responds to a problem about which I had not heard a few years ago but is now prevalent and should be dealt with. We are pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There appears to be an outbreak of cross-party agreement on this. I am delighted that that is the case. It would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute not only to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but also to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who made a forceful case. She and others have made representations to the Home Secretary. Representations have come from many sides. As I intimated at the time, there was a great deal of sympathy for the point that she made. We have had some further consultations with the police. They see value in amending the law in the way in which we have brought forward the amendments. I hope that it aids and abets law enforcement in this field. No one should underestimate the evil contained in these crack houses. Anything that can be done to mitigate and confront that evil should be done. For that reason, the Government are persuaded that this is the right way forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Police directions stopping the harassment etc of a person in his home]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 33, line 22, leave out "("the victim")" and insert -("the target")"
The noble Lord said: Two amendments in this grouping are advanced by Her Majesty's principal Opposition.
Clause 41 is a vital clause in the Bill; some might think it the most important. In many ways, one might prefer to see Clause 41 dropped. But in the spirit of constructive engagement, this group of amendments seeks to improve the clause by inserting safeguards against misuse of its wide powers.
There is widespread misunderstanding of the extent of present police powers and, hence, of the need for this new power. In particular, we have the Public Order Act 1986. Section 4A, which was introduced in the 1994 legislation, stipulates that threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour which actually or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress shall, if there is an intention to do that, be an offence. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 has the same provision save that for a prosecution under Section 5 there is no need for there to be any intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Clause 41 of the Bill goes a step further. It creates an offence not only where there is no intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress but in circumstances where the person charged has not used any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.
The extent of the misunderstanding of the present law seems to extend to the Government themselves. For example, the Home Office Minister, Charles Clarke, said in the House of Commons Standing Committee on 6th March that the powers under Clause 41,
"would be available to deal with the mobs who have, in recent times, gathered outside the homes of supposed sex offenders … in an attempt to drive them out of their homes".
However, Section 5 of the existing Public Order Act provides the necessary police powers to deal with such cases. A mob trying to drive someone out of his home would by definition be using,
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour".
Later in the same debate, Mr Clarke said that Clause 41 might apply to investigative journalists. We should be extremely careful about legislation which would discourage bold journalism in the public interest. There is little enough of it these days. If one tries to fine tune control of the free press one does so invariably at the price of diminishing their freedom. Mr Clarke claimed that Clause 41 would not make it unlawful for journalists to engage in what he called "a classic doorstep". He went on to say that doorstepping,
"can sometimes be difficult and problematic for the people concerned, but would obviously not be unlawful because harassment, alarm and distress would not arise".
How can one police that fine line? The distinction that Mr Clarke attempted to make with regard to doorstep journalism begs the question. Someone who is guilty of a concealed fraud, for example, might well become justifiably alarmed or distressed by the presence of a determined journalist who is going to stick it out until the fraudster leaves his or her house and can be confronted.
Let us imagine that the grossly defrauded pensioners of the Mirror newspapers had had an inkling of their misfortune while Robert Maxwell was alive. A bit of investigative journalism would have helped then, would it not? Let us imagine that they tipped up at the entrance to Hedington Hall with placards saying, "Pay us our pensions". I believe that that would have been caught under Clause 41. They would be in the vicinity of Mr Maxwell's dwelling. They would be there for the purpose of representing to Mr Maxwell and his neighbours that he should pay their pensions. In the early days it would not have been apparent that Maxwell and his colleagues were guilty of fraud. If the police had had a call from Mr Maxwell saying that the presence of the people at his gate was causing him embarrassment and distress, the police would have felt obliged to act on that; and a policeman may have arrived and told the pensioners to take their posters half a mile away. The wicked will always be the first to utilise legislation of this kind to their advantage if they have half a chance.
What about President Pinochet? Would the objectors have been caught by Clause 41? What about protesters in the vicinity of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street?
As no doubt did many other Peers, I received a briefing on Clause 41 from the Countryside Alliance. It stated that recent history proves the sad necessity of these new powers, and gave 10 recent examples of that need. Yet every such example involves violence in respect of which a plethora of existing law provides remedies. Raising one's fist, let alone lowering it, brings into play an offence of assault. The only exception among the 10 examples given by the Countryside Alliance was the one which simply referred, without giving details, to "the homes of shareholders in the company which were targeted". The Public Order Act should and does deal with that.
The problem is that there are insufficient police to ensure compliance with existing law so that new and more draconian laws are introduced in terrorem. As presently drafted, we believe that Clause 41 is dangerously wide. That belief was reinforced in a letter written to me as recently as last Friday on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in answer to a query I raised at a meeting last week with Jack Straw. The letter states that the requirements of Clause 41,
"mean that there should be no question of the police being able to disperse groups of protesters who are innocently and peacefully expressing their views".
Yet that is manifestly not the case.
I refer back to my example of the Mirror pensioners. Their innocence would be beyond question. Indeed, they would be the victims in the case of doorstepping one of the Maxwells. That they were peaceful in expressing their views would not help them either. As Clause 41 is drafted, there would be no protection against their being moved away. Because Clause 41 requires no intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress on the part of the so-called victim, requires no threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour on the part of the protesters, and needs no objective or actual harassment or alarm or distress by the protester, it is a dangerously wide clause. All it requires is that the bobby on the beat reasonably believes that the mere presence of protestors is likely to cause alarm or distress. The constable's view of that likelihood will have been formed by the fact that he is acting on a complaint.
All that stands in the way of a group of innocent and peaceful protestors being prevented from exercising their age-old democratic rights by Clause 41 is the discretion of a hard-pressed policeman who—I emphasise this point—is likely to arrive at the scene of the protest believing that the legislation requires him to take the view that Mr Maxwell, or whoever called the police, is already a victim.
The police officer will exercise his judgment, not on criminal law tests but, first, on the balance of probabilities and, secondly, on a likelihood—as low a threshold as the law provides. That is all that will preserve a fundamental and ancient liberty. The complexities of Clause 41 make me wonder whether any bobby on the beat who does not have a law degree will be able to make much sense of it.
Before leaving the Home Office letter, I cannot resist pointing out that the Home Office also misunderstands the scope of the existing law. The letter specifically refers to the possibility that the protestors might,
"start taking photographs of his"—
the target's—
children".
It is far-fetched to believe that a commonsense Bench of magistrates would not quickly exercise their discretion in such a case to interpret such an act as constituting threatening behaviour, because the implications of photographing a child in such circumstances—the Home Office letter deals with animal rights protestors—are likely to carry a threat, which need not be verbal.
The most important amendment in the group is Amendment No. 77, which would insert a defence against a conviction under Clause 41 if the accused can,
"prove that his conduct was reasonable".
That does no more than replicate the defence available under Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which deals with more serious cases.
No criminal statute should be tendentious in its language. The clause calls the person against whom a protest is being made—usually the person who will have called the police— a victim. That prejudges the situation. Because the hearing of any charge under Clause 41 will mainly be about whether the accused has victimised the complainant, it is wholly inappropriate to start by calling the complainant a victim. Amendment No. 69 would change that wording. It is notable that the Public Order Act 1986 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which provides another remedy for those who are harassed, studiously avoid such prejudicial language, referring simply to a "person". The only exception of which I am aware is Section 5 of the 1997 Act, which deals with restraining orders, but only against someone who has already been convicted, so the word is aptly used.
Amendment No. 72 would leave out the words,
"by his presence or otherwise".
The Minister may be able to satisfy us that they are essential words, but I do not understand their significance and they clutter an already highly complicated clause.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 would insert the word "serious". They would raise the threshold of severity of the harassment, alarm or distress necessary before a policeman can give directions. That would provide some practical protection against inadvertent misuse of that wide power.
Amendment No. 75 would insert the word "reasonably" in subsection (2). That would discourage arbitrary and unreasonable directions being given by a constable. That is desirable—and, indeed, necessary. As the clause stands, the only check on the directions to be given is a purely subjective one—namely, what the constable thinks necessary in the circumstances.
I apologise for having spoken at length but Clause 41 could have a considerable long-term impact on grassroots democracy in this country. It is ironic that we are debating it on the day of the anti-capitalism march. It was introduced late in the Commons in response to the specific case of the Huntingdon laboratories. We are in danger of giving the new power inadequate scrutiny. As Liberty has said of the clause:
"The nearly automatic reaction to such problems is to get, out the statute book and pencil a few more powers for the police and to create a few more criminal offences".
As Simon Hughes said in the other place, the Bill,
"tilts the balance between the liberty of the citizen and the power of the state. It is another ratchet in the direction of the state".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/01; col. 1116.]
When the Home Secretary kindly agreed to meet Members of this House, he concluded his remarks on Clause 41 with the assurance that one could rely on the police to deal with these matters fairly and reasonably. Although that is generally true, it cannot universally be so. If it was, we would not need all the safeguards of our criminal law and process. In these matters, we in this House in particular, insulated as we are from popular clamour, have a clear duty of far-sighted caution on such difficult but vital matters. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has spoken at well justified length on 10 amendments to Clause 41. This group of amendments deserves a great deal of discussion, which would last a long time. It is normal for the main business of the day to be adjourned at half past seven and any other business to be taken during the following hour. There is an Unstarred Question on the Order Paper and I see noble Lords in the Chamber who may be waiting to deal with it. I therefore respectfully suggest that, instead of continuing with this discussion on Clause 41, we should adjourn for dinner. It happens that on a Tuesday night we have a better dinner than on other nights in your Lordships' House but that is not the sole reason for my suggestion. We have had some strenuous discussions and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, appears to have left the Chamber. I now see him returning. I hoped for his sake that he had left. I respectfully beg to suggest that further discussions on the Bill be adjourned for the dinner break.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I had anticipated that the debate on these amendments would be somewhat protracted, but we reached the group at an awkward time and I was not sure that everybody was present for the next item of business on the agenda. Starting early might have caused some embarrassment to the House. I have just seen an approving nod from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who would be most disadvantaged by an adjournment at this stage. He has spoken eloquently, but we shall have to respond to his eloquence somewhat later than we would otherwise do. He appears to approve of the noble Lord's suggestion, so

629
I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Leeds Railway Station
7.39 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what lessons can be drawn from the modernisation scheme at Leeds railway station.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a certain amount of discussion has taken place among noble Lords, who, in response to seeing this item on the Order Paper, have said such things as, "Why are we talking about Leeds station?", as though Leeds were in the north of Finland and had a population of 23. I shall try to explain.
I start by putting the matter into context. Leeds station claims to have the largest number of passengers of any station outside London. More than 900 trains a day go through it. It serves a city which is a major regional centre. As a native-born Bradfordian it pains me slightly to say it, but Leeds is a thriving regional centre. It is the largest financial and legal centre outside London. The station, which is run by Railtrack, provides facilities for services run by GNER. It is the main northern terminus on the West Riding branch for the East Coast Main Line, Virgin Cross Country services, a large network of suburban services run by Northern Spirit, or, as they now announce themselves, Arriva, together with the increasingly important trans-Pennine services and, indeed, what remains of the Settle to Carlisle services.
Therefore, what has been happening at Leeds station that leads me to ask your Lordships to debate the matter? A £165 million scheme—it may now be larger than that—is under way for the major renovation and recasting of the track, signalling and infrastructure in the area. Approximately £40 million is being spent on transformation of the station itself. It is called "Leeds First". It is also called the "East Coast Main Line Modernisation Phase 1". One hopes that other phases will follow. The massive 30-month programme in seven phases aims to transform the track, provide more platforms, more track and modern signalling and create a modern station.
Therefore, what are the problems? There are several. There has been a huge amount of disruption to local services throughout West Yorkshire and the parts of North Yorkshire served by Leeds. But people accept that because the long-term result will be beneficial. However, during the Christmas period, acceptable disruption turned into a shambles. The situation at Leeds station was partly a local laughing stock and partly the cause of a great deal of dismay and anger.
During what in railway terms is called a "blockade"—in other words, the closing down of the station for new signalling, platforms, track and so on—the whole situation got out of hand and, in effect, the project fell apart. The blockade of some 10 or 12 days was due to end on 2nd January. Railtrack failed to meet that deadline and announced that it would overrun by a week to 9th January. During that period, the station was completely closed down.
Railtrack had said that the project would overrun to 9th January. That failed, and it overran by another week to 15th January. On the 15th, when everyone expected the services to start again and the local bus services had been called off, it was found that the electric services could not run either because the overhead wiring had not been installed satisfactorily. Only diesel trains were able to use the station that day.
On the next day, 16th January, when the station was due to open yet again, there was a points failure and more chaos. People in that part of West Riding have a fairly wry attitude to life and are able to tackle situations with broad shoulders and a good broad Yorkshire accent. But, finally, the situation got down even the people of Leeds and the West Riding. Not only Leeds was affected; the knock-on effects caused huge disruption to the whole network in West Yorkshire. Businesses in Leeds are said to have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, during that period.
Many excuses were given. The first excuse was the bad weather. It was bad, but one expects bad weather at the end of December and beginning of January. However, Railtrack has been remarkably frank about why the problems arose. Its spokesperson, Naomi Steer, was reported in the local press as saying that Railtrack had been "seriously surprised" at the complexity of the work. It is clear that there were huge faults in the initial planning. During that period there was also a huge breakdown in communication between the project partners and, indeed, the public.
What the company called the "complex interfaces" between the contractors had not been properly integrated. Railtrack had been too ambitious in what it tried to achieve, and it was installing new technology that had not been properly tested. I went along as a lay person to watch the operation. While watching the Balfour Beatty workforce build the new platforms where the old Midland station used to be, I saw several men spend a lot of time standing around doing very little. Some were walking up and down purposefully and some were looking at plans.
One day I saw nearly 100 people, all wearing Day-Glo orange jackets and looking, I suppose, like Liberal canvassers. Nevertheless, they were altogether less efficient than Liberal canvassers. I counted approximately five or six who were actually doing something. If I had been Balfour Beatty or Railtrack, I would not have been very happy with the people whom I was employing and who, because of the organisation's inefficiency, were not doing very much.
Indeed, there is no argument about what I am saying. It can all be found on the Railtrack website, which states:
"Engineering works overran by a wholly unacceptable margin".
The Railtrack LNE director, Robin Gisby, is quoted in Rail magazine as saying:
"It was totally unsatisfactory for passengers".
He also stated that the situation was "unacceptable".
Railtrack is now promising that the situation has been sorted out. The Rail Regulator gave the company until 21st May to finish the current phase, and it is still promising that the operational aspects will be finished by the end of this year. We shall see. We shall be able to give our final verdict on Leeds station and on whether or not the project has been a success when we are able to use the new station in its final form and can see whether the trains all arrive on time and whether everything works properly.
The important issue, and the reason why I tabled this Question, is that such a situation must not happen again. There must be no more blunders at Leeds. If there are, I believe that people will become very angry. However, more than that, future projects of this type on the rail network must be properly planned and properly managed so that such problems do not occur again. These are hugely complex projects involving a series of different engineering and civil engineering disciplines. They need proper planning and proper management, and it is absolutely clear that the planning and management at Leeds have fallen down. The fact that the projects are so complex is all the more reason to carry them out properly.
I hope that the Minister will tell us of many exciting projects in his 10-year plan for the railways and transport. I hope also that he will tell us that they will be managed properly in future. Different ways of doing so have been floated. Perhaps he will explain those to us.
Perhaps I may refer to one or two other projects which are similar to the one at Leeds in that they involve substantial work to the rail infrastructure surrounding a major station. With regard to the East Coast Main Line—if modernisation on that line ever moves beyond Leeds First Phase 1—we are promised substantial works in the Doncaster area, including at Doncaster station, and at Peterborough. Perhaps both those projects will be even bigger in terms of their cost than the one at Leeds. If the people of Doncaster and the users of the East Coast Main Line are to be subjected at Doncaster and Peterborough to anything like the situation at Leeds, I believe that certain people will have to start to run for cover.
There are proposals—I do not believe that at present they are more than that—for a major and substantial rebuilding project at Birmingham New Street, which, like Leeds, is a bottleneck so far as concerns services. If that comes about, I hope that the lessons of Leeds will be applied at Birmingham.
I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech and perhaps I may give one final warning. People ask, "Why are we talking about Leeds?". If what has
632
happened at Leeds had occurred at any of the main London stations over Christmas, your Lordships and the other place would have discussed it endlessly, week after week, in the weeks and months since then.
One of the main projects involves major re-engineering and rebuilding work at Clapham Junction. I urge noble Lords, the Government and everyone else concerned with the railways to take note of the lessons from Leeds and to apply them to Clapham Junction. Otherwise, noble Lords will be discussing Clapham Junction every week for a year.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on securing this debate. He asked, why Leeds? As he said, it is an example for the whole industry. While Leeds was having its disaster over Christmas and the New Year, so was Willesclen. That disaster severely affected freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Channel Tunnel rail freight services were almost at a stop for about a month. Similar problems arose in Leeds and Willesden. We were told that the problem was equally complex and the consequence of signalling overrun, and so on, and we had the usual apologies. I do not believe that railway projects are particularly complicated—we should compare them with major chemical plants or various activities in the oil industry. We do not hear of such major problems in the oil industry, in which I have worked for a few years. It has a habit of managing to cope with weather. Yes, it did snow in Leeds, but, as the noble Lord said, it snows many winters.
I heard at Leeds and Willesden that the overhead line contractor departed on 2nd January and left the job unfinished because he had air tickets for India and that the signalling contractor had air tickets for Australia. The job was therefore left half finished. I made some inquiries today and was told that the Railtrack project manager spent 10 days on holiday in the United States during the same period. I am not sure how he could have project-managed the situation.
It is unacceptable not to test equipment first. We heard such an allegation in relation to the West Coast Main Line two or three years ago with moving-block signalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, train operators fared little better than the contractors—they had no information and no forward planning. Railtrack may be exhibiting the novel idea that if one is going to close a station or a line, one first comes up with an alternative route. It may have proposed to do so for the West Coast Main Line next summer and may not blockade the whole of that line for a month next August. We shall see.
My conclusion is that there has been a total management failure on both projects over Christmas. The Leeds situation is not the only or the first example. Apologies are not enough.
I question whether the situation mattered to Railtrack, the Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority. I think that it mattered to the Government—the Minister will later tell us about that.

633
People said that if there was a financial shortfall, the Government would pay because the Rail Regulator would tell them to do so. I do not think that that is the case, even if it was the case. Yesterday's Financial Times reported that, when speaking to Railtrack's shareholders, the Rail Regulator's chief economist said,
"if Railtrack gets into a financial crisis because of inefficiency or through mistakes it will not receive extra public subsidy to prop it up".
That is pretty clear to me. Railtrack faces claims from train operators and passenger and freight operators, and new contracts are coming out, which may involve further risks. We have to ask whether Railtrack can get it right or whether it is heading for extinction—self inflicted or otherwise.
There appears to have been a fear that Railtrack will be taken over or liquidated. I must ask why—that is what the private sector is about. Railtrack has assets that we are told are worth about £3 billion and its share price is now nearly down to its offer price. Its liabilities are very high and it will not make any more capital investments. I heard Sir Alastair Norton, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, give evidence today to the Transport Committee in another place. He said that the Government's contribution was £29 billion over 10 years and that much of that would go to Railtrack. He also said that if the Rail Regulator was not propping up Railtrack's inefficiencies, what would happen to any company would happen to Railtrack, which is no different in this regard. When the share price starts to go through the floor, shareholders start to make a noise and put pressure on management to change, or somebody comes along and buys the company out.
To conclude, now is not the time to discuss the restructuring of Railtrack or the rearrangements between the SRA, the Rail Regulator and the Government to achieve a 10-year plan, but that is what has to be discussed at some point. Passenger and rail freight customers are suffering from a structure of continuing inefficiencies. We must discuss whether it is possible to have a company with duties to shareholders and to maintaining network efficiency. Is it right to continue to pour Government money into a regulated monopoly when it has been publicly stated that it can raise no more private finance itself? This House and the country will want that question to be answered after the election.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is in his place. As has happened so often in debates in the House in which I have participated during the past few months, the Conservative Benches are almost empty. It may be that there are no Conservatives left in West Yorkshire to lobby noble Lords.
Leeds station is at the centre of the whole network in West Yorkshire. In Leeds and many other cities we have the inheritance of separate lines running into separate stations. That is the legacy of the first
634
privatisation of our railways. A lesson was founded on the need for strategic planning and the dangers of fragmented ownership.
When I first went to live in Manchester there were five separate stations and one had to walk, carrying one's suitcase, between one and another. That, happily, has been resolved by building the Salford curve and by the introduction of trams.
Birmingham used to have two major stations, through which I also walked as a young man. Birmingham New Street is now a focal point for the entire rail system. However, that raises disturbing questions about whether Railtrack is investing enough in sufficient spare capacity and, in particular, in additional track in and out of the station, to maintain the growth in rail travel.
Bradford is the second city in the West Yorkshire conurbation and it is still without a through-route from north to south. That is a legacy from the ancient rivalry between the Great Northern Railway, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the Midland Railway. It is still evidenced in the 800-metre gap between Bradford Exchange and Bradford Forster Square. There has been a series of proposals over the past 50 years or more to link up those stations but none of them was ever carried through. That was the result of a lack of imagination, inadequate finance, low priorities, divided authority and a preference for roads.
When I was first living in Shipley in Saltaire, the Aire Valley motorway was going to take care of the whole problem. That was fine except that it would have involved the demolition of a substantial part of Saltaire, which would never have been eligible for world heritage status and would have occupied the whole of the narrow Aire Valley for some miles.
Rail traffic is highly desirable in West Yorkshire because of the nature of the environment and the need to link together the old textile towns north as well as south of Bradford and Leeds, including Bingley, Shipley and Skipton. Those areas are now dependent on financial services, some of which, as we well know, are being forced into amalgamation, which threatens local employment. We need to have a connected rail network. There was an attempt, during earlier cutbacks, to close the Settle to Carlisle railway line, which would have ended links to the north. The massive and unexpected successes of that line since investment was provided to keep it open maintains a link to the north. I welcome the fact that at last decent trains are being introduced on the Airedale and Wharfdale lines to replace the cast-offs from Network SouthEast, with which we used to survive.
Bradford and its associated towns need a through-link to take them directly to Manchester Airport and to provide them with a better link to Leeds. The improved stock is a welcome beginning. Leeds station, when it is finally completed, will be an improvement for the whole region, but I suggest to the Minister that proper investment in an integrated transport structure for the whole of West Yorkshire also requires such a link-up in Bradford as well.
8 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for initiating this debate tonight and for giving us the opportunity to discuss some of the problems which the fragmented railway faces as it attempts to undertake investment projects which are designed to provide more capacity and eventually to improve facilities for its passengers.
I suppose I can claim a tiny amount of responsibility for what has been done at Leeds as I helped the British Railways Board promote the general powers Bill—one of the last it put forward—which provided for two extra tracks from Holbeck to Leeds to increase capacity for the growing number of metro trains approaching the station from the west, particularly from Harrogate and Bradford. That was before the Transport and Works Act 1992 took effect.
So the origins of the scheme are well-founded and are part of the strategy for building for the growth in the railway which everyone in this House wishes to see. However, the lessons to be learnt are essentially and inevitably for Railtrack. The Leeds scheme was developed and funded by it and the implementation was entirely under its management and control as the infrastructure owner.
Railtrack acknowledged failings in the way in which the project was implemented. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to that admission of failure on the Railtrack website, particularly in relation to the ambitious timescales set and, above all, the lack of contingency plans. The bulk of the work was undertaken during the Christmas and New Year period, at a time when resources and attention were diverted elsewhere to deal with the emergency speed restrictions imposed after the Hatfield accident and the results of extensive flooding.
But the main problem was that Railtrack was grossly over optimistic as to what could be done on the fragmented railway. It seemed to believe that it was able to plan on the basis of what British Rail would have done had it still existed. The truth is that those criteria no longer apply. I am not one of those who look back at the days of the nationalised railway through rose-tinted spectacles and try to pretend that the trains all ran on time, that all the staff took their responsibilities as public servants seriously and that all stations and coaches were clean and free of litter and graffiti.
But, on the whole, British Rail was able to plan and manage the big investment projects well. The East Coast Main Line electrification was completed on time and on budget, as was the building of the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo. I recall that when the west coast line was being electrified new services were provided on alternative routes such as from Paddington to Birmingham Snow Hill and from St Pancras to Manchester Central, while the major works were being carried out on the lines out of Euston. It is almost impossible to imagine that happening today because the different lines are run by different train operating companies. So when, as happened the other day, Railtrack closes the route between Taunton and
636
Exeter, for example, First Great Western offer its passengers not trains on another line but slow and uncomfortable buses, even though there is an acceptable alternative route from Salisbury to Exeter on which South West Trains run.
Railtrack seems to have come to the view that the railway has lost the knack of upgrading and renewing while services are still running and that the only solution therefore is to shut the railway. That is why we hear calls for fortnight-long blockades on the West Coast Main Line, for example. But such blockades destroy the business of the train operators, who need every penny they can get, and more, to meet the declining subsidy profiles, which were based in the beginning on an uninterrupted service.
At the heart of the Government's 10-year transport plan is a 50 per cent increase in passenger miles. A large number of major infrastructure investment projects are being planned to deliver that, and there will be many more signalling renewal schemes during that period which Railtrack will have to carry out. So it is vital that the lessons learnt from Leeds are applied to those schemes to minimise disruption to passengers while the work is being undertaken.
Since the turn of this year, it has become evident that Railtrack may not be able to take forward major enhancement projects that are not already committed, and that those will need to be led by the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that the SRA takes forward those projects in joint ventures involving private finance and private management expertise. It will be essential that it makes contingency arrangements to deal with problems as they arise. An important part of that will be to make alternative arrangements for handling passengers while the services are disrupted, and it will be important to involve the rail passenger committees in that process.
The Government were clearly right to establish the SRA and to equip it with adequate powers to lead the industry in this way. Under the regime set up at privatisation there would have been no alternative way forward if Railtrack proved, as it has in the sad case of Leeds, unable to manage the major infrastructure investment projects.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before speaking I must declare my membership of the Strategic Rail Authority, but emphasise that I am not speaking on its behalf. I also thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for giving us this opportunity to debate this topic.
I alone of the people taking part in the debate have been responsible for the management of some of the largest infrastructure resignalling schemes on British Rail. On no occasion did we have overruns of the sort that have taken place at Leeds. The biggest scheme, at Liverpool Street, which was carried out over an Easter weekend, overran until the Tuesday lunchtime and there was hell to pay for the managers as a consequence.
I want today to concentrate on the broader issues raised by what happened at Leeds. First, I want to contrast the problems of a management project on a

637
"live" railway, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred, which are totally different from a major infrastructure job on a greenfield site. It is important to recognise—I do not believe even senior people in the SRA and possibly in government understand this—the difference between building the Channel Tunnel rail link through green fields and upgrading the West Coast Main Line with trains constantly whizzing past at speed.
It is important that the person most involved is the principal operator. The principal operator must take the lead in these schemes. At Leeds I understand that GNER did not even have a representative in the project team. That is absolutely disgraceful. GNER should have been in the lead because it deals with the customers and would have represented not only its own interests but also those of the customers.
If a scheme is led by an operator within a properly thought through engineering and logistical plan, which itself is built into the timetable, the unexpected delays and compensation payments can be avoided. I cannot describe the satisfaction of a proper railwayman seeing, after six weeks, the first train go on time, to the right platform, to the right place. It is a culmination of years of work. When we hit that spot, we know that we have done our job properly.
Compensation costs a lot of money. Of the recently announced £500 million increase in costs on the West Coast Main Line—it is now overrunning by £6.3 billion—£300 million is extra money for compensation. We do not buy any extra railway for that; it is compensation. The compensation culture encourages every engineering contractor to build contingency into the cost. That is why the cost of doing the work has doubled since Railtrack became responsible. Yet the present franchising arrangements set tough performance targets which mean the operators must seek compensation to offset penalties.
So what do we do now that Railtrack is unlikely to be the leader in the future on these projects? In my view, major upgradings should be built firmly into the new franchises, placing the major operator in lead position in planning the work with an obligation to take account of the requirements of secondary users.
Within the life of the new franchise it should be possible for timetable planning and performance criteria to be adjusted, which is now very difficult, so that we can accommodate major upgrades and avoid the compensation payments while still holding contractors responsible for overruns beyond the planned time. There is still time to do that because no new franchises have been signed, although Railtrack's position has changed.
So my message to the Government and to the SRA is to take this opportunity of the new franchises and to put the lead operators in charge. To take South West Trains with its plans to goldplate the railway between Surbiton and Waterloo as an example, let it design the timetable because it deals with the customers. That is the way to avoid another Leeds. I beg the Government and members of the SRA to listen, for once, to the views of professional railwaymen.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and constructive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I start by emphasising how welcome and necessary is the investment of what will probably be, when this massive project is eventually finished, at least £200 million in my estimation in greatly overdue improvements in track, signalling, station platforms and facilities at Leeds.
By common agreement, Leeds is one of Britain's most successful cities, with a powerhouse of financial, legal, print and media services and is now increasing in strength in Internet and IT services. Some 50,000 passengers per day use Leeds railway station. Passenger use increased by 18 per cent in the year 2000 and is forecast to grow by 15 per cent per annum for the next few years. A further 50,000 new jobs are expected in Leeds over the next 10 years, of which some 70 per cent will be commuters. It is essential that rail captures a substantial number of those commuters.
Despite that success story and vigorous city growth, improvements to rail services have effectively been frozen for 10 years because of capacity problems at Leeds, with all the problems that passengers recognise. The £200 million investment programme will be a huge boost to Leeds and the travelling public. However, as I shall remark later, investment in a station is not enough.
I should like to comment briefly on the chaos which has occurred. No one using Leeds railway station in recent months is in any doubt that these have been trying and often traumatic times. Whatever the cause, the effects were devastating over Christmas and in January. However, uncertainties and inadequacies of service remain all too frequent. It is not simply a matter of problems with the rail station.
The published self-assessment by Railtrack makes salutary and astounding reading. In an almost Maoist-like recantation of errors, Railtrack admitted to unrealistic commitments (it was too ambitious about what could be realistically achieved); poor communications within the project team—not even with the right people—and with train operators; insufficient time devoted to managing complex interfaces between contractors; an inability to take on sufficient staff with the necessary skills; using untried new technologies with not enough leeway for installation; and insufficient allowance for a spell of wintry weather that was not all that bad by European standards.
The travelling public of Leeds, West Yorkshire and beyond will take a long time to forget and forgive what was a gross litany of incompetence. However, the problems faced by rail travellers in and around Leeds have not all been caused by the station improvement project. The unsatisfactory franchise and performance of what was Northern Spirit and is now Arriva has brought much misery to travellers. The division between track operators and the rail service operator has all too often been used to blame others for problems rather than to take responsibility.

639
From its original award in 1997 the franchise for rail services in the Yorkshire area was not satisfactory. Northern Spirit was never geared up to deliver the promised services. My own inquiries suggest that there has not been a single day since the award of the franchise when Northern Spirit, now Arriva, has operated a full complement of trains. Typically, the average operating capacity at peak times has been only 80 per cent of the capacity needed and promised under the franchise. The result has been cancelled trains and trains with less than a full complement of carriages. That has resulted in delayed journeys, sardine-like packed carriages and unhappy passengers on many services throughout the area.
I am greatly concerned that the new franchise, which I believe is due to take effect in 2003, is properly specified, properly negotiated and properly established. It will cover a wider northern area. There appears to be no timetable in place for the award of the franchise. There seems to be a real danger of slippage in reaching agreements on the proper specifications of the franchise.
The last thing I want to see is the extension of the current franchise on a year-to-year basis. That would simply freeze investment in new rolling stock and improvements. We urgently need much greater investment in areas such as rolling stock if the potential benefits of the Leeds railway station scheme are to be felt. It would be a great irony if £200 million is invested but passengers still experience train cancellation and huge overcrowding but with no improvement in the frequency of services and no new services.
I hope that the Government will have careful discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority. They must ensure that the targets and requirements of the SRA in awarding the new northern franchise match the public transport objectives of the Government. They must also ensure that the big investment in Leeds station does indeed benefit the travelling public in ways that matter; that is, with more, and less crowded, trains, bringing more convenient and desirable rail services which will help to switch journeys from road to public transport.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for initiating this debate. It is indeed interesting and important to note that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, a Bradfordian, is now a resident of Lancashire and yet he knows from personal experience the problems of Leeds station. The problems are regional and even beyond the region of Yorkshire.
Such problems have affected the regional economy. I acknowledge the expenditure of £165 million, or is it £200 million? When I first started work in Leeds on 1st January 1959, I arrived at Leeds Central Station. Before my time, there was a third station in Leeds. The amalgamation of the three stations was an important feature. It happened in the post-Beeching era when
640
perhaps there were 500 trains per day to Leeds. Now there are 900. But such a merger, based on no growth, is certainly no good for today.
We have had almost a year's upset and there is a great temptation to have a good moan. For nearly a month at Christmas and in the two weeks up to 3rd March, 7 per cent of trains were cancelled. Only 75 per cent arrived within five minutes of the book time. There has been insufficient rolling stock because of not being able to get paths to the depot at Neville Hill. Even the West Yorkshire PTA is saying that no one seems to be in charge. At times such as the evening peak when people are tired, there is no one to explain what is going on and how things can be solved. Rainwater has now got into the escalators.
A train which is running 15 minutes late becomes half an hour late because there is then no pathing. We now have a situation where 43 trains have been replaced by buses, with the reduced capacity that that involves. One wonders if there is an over-reliance on a large city such as Leeds. I was interested that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire referred to Bradford. There is no doubt that were the two stations linked in Bradford, that would have assisted some of the work now taking place in Leeds.
It was good to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We are talking about Leeds and the problems with passenger trains, but we must remember the importance of freight on the railway. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, referred to the fragmented railway. I shall return to that theme. He referred to his own involvement. When I was a member of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority from 1987–1990, we were constantly receiving papers seeking funds for Leeds West End. That is really the major aspect of what we are now discussing.
It was good to hear my noble friend Lord Bradshaw speak with experience and expertise about how such large projects may be undertaken. It was also good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, who, as leader of the West Yorkshire County Council in those lamented times had a pro-public transport position.
It was interesting to hear from the noble Lord that the station has 50,000 passengers each day. Historically I think of Leeds as having a population of 500,000 but the new metropolitan Leeds has more than that. The figure is equivalent to 10 per cent of the city moving in and out of Leeds and the noble Lord is right in saying that there must be a proper set-up from 2003.
One of my concerns, which has not yet been aired and which comes back to the fragmented railway, is the disappearance of the loops. For example, a little over a year ago a new service was opened. The Greetland curve was reopened in order to run trains from Halifax to Huddersfield. It has meant that, because of the refurbishment of Leeds station, trains have been able to go into Halifax, come back out using the Greetland curve and still get to Leeds without using the Leeds/Bradford route. Had the curve not existed that operation would not be possible.

641
The Wortley curve in Leeds, which was ripped up, could have been useful. The link between Neville Hill and Beeston, which was also ripped up, would have been useful. It is a great shame that the sectorisation of the railway, the concern about point-to-point and the lack of a regional and national system have manifested themselves in the problems of Leeds. When one thinks of the refurbishment of Leeds station and the way in which it has been dealt, one goes on to think about the refurbishment of the West Coast Main Line. Will nationalisation have to return to the nation's agenda?
8.21 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing it. It concerns deep management problems which the railway system as it now operates has yet to overcome. I cannot help but feel that not least of the Minister's joys in replying is that he no longer has direct-line responsibility. He may well conclude that that has a certain advantage.
However, if we are having a general tour around the railway system and its history, we must remind ourselves that it goes back a long way. I remember seeing papers in the bad days of Dr Beeching, if one can put it that way, which could have closed down the whole railway system. As each mile of railway track was closed, the overhead costs remained and were transferred to the rest of the system. As the overhead costs remained, every mile of closure made the cost equation worse for what was left. The last mile of track left in the country would have carried such huge overhead costs that no matter how many trains it carried it could not have worked. That is the background to the issue.
I accept that the Leeds station improvement can only be described as mismanaged and a short-term disaster not just for the city of Leeds but for the whole of West Yorkshire and beyond. If the transport system is interrupted, major difficulties are caused. Despite the problems and chaos, I have sympathy with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I have sympathy with anyone who tries to improve and upgrade a system while at the same time keeping the system running. That is exceptionally difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned the Hatfield tragedy, which occurred at just the wrong time and certainly took a considerable amount of Railtrack's management concentration away from what otherwise would have been its major project during the Christmas period. That does not excuse what happened but it is an explanation for it.
I also had considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about the need to involve operators in the improvements. It may be a small red herring, but I remember going on an official visit to China many years ago. I was astonished to read in the English language newspapers which they thoughtfully supplied—English being the second language in China—that the head of the local section of the Chinese nationalised railway system had been
642
got rid of—I do not know whether they shot him—because of an incident such as this. One cannot help but wonder and ask how many heads, so to speak, rolled, even if only metaphorically, as a result of the situation.
As all noble Lords have said, the key fact is that everyone must learn from the situation to try to prevent it happening again. Learning from it is quintessentially a management problem and the only people who will seriously do so are "those who dun it". That is not to say that they should be given the responsibility of doing it again; one might feel that that would not be appropriate. However, it is certain that Railtrack must take the lessons seriously on board. The rail regulators must also examine the position carefully, because if Railtrack is in severe financial difficulties and cannot undertake these tasks, which are dependent on a high level of public subsidy, it is clear that the responsibility must be placed elsewhere.
That would represent a signal and major failure for Railtrack and would not be a satisfactory outcome for it or its shareholders. If it does not learn the lesson rapidly, it will be a remarkable thing.
8.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, this has been a short but constructive debate, informed by the considerable professional experience of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke with obvious concern for those passengers and businesses so badly affected by the overrun of the Christmas engineering work. I thank my noble friends and noble Lords for their contributions.
I fully share the concerns about the extent and impact of the disruption which have been clearly articulated in the debate. Indeed, I visited Leeds station to talk to the Railtrack team about the problems they encountered and was close to the other recent problems at Willesden and disruptions at Euston station.
I am encouraged by the emphasis placed during the debate on the need to look forward rather than to recriminate. Much has been said about the mistakes made by Railtrack in carrying out the Leeds First project. The company has rightly stated that the Christmas overrun was unacceptable and has publicly taken full responsibility for that, but with Railtrack we must look to the future. I shall set out how the Government are doing that by working in partnership with Railtrack and other key industry players to ensure that the lessons learnt are applied across the industry to all future major upgrade projects in support of our 10-year plan for transport.
Although delayed, the Leeds First project represents a major reconstruction scheme at one of the main hubs of the national network. It will deliver a bigger and better railway. I understand that the Christmas work was one of its most complex and challenging elements. The £165 million regeneration of Leeds station is, as has been said by noble Lords, the first phase of the

643
multi-billion pound East Coast Main Line upgrade planned for the next 10 years. That project comprises remodelling and resignalling works and the enhancement and expansion of the station's facilities and environment; indeed, it is the biggest engineering project in the region for over 30 years.
The scheme's objectives mirror those of the Government's 10-year plan and integrated transport strategy. The aim is to improve safety, reliability, punctuality and comfort, to increase passenger and freight capacity, and, we hope, to transform the passenger experience. The scheme, I understand, will integrate the station facilities with the wider transport needs of the city and the region through proposals for a bus interchange at the station and links to the supertram, to which we were able to give some backing in recent weeks.
The work at Leeds has been planned and managed so that the station can remain open throughout the project. This has been made possible by Railtrack working in partnership with the passenger transport executive and the passenger and freight operators. I am informed that the project will be substantially complete in December of this year.
The intensive engineering works that overran at Christmas comprised the installation and commissioning of new signalling throughout the station; the connection of new tracks and the renewal of existing ones; and the installation of new overhead lines. I was grateful for the perspective on these matters provided by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. The work was delayed. I know that people in the West Riding are hardy, but for four days running the temperature was minus 10 degrees. I was out on the track myself and felt it to the hone. The work was so tightly programmed and resourced that once slippage occurred it escalated. Contractors were unable to achieve the productivity that was originally planned.
Railtrack h as carried out a thorough review of what went wrong and the lessons to be learnt. The company recognises that it was too ambitious as to what could be achieved in 17 days. Future phases will be more realistically scoped. Indeed, the work planned over Easter was completed on time. The shortfall in contractor productivity highlighted a shortage of resources and skills, particularly in overhead line engineering, right across the industry. I understand that operational communications between Railtrack and the train operators have been strengthened as a direct result of the experience at Christmas.
The rail recovery action group, which I chair, has monitored the disruption and the ensuing review conducted with contractors, suppliers, customers and the Strategic Rail Authority. We have learnt some lessons there, too, because our 10-year plan entails many more projects to rebuild and expand the national network. Therefore, we have strongly urged Railtrack to ensure that it applies the lessons to future upgrades.
Last year the Government made it clear to the rail industry that, for example, training urgently needed to be improved by partnership between industry and government. A particular concern was that very few
644
rail employees currently gain nationally recognised qualifications. In the four years to June 2000, only 24 national vocational qualifications were awarded to train drivers, with an industry total of just 207 NVQs. That cannot be right for an industry which employs tens of thousands of people. Nor can it be right, as noble Lords have said, that we import welders from Scandinavia, signalling engineers from eastern Europe and, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, perhaps people who have to return to India, when we are trying to sort out the skills required for a £60 billion investment over the next 10 years. That is why action is now under way to recruit and train people to run an expanding railway system.
The DfEE, working with my department, the SRA and other key stakeholders has created a framework action plan to help push skills further up the agenda of the rail industry. That plan, which was unveiled by DfEE last week, is a balanced package which aims, among other things, to raise the employer commitment to skills; overcome obstacles to recruitment and labour supply; improve training; and improve skills and quality through externally validated qualifications. The plan will focus on a number of key occupations which the industry has identified as critical. These include drivers, signalling and track maintenance engineers, middle management, planners, graduates and professional staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made mention of other huge projects. The West Coast Main Line is the biggest engineering project of its kind in the whole of Europe, and the Channel Tunnel rail link is a £5 billion project. We also have road projects in hand. For transport as a whole, under our 10-year plan the DETR, with colleagues in the DfEE, the DTI and the devolved administrations, plan to meet in the near future to ensure that the 60,000 new transport jobs being created by the 10-year plan can be filled. That will involve the new job transition service to try to link wherever possible the available transport opportunities to those affected elsewhere in manufacturing by redundancies.
The Government are committed to getting the railways back into proper shape and providing passengers with an improved service. During the current spending review period—this is a significant change from the past—transport investment is expanding at 20 per cent a year. This increase in public expenditure will now lever in hugely increased private sector investment through public private partnerships. We have learnt from past problems both in failed privatisations and badly run public sector investment projects. Where projects are complex and long term, or the requirements of ongoing maintenance are as big as the construction project itself, the old relationship of private sector as contractor with the public sector as project manager and risk bearer is not the best way forward.
Our commitment to delivering the rail renaissance was emphasised last month when the Deputy Prime Minister announced a new relationship between the Government and Railtrack. This will enable Railtrack to concentrate on its core business of safely sustaining

645
the existing network and improving its asset stewardship while allowing others to participate in the financing of new schemes to enhance capacity.
The new agenda for Railtrack brings more accountability and tougher regulation in the public interest in return for accelerated payment to the company of the £1.5 billion due to it under the Rail Regulator's review of access charges. This establishes key elements of the financial structure needed by the rail industry to accelerate the momentum of our recently introduced 10-year plan. This new pact also paves the way for bringing in third-party finance and project delivery skills to supplement Railtrack, starting with the priority major enhancements. It enables the Strategic Rail Authority to create a new project finance and delivery vehicle, known as a special purpose vehicle (SPV), for the East Coast Main Line upgrade to create valuable new passenger and freight capacity on that key route. That SPV will be led by the Strategic Rail Authority, and its members are also expected to include a project management company, the future train operator, Railtrack and external investors. The new project structure will ensure that the east coast upgrade is delivered and brings together infrastructure and traction providers. It will enable Railtrack to concentrate its efforts more fully on its existing network, which will include the operation of the East Coast Main Line itself during the course of the upgrade.
In the light of its experience at Leeds and Willesden, Railtrack has acknowledged that changes are needed to its relationship with maintenance contractors. It has developed a radical and much more open approach to its suppliers. This has underpinned the development of what it calls "IMC 2000" a new generation of maintenance contracts to replace entirely the ones drawn up in haste at privatisation. The fragmentation of infrastructure maintenance work into 36 separate maintenance and renewal contracts is now being cut down. By 2002, they will be amalgamated into 18 contracts. Those new contracts provide incentives for contractors to do a quality job. In addition to being rewarded with extensions to their contracts, they stand to gain an equal share of any cost saving that they make along the way. The contracts provide Railtrack with increased transparency over maintenance activity, its associated costs and deliverable outputs.
We believe that the new contracts will ensure a more efficient and detailed flow of information about the assets which the contractors are maintaining. That will be linked to the implementation of a new asset management system upon which the Rail Regulator is insisting. The monitoring of the work also benefits from an improved suite of performance indicators covering train performance, track quality and measures of reliability, efficiency and condition of assets.
Railtrack has a vital part to play in modernising the railway. The company now has a financial basis to enable it to plan with some certainty and to concentrate on its core business of safely running, maintaining and renewing the network. Its chief
646
executive has made clear that it must focus on improving its customer service by being realistic and by delivering on its promises.
We have put in place the framework to enable Railtrack and all other key industry players to work together to achieve that. We have also put in place, as noble Lords may know, the ability for a public service non-executive director to be appointed. I shall refrain from describing him as a people's director in this context. After the example offered by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of what the Chinese do to those who run their railways, we may be short of recruits if there is any contagion there.
In announcing last month's statement of principles with Railtrack, the Deputy Prime Minister said that in many ways it represented a fresh start for the railways; a re-focussed, re-structured and properly funded Railtrack which still has a vital role to play. The new agreement aims to enable Railtrack to work more constructively with all its industry partners to bring new confidence to the railways and to deliver the standard of service that passengers rightly expect.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
8.41 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 41.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): Amendment No. 69 has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The amendment concerns an important element which was inserted during consideration of the Bill in another place. The lead amendment in the group suggests that the word "victim" in Clause 41 should be replaced by the word "target". I am not over-enamoured with the word "victim" in this particular place, but I believe that the word "target" is worse. Both words are accurate to a degree. I would settle for the word "person". That is not really important. However, there is absolutely no doubt that the people whose protection Clause 41 is aimed at are victims.
The most well-known case recently has been that of Huntingdon Life Sciences. That company is by no means alone. I have had representations, as I am sure have other Members of the Committee, from the pharmaceutical industry, the research defence societies and from all over the scientific world. In addition, I have had representations from the NFU and the Countryside Alliance. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned particular representations. All of them say in one way or another, "Look, the way in which these animal rights activists have operated in these different fields, pursuing different causes, is unacceptable". That is the bottom line. That is what the clause is about. The question is how to deal with the matter.

647
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, appeared to be suggesting that the present law was adequate for the purpose and that the only fault was a lack of police. I am sympathetic to the lack of police. We know the figures for the numbers of police, and so on. But the way that these demonstrations supporting different causes, but nevertheless with a common theme of one kind or another, have been pursued in recent years has moved to a new level that is unacceptable.
The specific issue to which the clause is directed is the harassment of a person in his home. It used to be said that an Englishman's home was his castle. However modest his home was, that was where he could go to be private, be himself and not be harassed. That is not true if one is the "target", the "victim" or the "person" concerned of the animal activists.
I said that there are a number of different causes being pursued. That is right. We quite rightly require that all kinds of drugs and other substances should be tested on animals before they are tested on humans; and sometimes at the same time as they are tested on humans. That is a protection for us. It is not done for some reason other than to protect humans. It is to try to protect us when we use cosmetics and when we use drugs and other much more vital things in our lives. We require that protection. It is the law. This Parliament has passed the law to require that.
However, the animal rights activists, or some of them, have deliberately targeted firms which carry out that testing in an effort to try and prevent them from so doing. They not only attack the directors and bosses of the firms: they attack the staff and abuse them on the way in and out of their premises; they follow the directors and the senior staff to their homes; and they also follow the shareholders, the bank people and so on. We have seen that happen not only with Huntingdon Life Sciences but with other firms.
That is one matter. As Members of the Committee will know, this targeting has happened also to farmers when carrying out experiments and trials for the Government in the protection of the public; for example, GM crops. It has happened—maybe more controversially to some people—in the case of hunting. That is a perfectly legitimate activity at the moment. Obviously, whatever happens to the debate about hunting, we have a Bill before us. It is not being very actively pursued just at the moment. Whatever happens about that issue, so long as it is legal people should be allowed to pursue that activity without being harassed in their homes.
Given that this harassment has increased and become more specifically directed at particular people, it is necessary to consider whether the law needs strengthening or whatever it is that needs to be done in order to prevent that activity. That is why I am in favour of the clause as a whole and why I am against the various Liberal Democrat amendments in the group. They attempt in various ways to weaken it. I do not want to go on unnecessarily at this hour of night about the individual details of each of the amendments, but they attempt to insert the words "serious" and "reasonably" and so on in order to lift
648
the level of what has to be done to constitute a crime. The most important one is Amendment No. 77 which seeks to insert,
"It is a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable".
I am not sure how the court will actually settle on what is reasonable and what is not in the absence of any further guidance. I do not want to get back on to the guidance point. Earlier that caused a little difficulty. The tone of the group of Liberal Democrat amendments is rather similar.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He asked whether one would need guidance, codes or anything else in order to ascertain what was a reasonable defence. Leaving the matter as broad as that is to leave it to the discretion of the courts—the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The fact is that that defence is available under all the existing provisions of the Public Order Act. It is designed to prevent the kind of exceptional and abusive case which I am sure the noble Lord would agree is inappropriate. That is why it is a settled defence in the public order legislation. Our amendment simply seeks to bring the same defence into this measure.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is a helpful explanation. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is doing his best to help us to understand the legal points that are involved. At the same time, the effect of the individual Liberal Democrat amendments and certainly of the group of amendments collectively is to put a higher hurdle in the way of those who would try to use the legislation. The amendments would weaken the effect of the legislation.
By contrast, the three amendments in the group to which my name is attached would strengthen the legislation in very particular ways. Amendment No. 70 seeks to add to the domestic premises,
"any premises or land attached thereto".
The Committee will realise that I have particularly in mind farms. With a farm, it is generally the case that the farmer and often the stockman live on the premises. They do so because that is the best way to run the farm. Farming is an all-consuming business. It is necessary, particularly with stock, to have an expert present 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all through the year because the stock need to be looked after. The domestic premises are therefore intimately mixed up with the land that surrounds them and, for that matter, the farm buildings. It is simply no use protecting the house that is just next to the barn and so on and moving the demonstrators 50 yards down the road. It is just as harassing to have the demonstrators there as it is to have them outside the house itself.
Amendment No. 71 seeks to give protection to the place of work or business or any premises that the victim habitually frequents. It is true, as I said earlier on, that the activists target not only the domestic premises but the work premises of people carrying out legitimate work. They do so not just once or twice but day after day and week after week. They insult the

649
people. They do their best to obstruct them and to make their lives as difficult as possible. They do so when those people are carrying out an entirely legal requirement—indeed a statutory requirement—to, for example, test drugs. It is necessary to extend protection to the place of work or business of the victims involved.
Amendment No. 74 seeks to insert the words "or others". It deals with the possibility of alarm or distress being caused to the victim. Where the victim lives in a village the existence of the protesters may not matter too much to someone who lives in a large house with a substantial garden and a good fence and gates. The victim can keep the protesters at a distance. Therefore, it is not so much the individual in the large house who suffers; it is the neighbours. It is they who are subjected to the harassment and difficulty. It is their alarm and distress that we seek to address by means of Amendment No. 74.
The amendments propose three ways in which the provisions of the Bill might well be strengthened. I do not think it is enough simply to deal with the house by itself. Protesters already go to the business premises. In any case, the law needs to remain one step ahead of the criminal. It is important that we take action to protect these people. Of course it is true that there is existing law on the issue and of course it is true that the police have had insufficient resources for or have given insufficient priority to protecting some of these victims. Nevertheless, the Government have come to the view—I agree with them—that it is also necessary to strengthen the law. That is what Clause 41 seeks to do and our amendments seeks to take that a notch or two further.
Lord Monson: Although I have not had much time to study the amendments, perhaps I may, as a mere layman, try to steer a middle course between the views of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I think that I shall be sailing slightly closer to the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made out a good case for Amendment No. 69—at least a good case for getting rid of the word "victim". Whether "target" is right, I am not sure, but it is certainly preferable to "victim". Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I thought that the noble Lord made a good case for Amendment No. 77. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I do not agree with his other amendments. They would water down the clause too much.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out, it is not just the target/victim who is at risk; it is the neighbours and the wife and children of the target. We are not dealing on the whole with gentle, vegetarian, sandal-wearing demonstrators; we are dealing with hardcore terrorists. These people have committed arson and grievous bodily harm. Only by the grace of God have they not been responsible for murdering anyone yet. They have attacked people with baseball bats. As a schoolboy, I lived for three and a half years in the United States. I am well aware of how lethal baseball bats can be. In 1943 there was a terrible race riot in
650
Detroit. Thirty-four people were killed in that riot, of whom 31 were beaten to death with baseball bats. That is the kind of thing the animal rights fanatics have started to do to employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Time is not on our side. We have to get this clause into law as soon as possible. There may be a case for accepting one or possibly two of the Liberal Democrat amendments but I feel equally that the strengthening amendments proposed by the Conservatives should be accepted. I hope that we shall hear encouraging noises from the Minister.
9 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just said. Before I go any further, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord who agreed that we should adjourn the discussion on Clause 41. We are now able to have a much more thoughtful and relaxed discussion than if we had been pressed to have it before dinner.
I have great respect for my fellow lawyers, the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Thomas of Gresford. They put forward some valuable proposals and I frequently agree with them. However, on Amendment No. 69, I am a little worried. It seems to me that as soon as a target is threatened he becomes a victim. In my humble opinion, one cannot get away from that. Unless there is some purely technical reason with which I am not familiar, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley that we should stick with "the victim". That makes the position clear.
Clause 41 is a valuable proposal from the Government. However, perhaps we should enlarge it in the way proposed by my noble friend Lord Cope. In saying that, perhaps I may tell the Committee that I was the Member of Parliament for Huntingdonshire for 34 years. We then had a much better Member who became Prime Minister for some 11½ years. I live only a few miles from the Huntingdon Life Sciences research centre. Because I was the local MP, I was consulted when it was first set up.
It struck me then, and it has been confirmed ever since in my mind, that the research centre has carried out valuable research and that the human race has benefited accordingly. So to some extent has the animal population. Some of the remedies produced have been beneficial to animals, just as other remedies have been of benefit to human beings.
I have visited the establishment more than once. Although animals were kept in cages, they were treated properly and well fed. No one was ever cruel to them. When the need came to end their lives to prevent suffering, they were killed and that was that. Quite frankly, I do not consider that more suffering was endured at that research centre than is suffered by animals kept in cages domestically, in people's homes. For those reasons, I think that Amendment No. 71 is of great importance. It would acknowledge the fact that the victim is vulnerable not only in his own home but also at his place of work. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. Although it

651
is slightly less important, I believe that Amendment No. 70 is also worth incorporating into the Bill. So, too, is the relatively minor Amendment No. 74.
As regards the other amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, along with his noble friends, I have no objection to them. However, I think that we must be very careful as regards Amendment No. 69.
Perhaps I may mention briefly Amendment No. 77, which states that,
It is a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable".
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will confirm that in nearly every case the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the defence puts forward the view that the conduct was reasonable, that generally raises a reasonable doubt. For that reason, I am a little doubtful about this amendment. However, there is broad agreement between us and I hope that the Government will bear in mind the valuable suggestions that have been put forward which seek slightly to extend and modify this important clause.
Lord Monson: I think that I am allowed to speak again. I have been slightly unfair to the Liberal Democrats. I forgot to mention Amendment No. 75, which is reasonable. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out that it employs the word "reasonable" and the remedy proposed is justifiable.
Lord Perry of Walton: I rise to reinforce what has already been said by several noble Lords. I speak as the president of the Research Defence Society. We have an enormous file of incidents which have been reported by fellow scientists. Not only have they suffered insults themselves, but so have their families and children. It is an absolute scandal that nothing has been done so far. We welcome enormously the clauses contained in the Bill.
Many animal experiments are carried out because the law requires that such experiments are undertaken. They are not carried out on the spur of the moment. I hope that the Government will reject all the amendments which seek to weaken the proposals in the Bill and stand by what they have put forward.
Lord Davies of Oldham: This has been a most interesting debate, although it was punctuated by a gap of one hour as the result of the intervention of dinner. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out, we probably benefited from taking some refreshment before coming back to the fray on a clause which is of great importance. Every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate has indicated that.
I had thought that out of the division of the enemies might come the safety of the state, as it were. The collision of viewpoints expressed so articulately by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, before dinner and then refuted by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, after dinner as regards the perspective of the clause might have
652
provided a middle ground which I could usefully have occupied to demonstrate why this clause is so important and valuable.
I thought that I would hear the noble Lord, Lord Monson—who also took the middle ground—being helpful in this respect. I do not think that he was. The middle ground that he occupied was that we should accept all the amendments. The middle ground that I shall occupy, of course, will be to seek to reject all the amendments. So even those of us who occupy a middle position between the stances taken by the two Opposition parties have our different approaches in regard to the clause.
Lord Monson: As a point of accuracy, I suggested that all of the Conservative amendments should be accepted and some of the Liberal Democrat ones.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I accept that point. I was merely emphasising that, on the whole, the noble Lord was more sympathetic to the amendments than. I shall prove to be—not surprisingly.
I welcome the fact that all Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate have put the clause into the context of the recent difficulties which have arisen. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for identifying the threats to our scientific research represented by the activities of certain sections of animal liberation organisations. Those activities have brought into jeopardy the essential medical and scientific work which we all know is necessary for the good health of the nation and, in some respects, an even greater good than that.
The amendments raise issues of some principle. Certainly those who have advocated the amendments have sought to make that point. As to Amendment No. 69, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I do not believe that there is benefit in changing the term from "victim" to "target". The term is clearly defined in the clause, so there is no ambiguity in the drafting. We recognise that people who are targeted by groups such as animal rights protestors may not always see themselves as victims—which may imply a sense of helplessness—but they are being harassed. Those who harass, victimise their targets—we should not forget that—and several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have emphasised that point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated, the word "victim" appears in the Protection from Harassment Act. It is simply a convenient way to refer to the person against whom harassment is directed. I do not believe that "target" is a preferable, alternative word. Nothing is prejudiced by the use of the word "victim"; it is a perfectly normal, commonsense way of describing a person outside whose home a protest is being made.
I heard what the noble Lord said in terms of broadening this issue to the question of whether the clause would severely inhibit the rights of investigative journalists. I share with him the concern that we should protect the rights of investigative journalists. In

653
some respects, perhaps, society could do with some enhancement in so far as that kind of journalism is rather less in evidence in the present decade than it was perhaps 20 or 30 years ago.
But I do not think that that issue arises here. As the noble Lord will recognise, journalists are employed to do a job and they are answerable to their employer for the way in which they conduct that role. The Press Complaints Commission sits as an important arbiter and controller of the way in which a free press carries out such actions in terms of investigative journalism. I do not believe, therefore, that the issue of a police constable coming in to interfere with the rights of journalists "doorstepping" in those terms will be a likely occurrence.
We all know that people in the news and public figures will, from time to time, be "doorstepped", and we all know the excessive lengths to which that can go. That is what the Press Complaints Commission is there for, to rein back such activity. But that can be dealt with by other methods and other means related to the activities of journalism; it is not a part of this issue. I do not think that what is proposed in the clause has any direct relationship to that.
The noble Lord went on to discuss the question of whether it may be appropriate for demonstrations to take place outside private homes. Let us be absolutely clear about the clause; it is about private homes. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seeks to extend it beyond that, but the clause as it stands refers to private homes. That, of course, puts a particular context on the question of harassment because the people affected are not only the individual persons directly involved through their places of work but also their families and, potentially, young children. Such action affects their privacy in a direct way. It is important that we recognise that that has gone on, as the noble Lord. Lord Cope, said, in a particularly offensive way in recent months and years, and it is quite clear that we need to put a stop to it.
Lord Renton: This is the moment to remind the noble Lord that terrorists have attacked people at their places of work more than they have attacked them at their homes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord's point relates also to another amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which seeks to extend the range of the clause.
There are difficulties in extending this provision beyond the private home. We also have to strike a proper balance in terms of the right of peaceful protest. The point was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. There is no doubt that protest carried out peacefully and appropriately can and should from time to time be recognised as valid at a place of work. I am drawing a distinction in regard to a private residence, which is what the clause identifies.
Amendment No. 72 would remove from the provision the idea that protesters can cause harassment by their mere presence. All too often we
654
have seen apparently peaceful demonstrations outside people's homes. The protesters may hold up placards or photographs, and they may shout out some comparatively innocuous comments. But that feels very intimidating to the people inside, who know the background of the protesters. In recent months it has been known that some animal rights protesters have track records, including the sending of letter bombs and the torching of cars. Activity of that kind is the background against which a group of people gathering outside a private home, given their previous background of action, would inspire proper anxiety in the minds of those inside. Protesters understand very well just how threatening their mere presence can be in such circumstances.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not quite understand how he is explaining the force of the words,
"by his presence or otherwise",
or their utility, given that the whole basis upon which a constable may issue directions is that a person is present at a home for the purposes described. It is immaterial whether the person is carrying a placard. The provision will lead to confusion in interpretation, particularly before magistrates, as they struggle to understand what the words "or otherwise" are meant to indicate.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am seeking to establish that the actual gathering of a group of people outside a private home can in itself represent harassment and a potential threat. Therefore, it is important to recognise that it is not necessary for those who are gathering to carry out any particular action; their mere presence will be enough to cause a problem. That is the justification for the position adopted by the Government. That is why we do not want to accept an amendment which appears to remove the concept of harassment if the protesters are merely present but are doing nothing else.
Turning to Amendment No. 75, to require that a direction made by a police officer should be reasonable in its specifications is both unnecessary and unhelpful. The clause already provides that the constable's belief that the victim is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress must be formed on reasonable grounds. The test for the constable as to the terms of the direction is a high one. It may include only such steps as he considers necessary to prevent harassment. Adding a further requirement of reasonableness—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—merely provides an added defence for the accused person. It would mean, for example, that there would be opportunities for complicated and wasteful arguments in court against the constable's action.
As for Amendment No. 77, similar considerations apply to the proposal that we should insert a statutory defence for the person accused of failing to comply with a police direction—the defence that the individual's conduct was reasonable. An offence will

655
be committed only where the person concerned knowingly fails to comply with a policeman's direction. The direction will be specific and must be communicated to the person concerned. As I said, the clause already requires there to be reasonable grounds for the constable's belief that the protest will cause harassment and distress. The directions are limited to those considered necessary to prevent that harassment.
Providing a further statutory defence of the kind suggested would negate the whole purpose of this new police power. It would encourage the accused to argue that, notwithstanding the fact that he was causing alarm and distress and that a lawful direction had been given to him, he should still be free to ignore that lawful direction because his actions were, none the less, "reasonable"; in other words, they were reasonable because they relate to the higher purpose of the protection of animals, which might justify such behaviour. We do not accept that a statutory defence along those lines would be helpful to the legislation.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 76, which suggest the insertion of the word "serious" in the places proposed, would present similar opportunities for argument in courts about just how serious the distress or alarm might be. This would make it more difficult for the police to do what we are asking them to do; namely, to protect individuals who are being harassed in their homes, particularly those who suffer the attentions of animal rights extremists. The Government believe that these individuals should have the opportunity to live in their homes, with their families, without having to suffer any kind of alarm or distress, serious or otherwise, from protesters. There are plenty of other ways to hold a peaceful protest which do not involve loitering around a person's home.
I turn to Amendment No. 78. We believe that the maximum penalty for failing to comply with a direction made by a police officer under this clause should be imprisonment. Some protesters are very persistent and will repeat their activities until something is done to stop them. A short term of imprisonment may prove to be the only deterrent for that sort of persistent offender.
I move on to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to which he has spoken. The word 'attached" in Amendment No. 70 is not specific. It could, of course, cover many acres of land; for example, in the case where a person owns a large area of farmland or an estate. In that instance, all the land and buildings might be argued to be "attached" to the dwelling in the sense that the land is contiguous. However, the protesters may be miles away from where the person in question and his family live. Therefore, it could scarcely be defined in terms of direct harassment.
By extending the provision to include a person's work place and frequent haunts, as proposed in Amendment No. 71, the powers given to the police would be taken into a new dimension. If we take that proposal with the suggestion in Amendment No. 74 to include the word "others" among the range of people
656
whose alarm or harassment could trigger police use of the powers, one could envisage legitimate use of these powers even when the intended victim and his family were miles away. Such a huge extension of police powers would fundamentally affect people's rights to demonstrate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will recognise that I am seeking to pursue a course that preserves the right to demonstrate at the appropriate place and in a proper and peaceful manner.
Human rights considerations also apply. Article 11 provides for freedom of assembly, qualified by the need to prevent crime or disorder, or protecting the rights of others—such as Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. We should have difficulties showing that Clause 41 was acceptable under Article 11 if it were amended in the way proposed by the noble Lord.
The overall purpose of the clause is to give the police powers to stop protesters outside people's houses from intimidating them and their families. The clause as drafted makes a clear link: he police can only interfere with protests—we are talking about peaceful protests because violent or threatening protests are already unlawful under the Public Order Act—where a person's private life is being intruded upon in an intimidating way. The amendments would remove that link and undermine the right to peaceful protest which, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, is fundamental to a democratic society. I hope that on the basis of what I have said I can persuade the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope I may say that I agree with very much of what he has said. But I must point out that if Amendment No. 71 is not accepted, then, for example, the unfortunate manager of the Huntingdon research station would not have the protection which the Bill would have given if he had been assaulted at his home rather than at his place of work. Perhaps we shall not reach a decision on the matter tonight, but I hope between now and such further stages of the Bill that there may be that the Government will give serious consideration to that factor.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister finally sits down, I urge him to think again about Amendment No. 74. Even if the word "victim" embraces the individual targeted, his or her wife or husband, children, parents who may be living in the house and so on, as the Minister seems to imply that it does—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—it does not include neighbours. What happens if the intended victim and his entire family are away on holiday but the protesters do not know that and demonstrate outside the victim's house? They shout, rant and bang drums outside an empty house, not realising that it is empty. I have seen such a demonstration occur in a London street of terraced houses. The neighbours in the houses either side—they were only a few yards away—were

657
absolutely terrified. It seems to me that without Amendment No. 74 the police would be powerless to act in those circumstances.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support the clause. I do not want to delay the Committee, not least because I support it. However, I do not want the Government to get the idea that this is the end of the matter. As far as I am concerned, the clause is a small step towards the protection of our fellow citizens. It does not deal with much of the unacceptable harassment to which they are subjected. We hope that it will deal with demonstrations at people's homes and with verbal abuse shouted through a loudhailer outside people's homes and with protesters who smash people's windows when the occupants are present. Perhaps it will deal with some of the physical assaults that occur, although there is other legislation to cover that.
However, it does not, for example, deal with the harassment of neighbours or others. Leaflets have been posted through the letterboxes of houses in the vicinity of the houses of people who are being targeted by protesters. Threatening telephone calls have been made to victims' wives or partners or even to their children or to their children's schools. Those situations are not covered by the clause. Nor are such matters as protesters arranging for undertakers to call at victims' houses to collect their bodies. Such situations are difficult to cope with, particularly on the part of victims' wives and families. Protesters have also ordered gravel and rubbish skips to be delivered to victims' houses. All those incidents have occurred to people who carry out research, let alone to farmers and others. Many more have occurred. So this is not the end of the matter. It is a small step in the direction of the protection that we need to consider.
Although the Minister did not mention it, in answer to a Question for Written Answer we were told that the Government have set up a committee under the Home Secretary to consider what further might be required. I do not know how long the gentleman will be Home Secretary, even if the party of noble Lords opposite succeeds in winning the election. Judging by the experience of Lennox Lewis that might not happen; I certainly hope that it does not. But should it happen, we do not know what the future of that committee will be. It has an extremely narrow brief. The committee is directed solely to legitimate animal research establishments but the issue is much wider than that, as I indicated in my opening remarks. I shall not continue at length, but there is a great deal more to do on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, spoke bravely given the attitude of his Front Bench to this legislation. I agree with what he said.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, accuse the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats of being a threatening force?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have heard rumours at both ends of the building of harassment taking
658
place—not in my party, of course—but we shall leave that for the moment! This is a serious matter. The provision is a step in the right direction but it is only one step.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister correctly indicated that he was driving a wedge between the Conservative Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I fear that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, illustrate that.
Almost every instance given by the noble Lord of occasions where the law should come to the aid of those who are harassed is already covered by existing law. If you smash someone's window, that is covered by endless law. If you threaten a person on the phone, in person or in his back yard, that is an offence under Section 4A or 5 of the Public Order Act. The main problem with regard to Clause 41 is to square the perfectly reasonable wish of the Government to deal with certain extremely narrow classes of case which are not covered under existing legislation with the danger that will be created which is untypical and unworthy of our traditions of democratic freedom.
The Minister did not deal with some of the specific examples I gave. I should be grateful if he would consider my example of doorstepping journalists. I think that on advice he will find that as drafted Clause 41 could be used against a zealous journalist pursuing a bold and proper journalistic course.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I did not wish to give the impression that the future work which I consider must be undertaken, or the work of the committee set up by the Government, should be confined to considering changes in the law. It must also consider the implementation of the law and how it will be put in practice.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am obliged to the noble Lord for those remarks. They are extremely apt. Many may have misunderstood the noble Lord.
I do not wish to prolong an important discussion. However, on nomenclature, if noble Lords can imagine the woman who alleges rape being described in the legislation as "the victim" before the trial has been heard, they may understand my objection to the use of that word in Clause 41.
I should be most grateful if the Minister would look again at Hansard on Amendment No. 72 and come back with an explanation of the utility of the words,
"by his presence or otherwise".
I am inclined to accept the Government's arguments about the insertion of the word "serious". That would be out of line with other public order legislation, so I am happy to put those amendments to rest. However, on our wish to insert the word "reasonably" with regard to the directions given by a constable, I think that I am right in saying that, whereas a constable must act with good cause or reasonably when deciding whether to issue directions, there is no limitation on the directions that he may issue beyond the subjective

659
test that he or she thinks that they are necessary. The word "reasonable" would require some objectivity on those directions. On reflection, the Government may think that entirely appropriate to what they are trying to do.
Over many years on other public order charges Parliament in its wisdom has provided for a defence that the accused's conduct was reasonable. The circumstances in which such public order occasions can arise are so diverse that Parliament has traditionally felt that the court should always have that discretion. For the Minister to suggest that that would let animal rights protestors get away with conduct that would otherwise be criminal by pleading the higher cause of animal rights does no justice to the common sense of magistrates. That defence would be laughed out of court.
It seems inconsistent that more serious offences under Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 should not carry a possible prison term for a first offence, yet this much lesser charge will give the state that entitlement. Even if the punishment is available for second or further offences, it is not appropriate for a first offence.
Having said all that, I do not propose to divide the Committee, but I hope that the Government will think further about the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 78 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Addresses of directors and secretaries of companies]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 35, line 38, after "director," insert "shareholder,"
The noble Lord said: I shall not go over the points of principle again. The amendment would extend to shareholders the protection offered to directors and managers in Clause 41.
Your Lordships will realise that there have been many cases of shareholders being equally targeted in cases of harassment such as those that we have been talking about. The Government have recognised that in the terms of the committee that is being set up. In a parliamentary Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on 26th April, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the committee would look into the problems with regard to managers or investors. That means shareholders as well as banks and others. I believe that shareholders equally are targets, victims—whichever word one prefers to use.
Perhaps I may say a word in parenthesis to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He suggested that it would not be a good idea to insert the word "victim" into the law on rape. I do not believe that it would be much better to insert the 'word "target", which, after all, is the suggestion that he put before us. However, I do not wish to pursue that matter.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is all very well to make a
660
little sally and then to say that one does not intend to pursue it. The noble Lord has pursued it, and I shall pursue him. He is my "target". I have no amour proper in relation to the word "target". I should be much happier if the word "person" were used, as is the case in all the other relevant provisions, including those in the Protection from Harassment Act, except in Section 5. However, it was impossible to redraft completely the whole of Clause 41. That is why I came up with the rather lame word "target". I hang nothing on that, but I hang everything on not having the word "victim" there.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: There we are. Now we have some idea of what we shall have to discuss at Report stage, if we reach it. There will he another, more refined amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Be that as it may, Amendment No. 79 seeks to extend the protection to shareholders. Apart from anything else, frequently directors are also shareholders in the same company; indeed, in many cases, that is encouraged. Therefore, if their particulars appear under their listing as shareholders, it is no good trying to conceal them from the list of directors. The same occurs when people are directors of more than one company, as many people are. When their particulars appear in Companies House under "Company A", quite properly and reasonably the other companies of which they are directors must he listed.
Therefore, it is extremely easy to look first at Company A and then at Company B, which may have nothing to do with animal research, and to find a director's home address. That will be the case unless the legislation provides that, if a director is to be given the protection of this clause and is to be allowed to put a service or accommodation address into his listing under Company A, he may also do the same in relation to Company B as a director. That is the point of Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and so on.
Amendment No. 86 concerns the question of timing. As I understand it, this legislation deals only with the entries at Companies House for future years. However, the particulars of those who are already directors, secretaries, or whatever, of companies are already listed at Companies House in relation to previous years. If the provision affects only the future annual returns of a company, it does not appear to provide much protection to existing directors. I believe that the protection must be extended to the previous entries listed at Companies House. Amendment No. 87 seeks to ensure that the provision applies to all companies and not only to the primary company.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 84 to 87. When an individual receives a notice stating that he is to be given such protection and will be allowed to list a different address at Companies House, I believe that that notice should also be given to the company; otherwise, how will the company know that the protection has been afforded to it? As I read the Bill, it does not appear that

661
the notice will be given to the company, and I believe that to be a loophole in the provisions as currently drafted. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We believe that Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82 which relate to shareholders, are unnecessary. Unlike directors, shareholders do not have to provide their usual residential address for the public record, but they may give a service address. They therefore already benefit from the same protection as the Government propose to give to directors in the Bill.
We believe that Amendments Nos. 84 and 85, which concern the granting of confidentiality orders, are not necessary. Provision is made in new Section 723F(3)(b) for regulations made under new Sections 723B to 723E to contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry thinks fit. We take the view that ensuring adequate notice to concerned parties of the making of confidentiality orders falls within that power. Our intention is to ensure that notification is given to relevant parties. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will be dealt with in that way.
We believe that Amendment No. 86 is, I am afraid, impracticable and unworkable. I hear what the noble Lord said about the question of the historical record. Companies' existing records are kept at Companies House in a variety of formats, including microfiche and paper. Given those various formats and the volume of documents filed over the years, it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to remove all existing records. There would also be little point because information contained in existing records is already in the public domain. It is widely used by specialist business providers such as Dun and Bradstreet, ICC and Experian.
The Government believe that Amendment No. 87 should not be agreed to. It might at first appear that inclusion of the word "affected" is somewhat superfluous. However, it is in fact needed because new Section 723C(8) defines "affected company" as a company that is required to deliver annual returns to Companies House and one in relation to which the director concerned has provided a service address that satisfies any conditions that may be laid down in regulations.
The Government see no need for Amendment No. 91, which concerns the unauthorised disclosure of a home address that is protected by a confidentiality order. Under new Section 723C(4) regulations may be made restricting the persons to whom, and the purposes for which, the relevant information may be disclosed. The relevant information is defined as information relating to the usual residential address of an individual who enjoys the benefit of a confidentiality order that has been obtained in prescribed circumstances. We propose to prohibit the affected company, by means of those regulations, from
662
disclosing information except to persons whom we specified in the regulations, such as law enforcement agencies. A disclosure by an affected company that was not within such a gateway would be in breach of the regulations. Under new Section 723E, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is empowered to make regulations that any person who discloses information in contravention of regulations under new Section 723C(4) shall be guilty of an offence. Thus the mischief which the noble Lord seeks to prevent can be dealt with under existing provisions of the clause.
I hope that in the light of that explanation, which attempts to assure the noble Lord that that which he seeks to obtain is already provided for in regulations under the legislation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: I am confident that my noble friend Lord Cope will expose some glaring weakness in the Minister's argument. But the Minister quoted the legislation and referred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is not normal to quote specific Secretaries of State in legislation. Can the Minister explain why we have this change?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I merely referred to the legislation under which the Secretary of State for that department would be empowered to make the necessary regulations.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The legislation is not specific. It just says, "Secretary of State". As we know, there is more than one and any one Secretary of State can exercise the powers of another. As usual, the legislation does not specify which Secretary of State, though I suppose the Minister is probably right to say that those powers would normally be exercised by the Secretary of State at the DTI but, if necessary, they could be exercised by another.
My noble friend suggested that I would expose glaring weaknesses in the Minister's arguments. I shall resist that temptation, great as it is. Basically, the Minister said that some of my amendments in this group were unnecessary and others his colleague, one of the Secretaries of State, would provide by regulation. I suppose that is something gained. All these points will need to be addressed by the committee of which I spoke earlier and I shall leave it at that for this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 35, line 39, after "company" insert "or a member of a limited liability partnership"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 88, 89 and 90.
Since the passage of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act last year it has been possible for partnerships to operate with limited liability. The regime set up under the Act, and more importantly the

663
regulations introduced under that Act, mimic the disclosure and public record requirements for companies. So members of a limited liability partnership will be required to register their usual residential address at Companies House.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to extend the scope of confidentiality orders under subsection (2) of new Clause 723B, introduced by Clause 44(2) of this Bill, to members of limited liability partnerships so that they too are treated in the same way as directors of companies.
I do not know whether any LLPs have yet been formed under the terms of the Act, but I am aware that one of the major accountancy firms has already announced that it is taking steps to achieve LLP status. Accounting and other professional firms involved with a company that is targeted by animal terrorists are likely to become targets themselves. We have seen in the case of Huntingdon Life Sciences how targeting has grown from the company to its bankers and its brokers. It is unlikely to stop there.
In its traditional form a partnership does not disclose the private addresses of its members. Limited liability partnerships will require those disclosures and hence their members need the protection of Clause 44. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
Amendments Nos. 83, 88, 89 and 90 are consequential amendments dealing with the provision of alternative addresses, the effect of the confidentiality orders, the impact on regulation-making powers and an interpretation clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise in support of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I had the privilege of taking the Limited Liability Partnership Bill through this House on behalf of the Opposition, as did, for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It was an important Bill and is an important Act. It introduces an important new vehicle into our legislation. I am somewhat surprised that it was not in the Bill. I would be even more surprised, and would go as far as to say that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Haringey, would be surprised, if it were left out of the Bill. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Minister to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I may say that for once I am able to fulfil the hopes of both noble Baronesses with regard to our proposals. We support the intention behind the amendments. We seek to give the assurance that we can achieve the common objectives we share through a slightly different route from the one outlined in the amendments.
The regulation-making powers are included in new Section 723B to 723F, to which I have already referred in discussing previous amendments. Regulations to be made following the Bill receiving Royal Assent will set out the details of the new arrangements. The Government will also introduce regulations under
664
Section 15 of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, knows well.
The regulations to be made under that Act will extend the provisions of new Section 723B to 723F and the regulations to be made under those sections to limited liability partnerships and to their members. Under the limited liability partnership regulations, a member of a limited liability partnership will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for a confidentiality order. In the light of those assurances I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that statement. Indeed, I am grateful that the point has been taken. Perhaps I may make two points. First, limited liability partnerships are now a fact of our commercial world. I should like to see them move on to the face of legislation and not be confined to the limbo-land of regulation-making powers, which follows behind. I believe that limited liability partnerships are being forgotten. If that is not so, the Government might have included in the Explanatory Notes that this is how they intend to deal with this problem.
I am grateful for this recognition now. However, going forward one would like not to have to raise limited liability partnerships in any legislation which is akin to Companies Act legislation.
Baroness Buscombe: I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Noakes. There is every probability that limited liability partnerships will become the norm in the commercial world. Therefore, it is a pity that we do not now set a trend by ensuring that reference is made to them on the face of the Bill. Here is a perfect opportunity to do that.
Baroness Noakes: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 91 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"PLACING OF ADVERTISEMENT RELATING TO PROSTITUTION
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he places on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public telephone an advertisement relating to prostitution, and

(b) he does so with the intention that the advertisement should come to the attention of any other person or persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an advertisement is an advertisement relating to prostitution if it—

(a) is for the services of a prostitute, whether male or female; or

(b) indicates that premises are premises at which such services are offered.

665
(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, any advertisement which a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution shall be presumed to be such an advertisement unless it is shown not to be.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(5) In this section—
"public telephone" means—

(a) any telephone which is located in a public place and made available for use by the public, or a section of the public, and

(b) where such a telephone is located in or on, or attached to, a kiosk, booth, acoustic hood, shelter or other structure, that structure; and

"public place" means any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise, other than—

(a) any place to which children under the age of 16 years are not permitted to have access, whether by law or otherwise, and

(b) any premises which are wholly or mainly used for residential purposes.

(6) In section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences), in subsection (2) (offences which are arrestable offences), after paragraph (c) insert—
"(ca) an offence under section (Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;"."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 92 would make the placing of prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes—a practice commonly known as "carding"—a criminal offence. This is a matter which has long been of concern to residents, local authorities and telephone companies.
The Government issued a consultation paper on the issue as long ago as May 1999. It stated:
"Prostitute cards in telephone boxes are undesirable and a nuisance to local communities. The cards can be offensive, create a bad impression with foreign visitors and can be an inappropriate influence on young people".
I do wish that we would stop using the word "inappropriate" when really the word is "wrong". This is a wrong influence on young people.
"They hide important public service information and can cause serious litter problems. Those who place cards in boxes can be threatening towards the public and local authority cleaning teams. Furthermore, prostitutes' cards represent a cost to phone operators in terms of negative image and lost revenue and require local authorities to incur costs through cleaning operations".
The Government state that the problem is at its worst in central London and in the Brighton and Hove area. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be able to inform Members of the Committee of the extent of the problem in Brighton.
I understand from British Telecom that it spends more than £250,000 per annum dealing with this problem which affects more than 1,000 boxes in central London. Cards must be removed from those boxes six days a week and more than 13 million are collected each year. In Brighton and Hove, 250 telephone boxes are affected by more than 1 million cards a year.
The number of cards has grown and the images and the description of the services offered have become even more explicit. The images used on the cards are sordid and people do not want to be confronted by such cards when they simply want to make a telephone call. In central London in particular the cards give foreign visitors a bad impression of this country. The cards are also an environmental nuisance, creating litter when they become detached from the telephone boxes and the so-called carders can become violent towards those who are trying to remove the cards.
As the Government have recognised, the existing state of the law is not adequate to deal with the problem. In their May 1999 consultation paper, they proposed creating a new criminal offence. In December last year, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gave further information to your Lordships' House about the conclusions of the Government's consultation and promised to legislate when parliamentary time allowed. The amendments have been drawn to reflect exactly the position taken by the Government in the light of the responses to their consultation document, a position outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in December last year. I am delighted to see that the Minister has added his name to them.
Amendment No. 93 would allow the Secretary of State, with the approval of your Lordships' House and another place, to extend the scope of the offence to structures other than telephone boxes. I understand that that is necessary because it may be that the new offence created by Amendment No. 92 will displace the activities of the carders to bus shelters, lamp-posts or other structures in public places.
Finally, I invite the Minister to comment on the progress that is being made with Oftel and the telephone companies to ensure that the numbers advertised on the cards are being disconnected, a matter to which he referred in his statement in December last year. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I rise briefly to support the amendment and express satisfaction that it is a cross-party initiative. As the noble Baroness said, the way in which cards are littering telephone boxes is a major public nuisance and an affront to many people. It takes place mainly in London, and in Brighton and Hove, but increasingly in other towns and cities.
Many people find them offensive and many foreign visitors find them mystifying. Indeed, they come to the view that perhaps the telephone boxes are some form of advertising medium for prostitutes. I also read that children, particularly in primary school, collect the cards and exchange them rather like they do Pokemon cards. So it is a huge problem and this is undoubtedly a way in which it can be addressed.
I have two questions which I hope my noble friend will be able to answer. First, the amendment refers to prostitution services. Will it also cover what one might call "related services", or euphemisms for prostitution such as "massage parlours"? Will it still be legal if such cards appear in telephone boxes or other public places?

667
Secondly, what has been the response to the question posed on page 13 of the consultation paper produced in May 1999; namely, whether effective legislation against advertising in telephone boxes would result in an increase in street prostitution? That would be a most undesirable consequence of the implementation of this amendment. I am sure my noble friend agrees that it would also be dangerous for the women who take part in prostitution. Do the Government have any alternative ideas to deal with prostitution on the streets if this amendment leads to an increase? For example, have they thought of any other legal ways in which prostitutes can safely advertise their services without causing public offence?
Lord Dholakia: We on this side of the Committee support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is quite right. The amendment is absolutely vital. This is very much an ugly feature of life in this country, particularly when decent people simply want to make telephone calls and, when they enter telephone booths, see the cards that are placed there. Children and women in particular find the cards fairly offensive. This matter has all-party support and I hope that it will become part of the legislation of this country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am delighted that we have reached this set of amendments. Prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes is a matter which has given rise to concern on all sides of the House. When I was leader of Brighton and Hove council somewhat ironically I found myself entirely at one with the changing leaderships of the City of Westminster council, whatever form they took. We jointly campaigned to put into legislative effect powers such as these to outlaw and combat effectively the distasteful business of carding. Strangely, our two boroughs were at one in that joint concern. We, as local authorities, shared what we regarded as good practice in using planning legislation and other ruses to try to tackle the problem. It may be that we were ineffective in that, but at least we tried to tackle it. We now have a proposal which effectively is a joint "handout" amendment, and I am pleased that we have reached the point of discussing it.
This is a particular problem in Westminster and Brighton and Hove. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for reminding the Committee of the cost to the telephone companies and the environment and the impact on children, young people and visitors of these distasteful cards and their volume. I did not spend my days in Brighton counting these cards. However, if one needs to use a telephone box in the city centre one can hardly avoid seeing the cards. The fact is that they put people off using the telephones.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner asked whether cards which offered prostitutes' services by way of massage parlours and so on would be caught by this measure. According to the term that is to be adopted, prostitution really means any sexual services for reward. The amendment will cover any card in respect
668
of which a reasonable person reasonably regards the activity as a form of prostitution or sexual service. Therefore, it should cover massage parlours in the terms in which my noble friend Lord Faulkner indicates.
My noble friend also asked a question relating to page 13 of the report of May 1999; namely, whether we believe that this might encourage more street prostitution. Obviously, one cannot predict these matters; they are not a precise science. There is no evidence to suggest that that will be the case. I believe it is likely that those who seek to avail punters of prostitutes' services will advertise in other perhaps more acceptable ways. I do not want to speculate on what they might be. But we as Government are not in the business of encouraging prostitution. Far from it. What we have tried to do is to support those services that exist in many of our urban areas to try and help people in the sex industry get out of the world of prostitution and lead a more constructive and gainful existence.
We have set up prostitution projects to see what works in tackling prostitution. Through these projects we are looking to help prostitutes formulate exit strategies away from that business. Many of these concerns and considerations have been raised this week with the sad and tragic news of the death of Monica Coghlan, who was clearly caught up in that business. That has highlighted again the distasteful side of it. We need to do more; and the Government are strongly committed in that direction. I hope that has answered the points of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised an important point relating to Oftel. There have been many discussions. The Councils have had discussions with Oftel. I can remember a long time ago scripting letters to Oftel asking it to take responsibility in this field. The amendment is just one part of tackling the larger problem. There are other measures that can complement legislation.
My understanding is that Oftel has had discussions with the telecommunications industry about a call-barring scheme. Some progress has been made in that area. I am told that it is not a simple business. It needs to be developed. I hope that it can be. There will be further consultation with the industry following legislation in this area because schemes such as call-barring may play an important part in it. But it is not easy. It touches on the human rights of the individual who really should have access to telecommunications systems. So it is not a simple issue, but we need to make more progress.
I believe that these measures are right. The all-party support that exists for them is a measure of the strength of opinion in these matters. They will help prevent a nuisance in many of our city centres. I doubt whether the nuisance will long be confined to Westminster and Brighton and Hove. I am told by my colleagues in another place that their town city centres are increasingly being afflicted by the arrival of cards peddling this business and trade. After all, it is the oldest trade known to man.

669
I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling the amendment. I am happy to put my name to it. I am confident that the words are right. I am delighted that we have had all-party support for these amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: I should like to pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I agree with the Minister with respect to the terminology used in the amendments. On these Benches, it is our hope that other kinds of activities which are not blatantly prostitution, as it were, on the face of these cards will be caught under subsection (3). That states:
"In any proceedings for an offence under this section, any advertisement which a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution".
We all have a good idea of the kinds of activities—be it saunas, massage or whatever—that would pertain to that and therefore be caught. At the risk of putting a dampener on the proceedings, I hear what the noble Lord says with regard to this proposal perhaps meaning a possibility of deflecting the problem from the phone box and on to the street, but, personally, I doubt that very much. What I fear—this is a matter that we shall all have to think about and indeed are already in terms of prostitution and pornography—is the use of the Internet for reaching out to potential clients. That is a problem, particularly with regard to young people. I need not expand on that point.
I do not think that we have closed off the problem. We have possibly moved it to some extent. But I think that we have been right. We should not be put off or be defeatist on this issue. We should not think that it is better to let the problem continue because we might produce another problem somewhere else. This is the right step to take. I raised the issue at Second Reading. I feel quite passionately about it. I am glad that the Government have added their support to our amendment. I thank the Minister for his response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"Application of section (Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution) by order to public structures
(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for section (Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution) to apply in relation to any public structure of a description specified in the order as it applies in relation to a public telephone.
(2) In this section—
"public structure" means any structure that—

(a) is provided as an amenity for the use of the public or a section of the public, and

(b) is located in a public place; and

"public place" and "public telephone" have the same meaning as in section (Placing of advertisment relating to prostitution).
(3) At any time when an order under this section has effect, the reference in section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) to an offence under section (Placing an advertisement relating to prostitution) of this Act shall be construed as including an offence under that section by virtue of the order.
670
(4) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) No order may be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 94:
Before Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
"REPEAL OF S. 14 OF THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998
Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (local child curfew schemes) is repealed."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 94 is the first amendment in a quite large grouping. The grouping includes Amendments Nos. 94, 94A, 94B, 94C and 94D, the Question whether Clause 45 shall stand part, and Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. Amendment No. 94 stands in my name and I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 45 stand part of the Bill.
All the amendments deal with child curfews, a subject which we have not discussed before this evening. I raised the matter at Second Reading and queried whether the provisions of the Bill were consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Minister states on the face of the Bill that in his view it is compatible with convention rights. However, since the Second Reading debate, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has met and its report was published last Thursday. Paragraphs 52 to 57 of that report raise a number of points of concern. I am glad that we had a discussion on the Joint Committee a little earlier this evening, with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, taking a prominent part.
The report notes that the Government have consistently described the purpose of the child curfew schemes as being to prevent children and young people from engaging in criminal or anti-social behaviour. Yet that is not written into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which Clause 45 seeks to amend. I shall quote from the report. Paragraph 54 states:
"The Government's purpose in introducing the power to make child curfew schemes was to prevent young trouble-makers from gathering regularly to commit crimes and cause disorder. However, neither section 14 of the 1998 Act nor clause 45 of the current Bill specifies that the power is to be used for that purpose. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the freedom of young people whether or not the individuals have committed, or are likely to commit, any offence, or have caused or are likely to cause disorder: the restriction is imposed on an area, not on individuals. Finally, a child or young person is liable to be taken into custody by a constable and taken home simply as a result of being in a place at the wrong time. The legislation does not require that the constable should believe or suspect that the individual has behaved, is behaving, or is likely to behave in a criminal or disorderly way".
Paragraph 55 states:
"It is at least arguable that child curfew schemes interfere with human rights in three areas: the right to liberty; the right to privacy, or respect for private life; and the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Children and young people are entitled to the right to privacy … the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty".

671
Paragraph 56 states:
"We attempted to evaluate the proposed extension of child curfew schemes in the light of these human rights concerns. The cogent explanation of the purposes and operation of the schemes provided by the Government's response persuaded us that individual child curfew schemes may be capable of being justified as being for legitimate purposes … and that the powers of the police were intended to help to divert children and young persons away from the criminal justice system. However"—
this is important—
"given the existence of other wide powers available to the police to protect young persons and to maintain public order, child curfew schemes may be disproportionate interferences with rights, in that they may not be the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the objectives set out by the Government. We accept that the making of individual schemes, and the exercise of the powers of the police and other officials in relation to them would be unlawful if they do not comply with the requirement of Convention rights, but the same is not true of non-compliance with the ICCPR and CRC which do not form part of national law".
Paragraph 57 is very important:
"We recognise the importance of the Government's aims. However, we remain concerned about the proportionality of child curfew schemes, especially considering the extent of the discretion given to individual constables where a scheme is in force, taking account of the other powers available to the police to protect children and young persons and to prevent disturbances in public places. We consider that safeguards are needed against the arbitrary exercise of powers to make and operate these schemes".
I think that this is very important and that the Government should pay attention to what has been said by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will say what he believes to be the status of the Joint Committee and what responsibility have the Government to comply with its decisions.
My amendments offer two possibilities. Amendment No. 94 seeks to repeal Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That would mean that the curfew scheme for 10 year-olds would go and, therefore, that that section could not be amended. My second amendment seeking to delete Clause 45 would delete the arrangements for those aged up to 16, but it would also allow the curfew for 10 year-olds to remain. It is my hope that no curfews will remain. I do not believe that they are necessary when the police have other powers. I do not like the idea of curfews and I think that a great many people would agree with me on that.
The Minister may not agree, but I feel that he must go some way towards complying with the Joint Committee. I hope that, when he comes to reply, he will respond in a hopeful manner, at least so far as I am concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Dhollakia: I support Amendment No. 94 as well as the proposal that Clause 45 should not stand part of the Bill. I had asked that my name be associated with that of the noble Baroness, Lady David, in her Amendment No. 94. Unfortunately an omission was made by those responsible for preparing the Marshalled List. However, I wish to assure the noble Baroness, Lady David, that she has my full support for all that she has said.
672
I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 94B, 94C and 94D tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord McNally and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We support Amendment 94 which would repeal Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 14 provides that local authorities and police forces could apply to the Home Secretary for approval to introduce a local child curfew scheme requiring children under the age of 10 to be at home after a specified time. That power has never been used, which indicates that the police and local authorities can see no point to it.
That is hardly surprising. If a child under the age of 10 is roaming the streets at night in a situation where he or she is clearly at risk, the police already have powers to take the child home or to a place of safety and to investigate the situation. On the other hand, if a group of children are playing football behind their houses at five past nine on a light summer evening, it does not seem a sensible use of police time to sort out the nine year-olds from the 10 year-olds in order to take the former home. We therefore support Amendment No. 94, which would repeal this ill-conceived measure.
However, far from admitting their mistake and repealing the measure, the Government have reacted to the fact that the current power is pointless and unused by proposing to extend it to cover children up to the age of 16. This would impose severe restrictions on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding young people and their parents. Many such young people go out in the evening to a wide range of activities, including sporting activities and training, youth activities and simply going round to each others' homes. If a curfew were imposed prohibiting young people from being on the streets after nine o'clock, they would be unable to take part in any activities which involved them coming home after that time. A single parent with two or three children each going out to different activities would be unable to let them go unless she was able to collect them all personally. This is simply not practicable.
Not only is this draconian and unreasonable, the evidence suggests that it will do nothing to reduce crime. When I spoke during Second Reading, I cited the research in the USA which had shown that the fall in youth crime had been no greater in areas which operate child curfews than in those which do not. Indeed, in the longer term curfews could be counter-productive in the fight against crime because they would prevent young people from taking part in many constructive organised activities and young people who take part in such activities are less likely to get into trouble with the law than those who do not. We therefore oppose Clause 45 of the Bill which seeks to extend an idea which clearly has failed and which is a distraction from more constructive measures which could genuinely make a difference to youth crime.
Many Members of the Committee and of the other place disagree with the Minister and do not see this extension as an improvement. In fact, many Members and NGOs, including Justice and Liberty, have called the original provision disproportionate to and incompatible with the Human Rights Act, as the noble

673
Baroness, Lady David, pointed out. Notably, in an important letter to the Home Secretary, the Children's Rights Alliance for England wrote:
"We hope that the Government will quietly discard the idea of child curfews once and for all. They lack professional support. Parents and young people see them as unfair and an infringement of basic civil and political rights".
Liberty expressed concern in respect of the previous legislation as to the compatibility of any such order with the Human Rights Act, and in particular with Articles 5 and 8 of the convention, again a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David.
Given this objection and the concerns raised by Members of this House and the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights paid particular attention to this clause. I am delighted that its report is now available. The Joint Committee obviously remains very concerned about proportionality and I shall be delighted to hear the Minister's view on this point.
In essence, if the law has not been used, I do not think we require a further extension of it in relation to another age group. I support the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Baroness, Lady David, seeks to delete all the local child curfew schemes. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out, there have not been any yet and so it cannot be considered all that radical a move. Nevertheless, it is interesting. The noble Baroness also opposes that Clause 45 should stand part of the Bill.
This clause somewhat laughingly describes its purpose as an extension of these schemes. As they do not so far exist, it is not much of an extension.
Baroness David: There is a child curfew scheme in the Crime and Disorder Act for up to 10 year-olds. That is already in law.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I realise that it exists in law. But it does not exist in practice; there have not been any such schemes implemented so far and, as far as I know, there is none under consideration. In that sense, although the scheme exists in law, the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment would be limited.
It seems to me that schemes for children up to the age of 16 would be less likely to be made than schemes for younger children. It is more appropriate to use such schemes for young children, and to confine them with a curfew up to nine o'clock, than it is to extend them to older children. So the Government are moving in an odd direction.
Another important point has been referred to; namely, the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which the noble Baroness drew attention. I shall not dwell on it as she explained its contents. Our Amendment No. 94A is an attempt to bring the so far unused Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act into line with the suggestions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
674
I appreciate that amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats attempt to do the same but with slightly different wording. I do not know whether our wording or theirs is to be preferred from a legal point view. Either way, we are attempting to bring the clause into line in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee. That seems to me desirable if we are going to bother to continue this power at all given that it seems to be just a waste of space on the statute book.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 45 increases the maximum age of children who could be covered by a local child curfew scheme from nine to 15, and Clause 46 allows the police to propose a local child curfew scheme.
The local child curfew scheme for children aged nine and under was introduced in Section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and has been in force since September of that year. The scheme allows a local authority, after consultation with the police and other appropriate local bodies and following confirmation from the Secretary of State, to set up a scheme under which it can ban children up to the age of nine from being out late at night (for a specified period between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.) otherwise than under the control of a responsible adult.
The local child curfew scheme aims to tackle the problem of children and young people being unattended on the streets late at night, where they are at risk of becoming involved in anti-social or criminal type behaviour, and where they are also at risk from older peers encouraging them into criminal activities, or from adults such as pimps or drug dealers.
No local authority has applied to the Secretary of State to set up a local child curfew scheme. Following consultation with the police and local authorities we believe that a major reason is that the age range was too narrow given that children out on the streets are often aged 10 or over. The clause seeks to remedy this by increasing the flexibility of the schemes. It makes them more capable of playing a useful part in local crime and disorder reduction strategies.
I read with interest the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I have listened carefully to the exposition given by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I am pleased to note that the committee is persuaded that individual child curfew schemes may be capable of being justified as being for legitimate purposes—particularly for the protection of children and young people.
I note the committee's concerns about the proportionality of child curfew schemes. However, no scheme will be approved by the Secretary of State unless a clear case has been made demonstrating that such a scheme is necessary, right and proportionate in a particular area to tackle the problem of youth crime and general nuisance and also to protect children from being drawn into potentially dangerous situations.
The legislation does not criminalise children. Instead, it provides for the possibility of children being taken home from places where they are at risk in

675
certain circumstances and at particular times. It is a specific response to problems in particular trouble spots and simply allows a police officer to take a child home or to a place of safety if the child appears to be at risk of being encouraged into crime or at risk from others, such as pimps or drug dealers. That is a major consideration. There is no question of taking every child home who is found to be in breach of a curfew—particularly if he or she has a legitimate reason for being there and is not causing a nuisance or appearing to be at risk. New guidance will be issued to coincide with the launch of the scheme in which the criteria by which the Secretary of State will assess proposed schemes will be clearly set out. That will include the aims at which the scheme is addressed.
I turn now to the various amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 94 would have the effect of abolishing the local child curfew scheme. Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 will have the effect of bringing the changes introduced by this Bill into force on Royal Assent and of limiting their effect to three years from that date. Complete abolition of the scheme would leave the police with no clear powers to take children home in particular trouble spots where they might be at increased risk of being encouraged towards crime, or where they faced risks from others.
Restricting the changes to the scheme introduced in this Bill to three years from the date of Royal Assent would, in our view, not be right. Statutory provisions are not normally time limited. Further, these provisions will give important additional powers to those responsible for protecting children and local communities. It would not be right now to say that these will no longer be appropriate in, say, three years' time: on the contrary, there is every reason to believe that they will be. They should remain available for use in local areas, where appropriate.
It would also not be right to bring such changes into force on Royal Assent. Before bringing these provisions into effect, we intend to issue guidance to the police and local authorities about the changes that they introduce to ensure that those who will use the scheme are fully informed about how they will work. For that reason, we believe that it is appropriate for there to be a delay between Royal Assent and the provisions coming into force. Our intention would be to make use of that delay by consulting and getting the guidance absolutely right.
In a recently circulated briefing, the Local Government Association, which obviously has important views on the matter, acknowledged that the extension of the scheme to under 16 year-olds may make curfews more appropriate and acceptable to everyone for use by local authorities and the police. That is a most important consideration.
Amendments Nos. 94A, 94B, 94C and 94D would appear to have been tabled as a result of the recommendations from the Joint Committee. Amendment No. 94A would prevent the Secretary of State from approving a child curfew scheme unless satisfied that it would help to avoid disorder or prevent the commission of offences by young people.
676
Amendments Nos. 94B, 94C and 94D would have the effect of requiring the local authority or chief officer of police making a curfew scheme, or the Secretary of State when approving one, to consider whether the scheme was appropriate and necessary to protect public order,
"or for the protection of children and young adults".
The phrase "children and young adults" is not defined, but we take it to mean people under the age of 16.
We have considered the report and the recommendations very carefully. We also noted the concerns about the proportionality of child curfew schemes. Having taken those points on board, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend the legislation to reflect the aims of local child curfew schemes, which is clearly the intention of these amendments. The Government believe that the local child curfew scheme, together with the amendments contained in the Bill that will increase the age range and allow the police to initiate schemes, will make it one of a useful range of options available for consideration by local areas in their fight to reduce crime. I should stress, again, that that is part of a process and part of a range of options designed to tackle anti-social activity as much as anything else.
It is important that local areas, and the police, fully understand and comply with the aims of the scheme. However, we do not believe that legislation is necessarily the most effective way of achieving; that aim. As I said, new guidance will be issued to coincide with the launch of the scheme in which the Secretary of State will set out the criteria. I wish to make it quite clear that no scheme will be approved unless a clear case has been made demonstrating that it is necessary and that it will tackle a particular local problem.
We oppose these amendments. In a civilised society it is unacceptable to leave children and young people—some of the most vulnerable members of our society—out, alone, on the streets in particular areas where they can easily be at risk of being encouraged towards criminality and anti-social activity and behaviour that is damaging to them personally. We willingly confess that we originally set the age limit too low. Children up to the age of 15 can still be vulnerable and led astray by others. Indeed, that point has often been made in this Chamber in debates on family matters. Those young people are potentially vulnerable to extremely dangerous situations.
We believe that with the changes introduced in the Bill local child curfew schemes are capable of playing a useful part in the future in crime and disorder reduction strategies and we should give local communities the option of applying to set up schemes where they think that that is necessary, right and appropriate. For those reasons it is inappropriate to time limit the new schemes. For all the reasons we have given we believe that it is necessary to amend the legislation. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: Before the Minister sits down, he mentioned that the existing provision for children up

677
to 10 years old is far too narrow and that is why it has been extended. Has any research been carried out by local authorities and the police to find out whether the extension up to the age of 16 will be of any use?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is difficult to research something which has not been implemented. For that reason the Government favour using pilot schemes. There is some experience in Hamilton, Scotland, where curfew orders of a similar nature have been used as part of local crime reduction strategies. Although I do not have the details of the Hamilton scheme to hand, significant reductions in criminal activity have been achieved in particular hotspots. I accept that that is not necessarily directly applicable to situations where we would like to see curfews apply here. However, the Hamilton experience has informed some of our thinking. That approach should be seen as part of a wider package. I believe that that is how the matter has been approached in Hamilton.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his long reply. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Cope, for their support for my amendment. However, I do not think that the Minister has said why these extra powers are necessary when the police already have powers to remove children from the streets if they are in a dangerous situation. I believe that the extra powers are totally unnecessary.
The Minister has not replied to my question about the status of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I thought that that was set up as an important committee which would have some power and would be respected by the Chamber. However, it does not appear to have that respect.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I regret that omission but it was made in the full knowledge that in two previous debates we covered precisely that point. I have given the Government's position. We obviously take great heed of the Joint Committee's reports. It has been helpful to us even at this late stage of this important Bill. It will be important in enabling us to frame not just legislation but also guidance and background material to legislation where important human rights considerations are involved.
Baroness David: In case the Minister did not think that I had listened earlier, I should say that I did hear the earlier debates on the Joint Committee and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others. However, I still do not quite understand what standing the committee has. I thought that it was a new venture which would be paid attention to. However, it does not seem to me that that has been the case, either in this debate or in earlier debates on, for example, restrictions on travel. That was an important matter and more attention should have been paid to it. I am, of course, disappointed with the Minister's reply. As I say, these extra powers are quite unnecessary. There is enough legislation already in this regard. I did not say
678
earlier that all the children's organisations are strongly opposed to the new powers which the Government are trying to introduce. I shall consider the Minister's reply and discuss it with many people. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 94A not moved.]
Clause 46 [Power for police to make schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 94B to 94D not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"Indecent conduct: children
ENTICING A CHILD TO ENGAGE IN INDECENT CONDUCT
In section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (c. 33), after "incites" there is inserted "or entices"."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 95 is concerned with enticing a child to engage in indecent conduct. The Opposition first raised this issue in amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Bill considered by this House last year. On four occasions, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, the Government rejected our amendments to that Bill. They were also rejected in Committee and on Report in another place.
However, the Opposition feel strongly about the matter. We believe that the Government are wrong to resist our amendments. We look even now for a change of heart. I note that even the Liberal Democrats who voted against our proposals in your Lordships' House last year have now seen sense, if the comments of their colleagues in another place are to be believed.
The amendment is designed to close a loophole in the current law in order to tackle paedophiles who lure or entice young children using Internet chatrooms into meeting them offline for sex. Internet chatrooms can be used positively in order to bring children together but there are dangers for young, impressionable children who use those chatrooms unsupervised. Predatory paedophiles across the world have recognised the opportunity that the Internet has given them to contact children anonymously and at a safe distance and then to build up an online and offline relationship with them for the sole purpose of persuading them to meet in order to engage in sexual activity.
Internet chatrooms allow the predatory paedophile to have invisible access to impressionable children—young teenagers—from a safe distance, allowing contact to be made even while the child is using the Internet in the secure surroundings of his or her own home, often even his or her own bedroom. Once contact has been made the process known as grooming goes on, using e-mail messages, and perhaps over the child's mobile phone. The paedophile might represent

679
himself as an older teenager or someone in his very early 20s. For young teenage girls in particular the attentions of someone they believe to be an older boy or young man are especially flattering. They are immediately lulled into a false sense of security although the grooming process can go on for weeks and months as it may take this long for the child to feel comfortable.
At the end of the process, the paedophile proposes an offline meeting. The results of that meeting can be devastating. Innumerable cases of sexual abuse as a result of such meetings have been reported in the press. For example, only last week there was the case of Andrew Hall, a 34 year-old bus driver who posed as a 14 year-old boy in an Internet chatroom. He eventually arranged to meet a 14 year-old girl offline and had sex with her at his home. He was gaoled for 18 months for indecent assault and abduction.
Earlier this year there was the case of Mark Stephens, a 45 year-old van driver who also seduced a 14 year-old girl he met in a chatroom. In the chatroom he had told her that he was 26. Eventually they met and had sex in the van he used for work. He pleaded guilty to indecent assault and unlawful sex. The girl's story was published in a newspaper She said:
"I knew something was wrong when I got in his van but after chatting to hint so much on the Internet he seemed like a friend".
Speaking out about the grooming process, she said,
"He was nice and always asked me how my day was, and what I did at school. He said he liked skiing and he would take me skiing. He asked me for my mobile number so I gave it to him".
Eventually she agreed to a meeting. She said:
"He told me how pretty I was, then opened the passenger door of his van and I got in. I would never have got into a van with a stranger normally but I felt I knew Mark well".
The second time they met he forced her to have sex with him in his van.
That is what can happen and what is happening, sadly, in this country today. But where there is a sexual assault, as in the case I have described, the paedophile can be charged and convicted. But it is at the very least unclear whether the current law in this country affords children the protection they need until an actual assault takes place when they are groomed by paedophiles. The Opposition believe that the addition of "or entices" to the Indecency with Children Act 1960 would offer protection that is not currently available.
I have described two cases in which a paedophile was convicted of a crime, but there are equally well known cases in this country in which the paedophile was not charged. The first relates to a girl known as Georgie. At the age of 13 she began to use Internet chatrooms and became infatuated with an online friend, who told her that he was an older teenager. They began talking on the phone and the relationship took on a sexual aspect. They then arranged to meet without her knowing even what this supposed teenage boy looked like. Luckily, her mother went along as well. It was clear at the meeting that the man was not a teenager, but was middle aged. The mother stopped anything happening, but the police could not take
680
action against the man because no physical assault had taken place. Charges of conspiracy to commit an act of gross indecency were dropped.
The second case is that of convicted paedophile Patrick Green. Last year at Aylesbury Crown Court he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 13 year-old girl whom he had lured into meeting him using an Internet chatroom. However, before his conviction he was released on bail and began to communicate with another teenage girl using a chatroom. He arranged to meet the girl, but was caught red-handed by the police while travelling to meet her for sex. However, because no assault took place, no action was taken against him in respect of the latter girl.
It seems from those cases and others like them that the law offers little protection to children, as a sexual assault has to be committed before charges can be brought. Adding enticement to the 1960 Act would enable charges to be brought in such cases. That would at least remove for a while the threat of the men involved contacting, grooming and approaching other children online.
In a case in which the police are able to intervene after a paedophile has turned up for a meeting but before a sexual assault has occurred, the offence of enticement could be proved relatively quickly and easily with e-mail and other documentary evidence. It would be a strong preventive measure and would send a clear signal to those trying to entice children online.
The Minister may say that the amendment is unnecessary and that the existing law is adequate. That is what the Minister of State said in another place on 14th March. The Home Secretary wrote to my right honourable friend Miss Widdecombe on 8th November last year, saying that the law did not need amending. He wrote:
"We believe that, with respect to the particular concerns … raised, the law already makes this particular misuse of the Internet illegal".
That is what the Government said last year on numerous occasions, including in your Lordships' House. If that is so, why could the police take no action in the cases that I have described?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, argued earlier this year that the proposal would create thought crime. With respect, that is not the case. The amendment would focus on the actions of the predatory paedophile in enticing the child for the purposes of sex. There would need to be documentary evidence. I am told that the experience of other countries, particularly the United States of America, has shown that such an offence has enabled the conviction of adults who are a danger to children rather than allowing them to get away scot free, as happened in the cases that I have just described.
In a Standing Committee in another place, the Minister of State said:
"I acknowledge that we have not yet squared the circle in this area … A great deal remains to be done".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 6/3/01; col. 533]

681
The Opposition have been pressing the issue for nearly a year. It is important that the law gives the maximum possible protection to our children. Predatory paedophiles must be stopped in their tracks. I hope that the Government will be able to give a more constructive response to the amendment than was forthcoming in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support the amendment. Alternative proposals for amendment were put forward in the other place. My party's proposal was not far removed from that of the Conservatives in the House of Commons. Although we are aware that a major consultation exercise has been taking place for several months with regard to comprehensive reform of the law of sexual indecency and impropriety in this area, and, although in a perfect world one may wish to delay until one has reached conclusions on that and legislated, this appears to be a rather obvious and serious lacuna in the new communications age. Our inclination is to support the amendment as a stop-gap and to hope that it will achieve some restraint on the type of offence which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has outlined.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness has put her case and for the way in which, slightly differently I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has supported her. He said—I believe this is accurate—that he was looking for a stop-gap. The noble Baroness asked for a more constructive response. I hope to deal with both those matters.
Were the amendment to be carried, the Indecency with Children Act 1960 would read:
"Any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of sixteen, or who incites or entices a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable".
The last words are very important as a matter of legal construction. I believe that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I are agreed on one thing: we all want to protect children in a difficult area. If this amendment brought about that protection, I should be the first to support it. But it does not.
The 1960 Act to which I referred in its relevant parts obviously provides that it is an offence to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child. As I read out, it also makes it unlawful to incite a child to an act of gross indecency. For the purposes of completeness, we amended the Act in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. Therefore, a "child" is now someone under the age of 16, and the maximum penalty is now 10 years.
As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, identified, the only question to be asked is: if one adds "entice" to "incite", does that aid child protection? It does not. The courts have held that the word "incites" includes some form of persuasion, encouragement or pressure. It does not matter that the incitement is not
682
successful. Therefore, in law, enticement involving some encouragement is simply another form of incitement.
I know that there is always a temptation to look for cosmetic improvements. My unhappy experience—perhaps shared by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—in the courts has always shown that it never works. First, it is wrong to put on to the statute book something that has no obvious further consequential meaning. It would bring about confusion as to the true meaning of "incite" in the 1960 Act and it could detract from the meaning of "incitement" in other relevant legislation. Therefore, ultimately we would not strengthen the law; we would cause doubt and, thus, weakness.
The noble Baroness asked for a constructive response and I hope to be able to give one, as I do also in response to the shorter comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We all share concern over the "grooming"—I believe that that was the phrase used by the noble Baroness—of children by paedophiles. Whether it takes place online or offline does not matter. Doing so online is simply a more devious and modern way of bringing about the ignoble purpose. Therefore, we all want to prevent that.
If in the noble Baroness's amendment "enticement" means an encouragement to the child to commit an act of gross indecency, that is already covered by the word "incitement", whether or not—I emphasise this point—the act of gross indecency takes place.
If the amendment were agreed to, it would not catch someone who simply arranged to meet a child. One would have to prove to the usual criminal standard—I stress that—that the "enticement" was to commit an act of gross indecency with the defendant or another. Enticing a child to a meeting would not amount to the offence by itself—that is extremely important. One would still have to prove that the purpose of the enticement was, to quote from the 1960 Act, to,
"commit an act of gross indecency".
I recognise from the serious comments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that this is an area that needs serious consideration. However, getting it wrong is no help or assistance to children.
The Home Secretary announced on 28th March a taskforce on child protection and the Internet. That will include representatives from all parts of the industry involved in Internet services, some of which were extremely responsible—I pay tribute to them—in my dealings with them when I was at the Home Office in previous years. Regulatory bodies, children's charities and law-enforcement agencies will be involved. I hope that I am putting this in a helpful way, as the noble Baroness invited me to do. We have invited representatives from both opposition parties to join the taskforce. This matter is much too important to make partisan points—none has been attempted this evening.
We are looking at a proposal that may meet the difficulties that I have tried to identify. I stress that it represents developing thoughts; it is extremely difficult to keep up with technology and new techniques, which develop rapidly. One thought is that a civil injunctive

683
order could be hacked up by the criminal law. That might be looked for by the police in respect of a course of conduct online or offline, which would give a reasonable person reasonable cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for intended unlawful conduct or perhaps specific types of unlawful conduct. I think that that would meet the danger and fill the gap identified by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I stress that these are initial developing thoughts. The model comes from the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the ASBOs in the Crime and Disorder Act. There is much work to be done in this regard. I do not think—I hope that in saying this I have every care for what has been said so moderately this evening—that the amendment would do any good. It would produce a degree of doubt in courts' minds. We should end up sadly and ironically doing damage to those whom we had hoped to protect.
We need to make the criminal law work and, above all, to make it flexible. Criminals use new tools and devices. The noble Baroness gave the example of a child who was obliged to have sexual intercourse without his or her—in the example, the subject was female—consent. Plainly, on the face of it that involves the sense of rape in any event.
I am grateful that this matter has been brought forward today. It has certainly not been put to sleep on the top shelf. I hope that my explanation, which was longer than I would have intended normally, has proved a comfort to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
11 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister concludes and the noble Baroness responds, I have a question for him, although it may be unfair at this stage in the development of the proposals. Given the remedy involving a civil injunctive order backed up by criminal sanctions for breach of it, does it currently seem that that approach could be initiated not merely by the police but by, for example, a children's charity?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the scrupulous way in which he put that question. It seems to me that there is no reason in appropriate circumstances why that action should not be taken by the police or the Probation Service, if it has a legitimate interest in doing so. It seems to me that a parent or a guardian might have perfectly reasonably grounds for doing so. One wants certainty of protective outcome and flexibility of approach and that is what I tried to describe.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Attorney-General for his response to this amendment. I am grateful for his comments. Clearly he accepted our frustration in relation to this grave situation, which is very much on the increase. We feel strongly that something must be done as soon as possible and would welcome the opportunity of taking part in the task force to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
684
It is important to find a way to resolve this problem. I accept the point in relation to the word "entices"; it may deflect from the meaning of the word "incites" and create confusion. The Attorney-General understands why we have pressed this matter thus far and why we continue to raise it on different occasions. We would welcome taking the issue further as a cross-party initiative to see what can be done to progress the situation in a short timeframe, working with the different agencies. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE: EXCLUSION
In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—
"(ba) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

(i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);

(ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (assault with intent to resist arrest):

(iii) an offence of common assault or an offence under section 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) which was committed against a constable in the execution of his duty, any member of staff of the emergency services in the course of his duty or any member of staff of the National Health Service in the course of his duty,"."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 96 relates to the Government's scheme for the early release of convicted prisoners. It seeks to exclude from that scheme those who assault police officers, other emergency workers and the staff of the NHS. The scheme was inserted into the law by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
As the Committee may be aware, the scheme allows prisoners sentenced to up to four years in prison to be released two months earlier than the normal half-way point of their sentence. So someone sentenced to three years may be let out after 16 months and someone sentenced to six months may be released after six weeks.
The latest figures show that since the time when the scheme began in January 1999 to 31st March this year—just over two years—a total of 33,737 criminals were released early under the scheme. On average they had received sentences of 14.3 months but had served just 5.6 months in prison before being released: that is, less than two-fifths of their sentence.
Those released on the scheme before serving half their sentences included 67 criminals convicted of manslaughter, eight of attempted murder, 4,443 of wounding, actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, 3,090 convicted of burglary, 1,446 of robbery, 4,607 of drug dealing and trafficking, 82 of blackmail, 51 of kidnapping and 1,413 of affray and violent disorder. Those are considerable statistics of serious crime; and there have been, in addition, nearly 1,100

685
further offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme during the two months when they were released early, including two rapes and dozens of other serious crimes of violence. That makes 1,100 offences that would not have been committed except for the Government's policy.
The Opposition have consistently opposed this scheme from its inception and over the past two years we have attempted to correct some of its worst defects. We proposed to exclude registered sex offenders altogether from the scheme three years ago. I am glad to say that last year that became law in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. So there has been movement by the Government in the direction of this amendment and we are trying to press them further. But so far they have consistently rejected this amendment which seeks to stop the release of criminals who assault police officers or resist arrest and those who assault NHS and emergency service workers.
So far, according to the Government's figures, 15 criminals convicted of obstructing a constable, 14 of assault with intent to resist and no fewer than 290 of assaulting a police officer have been let out under the scheme. Twenty-five further assaults on police have been committed by those released early when they should still have been in prison. The 290 criminals convicted of assault on police received on average a sentence of imprisonment of 4.7 months, but they served just six weeks, or less than one-third of the sentence handed down by the court. Far from ensuring the toughest possible sentences for assaults on police, the Government are making a mockery of the sentences handed down by releasing these criminals before they have served even one-third of their sentences.
That is extremely damaging to the morale of the men and women of our police force whom our Government claim to support. I note that the chairman of the Police Federation recently said that morale is the worst that he has ever seen. There are no comparable published figures for assaults on the other staff I have mentioned, such as ambulance staff, fire crews, nurses, doctors and so on. However, people who assault those staff should also be excluded from early release. It is important for the morale of our emergency service as a whole and of NHS staff that those who assault them should not benefit from this early release scheme.
In the short time available to us outside today's debate we have been able to understand a little of what has been happening with the demonstrations in London. Apparently the demonstrators drew inspiration from the board game, Monopoly. I hope that the Government will respond by abolishing this "get out of jail free" card. If the Government are serious about keeping up morale in the police force, the NHS and the emergency services, they should follow the example they set in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My colleagues in the other place tabled an amendment to the Conservative proposal before us to include the emergency services and staff members of the National Health Service. I support the amendment which now includes that addition.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment would create a new clause that would add prisoners who have committed certain specific offences to the list of classes of prisoners ineligible for home detention curfew.
Home detention curfew (HDC) does not work like that and was not intended by Parliament to do so. The list of groups of prisoners currently disbarred falls into five categories, all of which are concerned with risk to the public or risk of breaching the curfew. First, there are those who have previously breached trust; in other words, failed to return from temporary release, been recalled to prison while on licence or breached a previous HDC. Secondly, there are those subject to immigration enforcement action because of the risk of their breaching the curfew conditions in order to evade this enforcement action. Thirdly, there are those who are required to register with the police on release as a sex offender. Fourthly, there are those whom the court considers pose a serious risk of re-offending with a violent or sexual offence and are therefore sentenced to imprisonment with extended supervision. Finally, there are those offenders whose offending was brought about by mental illness such that the court has made a hospital order or something similar on the basis of risk to the public.
Nowhere is any class of prisoner excluded from HDC simply in order to demonstrate society's disapproval of their offence. Given the nature of the amendment, that is an important point to have underlined in this debate. Demonstration of society's disapproval or reprobation is a matter for the court in deciding the nature or length of a sentence. Parliament's involvement is in setting the maximum sentence for any offence.
HDC is not a method of rewarding offenders, to be withdrawn because Parliament does not like the nature of their offence. It is quite the contrary. It is a scheme to aid the reintegration of low-risk prisoners in the wider community by providing greater control during the early transitional phase of release. We would argue that the only criteria should be risk to the public and risk of breaching trust.
Exclusion of those who assaulted a police officer or an ambulance worker or resisted arrest can be explained only in reprobative terms. Such offenders are not, as far as is known, more likely than any others to repeat their offences while on home detention curfew. The court has already considered the need for reprobation in setting the sentence length. It must be borne in mind that those receiving sentences of four years or more are not eligible for HDC.
I have some information on the average sentence for the affected prisoners for resisting arrest. It is apparently at about five months. Automatic unconditional release would take place in any event at

687
the half-way point—at two and a half months—under existing legislation passed in 1991 and introduced by a previous Conservative government. Furthermore, it was a release which operates without any form of supervision. That is a distinction between that approach and the approach of HDC. HDC has led to the affected prisoners serving about four weeks of their custodial sentence on curfew instead of in prison, so it is a controlled transition from custody to the wider community.
In reply to the noble Lord's concerns, I would argue that the right approach is to ensure that each and every eligible prisoner who is considered for release on HDC is subjected to a most rigorous risk assessment which will take into account the prisoner's dangerousness, propensity to re-offend and propensity to breach the curfew. That is precisely what the present arrangements do with admirable success.
Only about 30 per cent of eligible prisoners have been released on home detention curfew, showing that the risk assessment is a serious business. Of those, 95 per cent of curfewees have successfully completed the curfew, and of those who have not, a small number have been found to have re-offended while on curfew. As at 31st March this year, 653 of the 33,737 were released on HDC, to which the noble Lord referred, or less than 2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has tabled a Parliamentary Question about home detention curfews which is to be answered soon.
If we were to go along with the course of action recommended in the amendment, the floodgates would be open to further amendments to HDC legislation, which is probably the intention behind the amendment, further narrowing down the range of those offenders who might be included in it. It would exclude any offender whose offence happens to be thought particularly heinous at the time; an offence which perhaps has been highlighted in the popular press and highlighted volubly by those who want to whip up a particular campaign against a particular type of offender.
It would also reduce the number of prisoners eligible for HDC. By how many is hard to determine since our inmate database system does not break offences down as narrowly as the amendment requires. At the last count we estimate that some 259 prisoners have been released on HDC whose index offence—that for which they received the longest sentence they are currently serving—was assault on a police officer, assault with intent to resist arrest or obstructing or resisting a constable. Where the offence was GBH or ABH but the victim was a police officer the index offence might
688
be recorded as wounding or ABH with no indication that it involved the police. Therefore, the figures may be far higher. We have no figures for assaults on NHS or emergency service staff.
There will be other prisoners who are serving sentences for such offences but for whom this is not their index offence. They would still be ineligible, but we have no way to calculate the numbers. We believe that it would be inappropriate to extend the list of those excluded from HDC in the somewhat arbitrary way suggested by the noble Lord. Exclusion from HDC is, and, I argue, should remain, based on risk to the public and risk of breaching the curfew, not an arbitrary view perhaps formed in the heat of the moment about a particular type of offence that might render the offender subject to the additional reprobation beyond that inherent in the sentence. It is for those reasons that we must resist these amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord emphasised that the scheme was concerned to minimise risk to the public, but I spoke of the risk to the police, NHS and emergency service workers. The statistics that I quoted were different from those provided by the Minister, and I shall consider that matter further. Just as the Government in the end came round to excluding sex offenders from the scheme, they will come round to proposals of this kind. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCE OF ACTIVITY OF USING CRACK COCAINE
In section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) (occupiers etc. of premises to he punishable for permitting certain activities to take place there)—

(a) in paragraph (c), after the word "opium" insert" or crack cocaine", and

(b) in paragraph (d), for the words "or prepared opium" substitute ", prepared opium or crack cocaine"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Asylum Detainees: Clothing
  Asylum Detainees: Clothing
  Prisoners: Mandatory Drug Testing
  Prisoners: Mandatory Drug Testing
  Prisoners: Discharge Grants
  Prisoners: Discharge Grants
  Freedom of Information Act and Government Departments
  Freedom of Information Act and Government Departments
  Prison Service: Boards of Visitors Appointments
  Prison Service: Boards of Visitors Appointments
  War Crimes Inquiries
  War Crimes Inquiries
  Immigration Controls
  Immigration Controls
  Neighbourhood Statistics
  Neighbourhood Statistics
  Census: Costs and Benefits
  Census: Costs and Benefits
  End of Year Summary P14
  End of Year Summary P14
  Post Office: Compulsory Land Purchase Powers
  Post Office: Compulsory Land Purchase Powers
  Unemployment Claimant Count
  Unemployment Claimant Count
  Animal Carcasses: Legislation Governing Burning
  Animal Carcasses: Legislation Governing Burning
  Animal Carcasses: Legislation Governing Burying
  Animal Carcasses: Legislation Governing Burying
  Animal Carcasses: Health Risks from Residues and Run-off
  Animal Carcasses: Health Risks from Residues and Run-off
  Transport Council: French Railways
  Transport Council: French Railways
  North West: Objective 2 Programme
  North West: Objective 2 Programme
  Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel
  Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel
  Tower Hamlets: New Home Construction
  Tower Hamlets: New Home Construction
  Heathrow: Fifth Terminal Inquiry
  Heathrow: Fifth Terminal Inquiry
  Peers: Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowance
  Peers: Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowance
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  e-government Rankings: Accenture Report
  e-government Rankings: Accenture Report