Sitting of 8 May 2001

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

    Employment
    Mr. Ian Davidson: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about levels of employment in Scotland. [159289]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters, including employment, especially given that we in Scotland now have the lowest unemployment since 1976 and the highest employment since 1960. Since the 1997 election employment is up by 105,000, long-term unemployment is down by 60 per cent. and youth unemployment is down by 2,000. The First Minister and I therefore have very fruitful and positive conversations.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 40 per cent. since the general election? Is, she aware that youth
    2
    unemployment has been cut by more than 70 per cent? Is she able to give answers to those very difficult questions from the Dispatch Box today?
    While much has been done, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still much to do? Does she accept that Pollok requires its own jobcentre? [HON. MEMBERS: "More, more!"] Thank you.
    Does my right hon. Friend accept that Govan and Yarrow shipbuilders require firm Ministry of Defence orders now? Does she also accept that it is about time that we had a general election?
    Mrs. Liddell: Whenever my hon. Friend comes to the House, I am filled with trepidation about what he might ask me. I can tell him, however, that much has been done and there is much to do, but there is also much to lose. I agree with him that it is time for a general election.
    I note my hon. Friend's point about a jobcentre in Pollok; I have already raised it with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. The Ministry of Defence has gone to considerable lengths to secure MOD orders for Govan. I know that the work force are still troubled about the possibility of difficulties during the spill-over period. I have met them, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to do so shortly.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State will know that the unemployment figures in Campbeltown in my constituency are twice the Scottish average. Following the recent announcement of the closure of the Jaeger factory—which was a terrible blow to the town, as Jaeger was its last major employer—can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry will be reinstated, and, in particular, that the Ministry of Defence is no longer dragging its feet with regard to the turbine factory at Machrihanish?

    3
    The people of Campbeltown live in isolation at the end of a peninsula, cut off and too often forgotten by Government. They really need to hear some concrete news for the future.
    Mrs. Liddell: First, let me wish the hon. Lady well as she approaches her retirement. Indeed, some 18 Scottish Members in all parties are not seeking re-election, and I take this opportunity to commend them for the distinguished service that they have given. That applies particularly to the hon. Lady, who comes from a very distinguished political background. She has served her party and her country with distinction.
    The hon. Lady and I share a great love of Argyll, and I look forward to meeting her in the future—perhaps when we watch the shinty, although I suspect that on that occasion I shall be supporting Kyles of Bute while she will be supporting Oban Camanachd. Undoubtedly, she will have an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of her constituency.
    The hon. Lady spoke of problems in Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre. I have been very conscious of the difficulties that could be created as a result of the closure of the Jaeger factory, and prior to that my colleagues and I have looked closely at activities on the Mull of Kintyre. I am delighted to be able to announce that discussions have taken place between the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Executive and my own Scotland Office about the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry, and that we will now test the market with a view to making concrete progress by the summer—assuming that the market conditions are right. I know that that will give a considerable boost not just to the Mull of Kintyre, but to all that part of Argyll.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State has had discussions with colleagues in the MOD about Vesta, and I understand that considerable progress is being made. I think that there are positive signs, and I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured by that.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend noted that no Conservative Member has even tried to speak of unemployment? Could that be because the Conservatives are embarrassed by the fact that the last time the unemployment figures were as low as this, Labour was in government?

    As I leave the House after 14 years representing Maryhill, let me say that I came here hoping that something could be done about the appalling levels of unemployment in my constituency. It took a Labour Government to bring those figures down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said, a great deal has been done and there is more to do.
    Mrs. Liddell: I also wish my hon. Friend well as she approaches her retirement; the warmth of the response to her is very well known. She is also right to remind us of how much we have to lose if this Labour Government are not re-elected. All of us who lived through those bleak Tory years remember what happened to unemployment in cities such as Glasgow and in my own constituency in Lanarkshire.
    Many of our traditional industries were decimated by the Tories. Therefore, I am happy to announce that the European Commission has today given authority for the
    4
    payment of £18 million of assistance to Longannet deep mine, fulfilling the second tranche of assistance to secure the future of the coal industry in Scotland. That is a great tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), but to the late Donald Dewar, whose commitment to Longannet was second to none.
    Sir Peter Emery: Would the Secretary of State—who has been boasting so much of the success of the Government's action in Scotland—like to assure my constituents in Devon that Scotland will no longer be wanting the £861-odd extra per head of population that it receives, unlike my constituents; that the levels of benefit that it receives will come down to those received by the whole of the nation; and that it will not continue to receive much more money than is available to the rest of the United Kingdom including England?
    Mrs. Liddell: That was a very interesting exposition of Tory policy. Labour Members, however, believe in governing for the many and not for the few. We have achieved much in this Parliament, but we still have much to do. On unemployment, though, we now have the prospect of full employment for all of the United Kingdom, which is something that I have wanted to achieve in my political lifetime. It could be snatched away if Conservative Members were ever again to he elected to government. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the same line as the Scottish National party, whose members will be Hague's little helpers in the forthcoming general election as they seek to ensure the election of a Tory Government.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Like my right hon. Friend and all Labour Members, I will never forget the devastation caused to mining communities by the actions of the previous Government and how, for many thousands of redundant miners, the only jobs on offer were as £2 an hour security guards. I pay tribute to her and to the previous First Minister, Donald Dewar, for securing the future for the only deep mine left in Scotland. Does she agree that the best future for that deep mine rests with the return or a Labour Government?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter questions and, of course, for shorter answers. I also remind the House that we are on Scottish questions. The general election campaign will be fought elsewhere.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) is aware that the coal industry faced very significant difficulties when we were first elected to government and that the introduction of a stricter gas consents policy allowed a breathing space for the coal industry to fin I its place in a competitive market. I am very glad that we have been able to make real progress on Longannet deep mine, which is the last deep mine in Scotland. I am also pleased that we have been able to make progress on delivering compensation to those miners who, over very many years, gave their health so that we could have a coal industry—an industry that was treated with contempt by Conservative Members.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Just for once, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for

    5
    Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who said that it is time that we had a general election. So it is—so that we can have a change of Government. [Interruption.] As people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom know perfectly well—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) keeps asking whether I know where Pollok is. Of course I know where Pollok is. However, that is not what we are here to discuss. We are here to discuss Scotland's economy and Scotland's unemployment levels and to hold this Government, however temporarily, to account for what they are doing.
    The fact is that people in Scotland know perfectly well that the reason for the present strength of the Scottish economy is not the policies of this Government, but the policies of the previous Conservative Government which have not yet been destroyed. Indeed, 67 per cent. of people in Scotland think that taxes there are too high. They are right and they know what to do about it. On unemployment, as on other matters the Government are very good at spin, but not good at delivery. Some of us believe in delivery and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think there was a question there.
    Mrs. Liddell: I was getting quite worried about the hon. Lady, given her forthcoming happy event, which I understand is to be in July. I wish filer well for that. Her loyalty to her party is very well known, but I hope that it does not mean that she has to call the child Orinoco. We are well aware of what the previous Government did to Scotland. Those of us who represent constituencies in Scotland saw long-term unemployment rocket and a dearth of hope for young people in our communities.
    The hon. Lady talks about taxation. The general election is coming up and one of the anxieties that I have for my constituents is to ensure that the working families tax credit continues for those families who have been given a ladder out of poverty and that the children's tax credit continues delivering £520 to families with children. Those are the policies that this Government have pursued. We are asking for a further opportunity to advance those policies and we have a lot to lose if the Conservatives win the general election.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many people in Scotland have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction. [159290]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): More than 120,000 people in every constituency in Scotland, including Aberdeen, North, have benefited from the national minimum wage since it was introduced by the Labour Government in April 1999. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that on 1 October the national minimum wage will the increased by almost 11 per cent.—that is greater than the increase in average earnings—except in the admittedly unlikely event of the election of a Tory Government who are committed to scrapping it. It is absolutely vital that that does not happen.
    Mr. Savidge: In Aberdeen, the national minimum wage has proved particularly beneficial to women. Can my hon.
    6
    Friend indicate how far that has been the general pattern? Given the general success of the policy, does he agree that when the non-voting record of certain parties comes under scrutiny—with apologies to Shakespeare—"Gentlemen from Scotland, then a-bed, shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here."? Stand up for Scotland? They cannot even stay up for Scotland!
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right in every respect. Some 70 per cent. of the beneficiaries of the minimum wage have been women. It has had the greatest effect on women's pay since the Equal Pay Act 1970. I am pleased to see that some Tories are rising, to ask questions as they said that jobs would be lost because of the national minimum wage. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Unemployment has gone down and employment has gone up in every part of the United Kingdom. I notice that SNP Members are not even standing to ask questions on this. As my hon. Friend rightly said, they were not here to go through the Lobby to vote for a national minimum wage. How can they stand up for Scotland when they do not even turn up for Scotland?
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that, while the Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the minimum wage has stopped the worst employment practices in terms of low pay, many people do not work in paid employment but run a small business or a farm? Because of the current foot and mouth epidemic, many of those people's incomes are below the minimum wage. Will he therefore ensure that the Prime Minister recognises that, although the number of foot and mouth cases may be tailing off, the economic consequences will be felt in the rural economy for many years after the last case has been reported?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, although it grieves me somewhat to say so. The Government understand the difficulties created by foot and mouth. That is why we have put in place a great deal of help for farmers and people involved in agriculture, and for those affected indirectly. The hon. Gentleman will know that the increase in the minimum wage was announced in March, which has given people a significant amount of time to prepare. I am sure that he would not want people currently struggling on low pay to suffer as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. Obviously, we must take account of the effects of foot and mouth disease, which are felt by employees as well as employers.

    Anti-drugs Strategy
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [159291]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I meet regularly with the First Minister and discuss a range of topics, including how to tackle the menace of drug abuse in Scotland. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to hear about that
    Mrs. McKenna: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the creation of the Scottish communities

    7
    against drugs fund? It will make money available to those strapped communities fighting a campaign against drugs in Scotland to make their areas drug free and to offer a more positive environment for people at risk from drugs. Will she also join me in welcoming the support of the Daily Record?
    Mrs. Liddell: May I begin by assuming that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I understand that it is a significant one.
    The issue of drugs is very important in Scotland. It is a classic example of a matter for which there is a need for partnership between the Government at Westminster and the Scottish Executive. I congratulate the Scottish Executive on this afternoon's launch of the Scottish communities against drugs fund. I also congratulate the Daily Record on its campaign to raise money to be spent on community projects to tackle the horror of drug abuse. I urge all hon. Members concerned about drugs in our community to make a personal contribution to the campaign, as every pound raised by the Daily Record will be matched by the Scottish Executive.
    The legislation covering the proceeds of crime is another example of partnership, and it will ensure that drug dealers' assets are confiscated. That is also vital. Indeed, the Scottish Executive, in partnership with the Government at Westminster, established the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has £15 million and 200 dedicated officers to fight drug abuse.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Alex Salmond: What discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the Barnett formula. [159292]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Deputy Prime Minister, on a variety of matters.
    Mr. Salmond: Does not the Secretary of State find it ironic that, at a time when she is accusing the Tory party of wanting to cut £8 billion of public spending, the Deputy Prime Minister is aiming to reduce spending in Scotland by £1,000 a head? Even London brokers say that Scotland's surplus of revenue over expenditure comes to £100 million a month. Should not the Scottish Parliament therefore have control over revenue, rather than being at the mercy of an anti-Scottish cabal in the Cabinet?
    Did not the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Barnett formula was not set in stone, and forecast blood on the carpet? Why was No. 10 so anxious to say that right hon. Gentleman was not talking about the Barnett formula, if not because of the anxiety of Labour Members to keep the issue quiet until the election is safely over?
    Mrs. Liddell: One thing that one can say with certainty is that the hon. Gentleman is never happier than when he is whingeing for Scotland. This Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula, and we have delivered £8.5 billion more in public expenditure for
    8
    Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's party's plans for Scotland would mean a reduction of about £500 million in expenditure on health, £500 million less expenditure on local authorities and £500 million less for other services such as transport, housing and economic development. The health service in Scotland has benefited to the tune of more than £400 million. The SNP's plans for Scotland would have meant an increase in health expenditure of a puny £38 million. We would take the hon. Gentleman much more seriously—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the right hon. Lady to sit down.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: If the right hon. Lady is right in her view of the firmness of the Government in respect of the Barnett formula, will she explain why, when I asked her Department in writing on 11 January about its intentions towards the formula, it took two and a half months to deliver the completely anodyne reply that the Government supported the retention of the formula? Why was there that delay if the Government were not considering scrapping it?
    Mrs. Liddell: I was not in the Department on 11 January. We have discussed the matter twice at Question Time—perhaps on occasions when the hon. Gentleman was not here.
    Mr. Grieve: As usual, the right hon. Lady is less than frank about the position. Why did it take so long to answer the question? Is not the reality that the Government knew very well on 11 January that they were considering scrapping the formula and were trying to put that forward in a way that might be presentable? Would the Government not be reneging on a key commitment that they made in the past by scrapping the formula, which would be part of the complete dissolution of this country that is being brought about, through the agency of the Deputy Prime Minister, as part of the regional policy?
    Mrs. Liddell: I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman's colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it clear that he could not guarantee maintaining spending in Scotland; this was the man who said that the poll tax was a very good experiment for Scotland.
    The Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula and have increased public expenditure in Scotland by £8.5 billion. The Conservative party would cut £24 million from every constituency in Scotland if they were elected.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Human Rights Act
    Miss Anne McIntosh: On how many occasions she has been requested to give advice on the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [159313]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): When requested, I give advice, as a United Kingdom Law Officer, on a variety of matters including questions concerning the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Advocate-General for repeating her answer to my question of one month ago. Will she now tell me how many times she has been requested to give legal advice, what the cost of such advice has been on such occasions and what the total cost of implementing the Human Rights Act in Scotland has been?
    The Advocate-General: Duplication—we call it corroboration in Scotland—is a doctrine with which the hon. Lady may be familiar. It is a long-standing tradition that Law Officers do not advise about the questions that they have been asked—one which Law Officers on both sides of the House recognise.
    I am not going to answer the hon. Lady's question because of that general convention, Which Administrations of all complexions have followed for many years, and from which I see no reason to depart on this occasion. So far as the cost is concerned, my salary is a matter of public record; hon. Members can look it up.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in terms of human rights in Scotland, the Disability Rights Commission will always have an important part to play? It is one of the finest achievements of the Government. Will she remember that hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland are delighted that this United Kingdom Parliament delivered that measure?
    The Advocate-General: With Some assistance from my right hon. Friend, the convention on human rights has been delivered in Scotland. It is an important step that individual citizens can now exercise their rights and have their rights guaranteed by the domestic courts of this country, which is a much cheaper and quicker alternative than going to Strasbourg.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Having just treated the House to that extraordinary mixture of incompetence and contempt, will the Advocate-General tell us what she is for?
    The Advocate-General: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, I will tell him—at length, if Mr. Speaker permits. Under the Scotland Act 1998, I have a number of functions. I inherited the advisory functions of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. I advise the United Kingdom Government about a range of matters on not only Scots law but European law, including the European convention on human rights. I also sit on a number of Cabinet Committees. I have a statutory role under section 33 of the 1998 Act of considering Scottish Parliament legislation, and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about human rights, not about the Advocate-General's role.
    Mr. David Stewart: If she will make a statement on her role in monitoring the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. [159314]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): If the human rights point raises a devolution issue, it must be intimated to me and I have powers to intervene. I am also kept informed about the general impact of the Human Rights Act, including important court cases. With reference to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), it is because of the devolution aspects that I have a role in relation to human rights.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the advantage of the Human Rights Act is that it makes justice more accessible for ordinary people by fast-tracking access to the United Kingdom courts. avoiding the cost and the delays involved in going to Strasbourg? How long does it take to raise a case now?
    The Advocate-General: A human rights case can be raised with great speed in the domestic courts in Scotland. Depending on the situation, it could be raised and dealt with by the court within a few days. The appeal process has shown that human rights issues can be taken through the entire process, all the way to the Privy Council, within months, which is a vast improvement on the previous situation, whereby individual citizens sometimes had to wait years before a court considered their claim.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMEMT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMEMT

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on the role of the private finance initiative in the provision of new magistrates courts. [159318]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The private finance initiative is used to procure new magistrates courts throughout England and Wales. I am happy to make a statement on the subject.
    Projects for 13 magistrates courts committees are in various stages of procurement. The first of the new courts to come into use under this funding route will open later this year at Kidderminster, Hereford and Worcester.
    Mr. Luff: The Minister will know how glad I am that the Government continued with the construction of new magistrates courts under PFI that was started by the previous Government. Would not it be wrong. however, to sacrifice smaller, rural magistrates courts such as

    11
    Evesham on the altar of PHI, especially when they are being asked to provide extra capacity during the construction of the new courts?
    Jane Kennedy: I am happy to pay tribute to the representations that the hon. Gentleman made during the consultation on the original closure programme introduced by the magistrates courts committee in Hereford and Worcester, and I acknowledge that, as the Worcester court has become inoperable because the police no longer use it, Evesham is now one of the courts that is used for the excess work. I understand that the committee intends shortly to hold consultations on proposals for courthouse closures, but as no decisions have yet been made, I cannot comment on any such proposals.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend ensure that PFIs can be used to bring existing courthouses up to scratch, so that the jailing sections meet the modem European standard?
    Jane Kennedy: I absolutely concur with the point that my hon. Friend is making about security. PFIs are indeed being used for a range of purposes, and not only new build, important though that is. For example, once such initiative is providing refurbished courthouses at Redditch.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Parliamentary Secretary talks about the use of private finance in magistrates courts, but has she considered the figures revealed this morning in one of the national newspapers by the distinguished legal correspondent, Joshua Rozenberg, that show that in Greater London fines worth more than £92 million remained uncollected last year alone? Does she not recognise that judges and magistrates are increasingly concerned that the mismanagement and incompetence of her noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has led to a collapse in confidence in collecting fines and in other non-custodial penalties? On the day the Prime Minister finally dared to call a general election, which he will lose, should not the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the Lord Chancellor must acknowledge that he is the weakest link and say goodbye?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman may not know that successive Governments have considered that fine enforcement would be more effective if such work were transferred from the police to the magistrates courts committees, which can give it a higher priority. However, this Government have delivered that modernisation to the magistrates courts committees. That is a measure of our confidence in their ability to handle that work. He and his party propose to take £525 million out of the justice system, so it is rich for him to lecture us on modernisation and improvements in the service.

    Justices of the Peace
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on the progress being made to allow people from a wider range of social backgrounds to become JPs. [159319]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this issue. As I said in a written answer:
    "my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has asked for a national strategy for tin recruitment of lay magistrates to be developed."—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 173W.]
    The local advisory committees do a lot of good work to encourage people from all walks of life to apply. I ask all hon. Members to help us to get the message across that we want benches to be representative of the community that they serve.
    Mr. Chapman: Is it not important that that representational approach reflects the ethnic, social and political mix of the community? Is it not vital to focus on making the bench more equitable? Will the Minister consider, for example, shortening the hours of commitment, so that the bench is more accessible to working people? Will she also consider improving the image of the bench, which is not as good as it should be?
    Jane Kennedy: I will, of course, take careful note of all the points that my hon. Friend raises. The Lord Chancellor was one of the first Lord Chancellors to consider that political balance may not be an appropriate way to measure social balance on benches, and that was the result of the landslide at the last general election.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Lady accept that whatever has gone wrong in her Department, we all k low that it was not her fault? So magnificent has been her stewardship that we know that this is the last time we shall see her before she rockets to greater heights, in the shadow Cabinet. Does she agree that what matters most is that such people, who perform an incredibly important job in the community, are seen to be truly effective, and that anything that takes our eye off that ball would be a great mistake?
    Jane Kennedy: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to help me, and I hope that the Prime Minister was listening.
    The hon. Gentleman is right; the pre-eminent requirement is personal suitability for appointment to the job, and more than 30,000 people from all walks of life serve as lay magistrates.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There are hairdressers.
    Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend says, the magistracy includes hairdressers. Being a magistrate is not an easy task, and I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to magistrates for the important work that they do.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will the Minister comment on her Department's success in recruiting people from the ethnic minority community to the magistrates bench? What sort of gender balance has been achieved from within that community?
    Jane Kennedy: We seek constantly to review the balance and make-up of benches. It is important that hon.

    13
    Members on both sides of the House support us in every step that we take along the route to ensuring that the bench is properly representative of the community from which it is drawn. We are doing well in recruiting in the ethnic communities, but we have a lot more to do, and that message needs to go out from the House.
    Mr. John Burnett: The Minister uttered some fine words, but in many parts of the country they are meaningless. Because of the magistrates courts closures under the Government, a number of people from wider social backgrounds have been forced to leave the lay magistracy. The Government have commissioned an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness of the lay magistracy. Auld has reported. Will the Minister tell us what the Government's policies are for the future of the lay magistracy and whether it has a future at all under the Government?
    Jane Kennedy: On every occasion that such points are made to me, I demonstrate not only in fine words but with examples how we are working hard to promote the magistracy, and to improve and modernise the service that magistrates give their communities. It is Opposition Members who question that commitment who cause magistrates to have doubts. I strongly recommend that the hon. Gentleman consider the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who, during proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, said that he had far more confidence in a judge and jury than in a bench of magistrates. Had we passed that Bill, it would have been living testament to the Government's commitment to the magistracy.

    Rural Courtrooms (IT)
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the use of information technology to support rural courtrooms. [159320]
    The Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): New IT systems and services are being developed both for magistrates courts and county courts. The Libra system will link together all magistrates courts and allow links into other criminal justice agencies. On 15 January. I published a consultation paper on the development of IT in the civil courts, which I trust the hon. Member has read. I look forward to his response.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that invitation to read his document. I shall read it assiduously because his Department's proposals for rural courthouses in my constituency are very poor indeed. The proposal to close two or three courthouses in Ceredigion is at least being fought by the local county council. It has made an interesting suggestion on the use of IT to support rural courthouses: a main courthouse for the county, with satellite courthouses linked by IT systems. Will the Minister welcome that? Will he also give an assurance that financial considerations will not stand in the way of such additional and innovative solutions, which may deliver justice to rural areas? Finally, following his consultation paper, will he tell us what guidance he is
    14
    likely to produce to encourage magistrates courts committees to look beyond financial questions and consider innovative solutions?
    Mr. Lock: The purpose of magistrates courts is to deliver justice. I am sure that local justice is an important consideration, whether in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in any part of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the county council for its co-operation and for taking advantage of the opportunities presented by IT. That is precisely what the consultation paper is all about, as he will see when he gets around to reading it. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who will consider the appeal in due course, will consider those matters seriously. I am grateful for all the work that has gone into ensuring that a large measure of local justice is still delivered in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister tell us what access and technology will be available for the rural courts that have closed under his Government's stewardship, especially those in Bakewell, Ashbourne and Matlock? That means that there is no local justice in West Derbyshire.
    Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the closure of magistrates courts, but such decisions are taken by local magistrates courts committees under legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government. As for the county courts, the strategy in the "Modernising the Civil Courts" Green Paper is aimed at increasing the number of places at which hearings can take place to increase the availability of local justice, not to close courts. The strategy is to develop local justice, not to restrict it.

    Access to Justice (Macclesfield)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent action the Lord Chancellor's Department has taken to improve access to justice in Macclesfield; and if she will make a statement.[159322]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement, but it might take me a little time, as we have been extremely busy in improving access to justice in Macclesfield.
    The Cheshire community legal service partnership, which covers the Macclesfield area, has been formed to improve access to legal information and advice throughout the county. In Cheshire, the first phase of the project to have a single, national, standard computer system in magistrates courts was delivered in February 2001. A private finance initiative project is in the pipeline. In the county courts in Macclesfield—as elsewhere in England and Wales—the court service is examining how best to use modern technology to improve and increase access outside the traditional court environment.
    Mr. Winterton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) flattered the Minister, may I do the same and thank her for that extremely helpful reply? However, she knows that if justice is to be effective, it needs to be local. She talks about a private finance

    15
    initiative project for a new magistrates court in Macclesfield. Will she give a commitment today that that is part of a firm plan, subject to all authorities agreeing, and that we will have a new magistrates court in Macclesfield to serve the town and the surrounding area?
    Jane Kennedy: The details of the project are still being considered. It would be wrong to give a commitment at this stage to proposals before I have been able to consider them. However, I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, as I will to the representations that I know that he will make in future.

    Rural Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on rural magistrates courts. [159323]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Data provided by the magistrates courts committees in the period October to December last year show that there has been no significant impact so far on the operation of the magistrates courts as a result of the Human Rights Act.
    Mr. Paterson: What an absurd reply! Five years ago, £350,000 was spent modernising the old school buildings in Oswestry. The court now faces a bill of £197,450 to make it compliant with the Human Rights Act. Every time I ask the Minister where the money should come from, she says that it is down to the magistrates courts committee. That is rubbish. The cost is being forced on local magistrates by central Government. Will she explain why the Government will not stump up the money?
    Jane Kennedy: Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities. The standard of accommodation and facilities provided in a court is only one of a number of factors that magistrates courts committees consider. The Human Rights Act has had very little bearing on those considerations. Setting aside the hon. Gentleman's pre-election hysteria, the answer to his question is simple and straightforward: the prophets of doom who predicted that the implementation of the Human Rights Act would bring chaos to the courts have been proved wrong. That is due to two years of careful preparation by the Government and the courts. The smooth incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been a major achievement of the Government and it is one of which I am very proud.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Oral Questions
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the procedure for the tabling of oral questions. [159331]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Not at present. The Procedure Committee has considered the matter many times. I am pleased to say that Mr. Speaker has responded to the recommendations in its most recent report by extending the deadline for tabling oral questions to 6.30 pm on a trial basis.
    Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's characteristically mellifluous and soothing reply. Given the worrying growth of government by remote control and the new extended deadline of 6.30 pm for the tabling of oral questions, will he comprehensively rubbish the idea of tabling questions by e-mail and agree instead that Members who wish to table questions can reasonably be expected to continue to bestir themselves to plod along the corridors of the Palace of Westminster until they reach the Table Office to do so?
    Mr. Tipping: There is no need to plod very far. There are no plans for the tabling of questions by e-mail or fax.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Why do we not do away with the tabling of questions and take a leaf out of the book of the Canadian House of Commons, where questioners are chosen exclusively by the Speaker? The debate is spontaneous the whole Ministry is present and it stops the planted question. In addition, Ministers from the other place should attend this House to answer questions, and vice versa. It is nonsense for Ministers to come here and pretend that they know the answers when they do not. Ministers should answer for themselves. If Gus Macdonald is made a Cabinet Minister, I want him answering questions here.
    Mr. Tipping: I must confess that I am surprised that my hon. Friend knows anything about planted questions, because he is a man of integrity and comes up with his questions himself. My right hon. Friend in the Lords, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, is already a Minister. There were abuses in the past, but the present system of tabling questions in Person seems to protect the House from any abuse.

    Executive Accountability
    Mr. Graham Brady: What steps she proposes to take to improve the ability of the House to hold the Executive to account. [159332]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I propose to continue the experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, which have given Back Benchers more than double the number of daytime Adjournment debates and increased fourfold opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. Those steps must be seen alongside other steps in the extension of scrutiny that have already been made. They include broadening the remit of the European Scrutiny Committee, setting up a Select Committee on Environmental Audit and a Joint Committee on Human Rights, agreeing to the Procedure Committee's proposals for the improved scrutiny of treaties and increasing the opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny.
    Mr. Brady: Given the strength of support from Members on both sides of the House for the

    17
    implementation of the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", is it not a sign of the contempt in which the Government hold the House of Commons that we have been denied a free vote on that report in this Parliament?
    Mrs. Beckett: No, that is nonsense. The report has been debated, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said. He is right that many Members support the proposals in the report, but many other Members have great reservations about many of the proposals. On bow the issues can be thrashed out, I point out that they have been debated and no doubt they will be discussed again.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will have considered the way in which the Opposition have conducted their business this Session. If she is Chairman of the Modernisation Committee it the new Parliament, could she not propose that the Opposition use their time far more effectively instead of engaging in time wasting? They would then be able to carry out their function of scrutiny, about which they protest so much.
    Mrs. Beckett: There is some justice in my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope very much that the Conservative party will have the benefit of a few more years in which to build up its experience of opposition. Given its propensity to knee-jerk reaction to any proposals of the type that have been mentioned, that is sorely needed so that it can effectively use the time of the House for scrutiny. The Opposition attempt to do and say anything that they hope will embarrass the Government as opposed to considering what will be workable and to the advantage of the House as a whole.
    Sir George Young: The Lord President will know that the Opposition have committed themselves to a number of important reforms in this area. Can she assure us that, when Parliament is dissolved, the Labour party will also go into the next election fizzing with new ideas about how this place can hold the Government to account and seeking to reverse the damage that it has done in the past four years?
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Conservative party is committed to a number of reforms. It had 18 years to implement many of them, but it utterly failed to do so. I assure him that we keep under review the proposals that have been made. If we are returned to power, we hope to build on the improvements and the greater availability of scrutiny from which the House has already benefited

    Programme Motions
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What representations she has received about programme motions for legislation. [159333]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): A number of Conservative Members have continued to oppose any use of programme motions, but I believe that many Members consider that the Sessional Orders do not
    18
    go far enough. Refinements to the present experimental procedures have been suggested by the Modernisation Committee in its first report of this Session.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she had time to analyse the points that have been made during programme motion debates? Does she agree that they tend to be repetitive and that we should consider whether those programme motions are really necessary?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She takes a close interest in those matters, so I am sure that she knows that that issue was discussed by the Modernisation Committee and lay behind the production of our most recent report, which commanded support across the Committee and from all parties. Sadly, however, on this occasion, that support was not unanimous.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady accept that Conservative Members have opposed programme motions because they are guillotines in disguise and were introduced without regard for the nature or complexity of the Bills in question and without any proper consultation with the Opposition? In fact, they are a disgraceful treatment of Parliament.
    Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid I do not accept any of those points.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the matter is not one that should be debated on a party basis? The quality of the scrutiny that legislation receives ought to be important for the House of Commons. Is it not a sad commentary that the cumulative effect of many changes has been to remove better scrutiny? The suggestion that somehow programme motions should be debated without talking about programming shows a sad want of understanding of what happens in the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has from the beginning expressed opposition to the experiment. She is right that different points of view exist on both sides of the House. However, I simply repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). There was support from all parties for the Modernisation Committee's most recent report. It is by no means insignificant that the present and past Chairs of the Select Committee on Procedure, both of whom are experienced, supported it.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While supporting the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her desire to achieve better scrutiny in the House, may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will guarantee that the recommendations of the recently issued first report of the Modernisation Committee—which she chairs—will be implemented? She will be aware that there was some cross-party support for the report, not least from me, because the way in which we introduce programming is not working, as she knows. It is vital that the recommendations and guidance

    19
    of the Modernisation Committee are implemented at an early stage of the next Parliament, whichever party is in government.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that, to a certain extent, there is an understanding. Although I would not venture to agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I accept that we have all been learning from the initial experiment and that improvements can be made to achieve genuinely better opportunities for scrutiny. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be the first to remind me that it is not for me to say what the House will decide, but I take his point that the House should have an opportunity to pronounce on the recommendations of the most recent report of the Modernisation Committee and that, as always, that should be done on a free vote.

    Modernisation
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What further proposals she plans to put before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [159335]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee has already instigated radical experiments with Westminster Hall, programming and deferred Divisions. I expect the Committee's major task to be monitoring those experiments, although we continue to discuss other issues, such as the use of electronic voting.
    Mr. Swayne: That is regrettable. The right hon. Lady will be aware that many Labour Members are exhausted by the pace of reform, particularly the late night sittings to which, perversely, it has given rise. Can we not all have a rest from that business?
    Mrs. Beckett: I think that the notion that the reforms have created greater difficulties instead of easing some of them is not wholly shared. Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, although I note that he, like other Members, has taken advantage of the new opportunities in Westminster Hall.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members thoroughly welcome the modernisation process? Those of us who were first elected in 1997 still find it bemusing that, while it would be an act of treason if the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force put a drug in the water supply of the House of Commons to ensure that Ministers were tired,
    20
    irritable and unable to concentrate through lack of sleep, until we fully modernise the House, we have made sleep deprivation a constitutional requirement.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I merely say to him what I have often said in other debates in this House: people are rarely more eloquent in the early hours of the morning, although unfortunately, all too often, they think they are.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to the Leader of the House that one thing that should not be modernised is the opportunity for individual Members of Parliament to raise individual cases in this House and with Ministers in other ways? As an example, I hope that we will maintain the opportunity for me to raise the case of a constituent who has been asked to wait 15 months for an appointment at a hospital. For all the legislation that we have, for all the glitz and the glamour, each Member of Parliament must fight to ensure that our national health service is not a national waiting service.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman uses the opportunity skilfully to raise a slightly different point. Of course he is right that individual Members of Parliament must always have the facility to raise cases of the kind to which he refers. Indeed, many of us raised them frequently—much more frequently than is necessary today—during the years in which his party was in power.

    Pay and Allowances
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What her policy is on the recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries relating to the pay of hon. Members and the office costs allowance. [159338]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commmons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Decisions on the recommendations are a matter for the House.
    Mr. Winterton: As, the right hon. Lady says, such decisions are indeed matter for the House. However, when will the recommendations be put to the House so that it can take a decision? Members in all parts of the House believe that the recommendations should be considered, and that such consideration should take place in this Parliament and not the next.
    Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that his view is shared in other parts of the House. He asks me when the recommendations will be debated. All I can say, as I would characteristically for a business question, is that it will not, I fear, be next week.

Transbus International
3.31 pm
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the major announcement by TransBus International plc, formerly Plaxton Coach and Bus at Eastfield, Scarborough, on Thursday 3 May to make 700 redundancies and to withdraw the operations of the company from my constituency.
The Eastfield plant has long had a reputation for producing the best-quality coaches and buses in the world. The work force are highly skilled and make a significant contribution not only to the Scarborough local economy but to the national economy. If the factory closes for good, not only will 700 Plaxton workers lose their livelihood but the wider community and economy of Scarborough and North Yorkshire will be forced to terminate the employment of the people at the plant as well as that of suppliers, sub-contractors and people who work in professional and business services.
Early estimates of the damage to the Scarborough economy indicate that £50 million each year will be lost as a result of one in every 20 workers losing their jobs. At a stroke, Scarborough is becoming the worst unemployment black spot in Yorkshire and the Humber. The decision leaves us 42 miles from any potential alternative employment.
On Thursday evening, our confidence was broken and the community felt on the edge of bankruptcy. By Friday afternoon, however, thanks to the rapid response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness, we had a glimmer of hope.
I believe that this matter deserves urgent attention in the House now, to ensure that the fullest attention of Parliament can be given to this important regional and national matter. The voice of Parliament needs to be heard. The matter is specific to the national debate on Britain's economic performance, as the likelihood is that foreign competitors will steal the important contribution that Plaxton has made to supplying coaches for Britain and the world.
The implications for the balance of payments are unacceptable and draconian. May we have a debate, Mr. Speaker, if not today, then in tile near future?
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has just announced that the date of the general election will be 7 June. Given the grave events in Northern Ireland today, have you received any requests from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the opportunity to speak to us? You will be aware that it has been stated that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party will resign if decommissioning does not start by July. No. 10 Downing street has already said that that would be a grave move with regard to the peace process. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State to come and speak to us today?
Mr. Speaker: The answer is no.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the announcement made outside the House by the Prime Minister about a quarter of an hour ago—as it happens, it was made in my constituency—I have two questions. First, have you requested that either the Prime Minister or anybody else should make a formal announcement to Parliament about the Government's intentions? is it not more appropriate that the announcement should be made here, rather than in any school, however good it or the constituency in which it is situated may be? Secondly, do you have any indication of when the Leader of the House will inform us of the statement's implications for our business? Should she not make such a statement at the first available opportunity?
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide where he makes the statement regarding the general election. The hon. Gentleman is a very fortunate man; it was 1964 when I last had a Prime Minister in my constituency. On his other question, I can tell him that 1 understand that the Leader of the House is coming to the House at approximately 7 o'clock this evening to make a statement. I hope that that is helpful to him.
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the general election has been announced and the Leader of the House is coming to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, and in light of the fact that many businesses in our constituencies have been blighted by foot and mouth, whether they are involved in farming or in tourism, will you encourage the Leader of the House to make time before Parliament is dissolved for a statement to be made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister in charge of the rural affairs taskforce? Such a statement is needed to ensure that constituents who have been directly affected by the foot and mouth blight may know during the election period about the assistance that they can get. They cannot wait another four weeks until the election is over.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Ministers concerned.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to give notice of this point

23
of order, even though I did so a relatively short time ago. During this Parliament. a number of complaints have been referred by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Are you concerned that those complaints do not seem to have been dealt with with the firmness that was applied to similar complaints made during the previous Parliament? Most recently, such a complaint has led to the censuring of a former Minister, but there is no proposal to inflict any punishment for three months, which ensures that the general election will be left way behind. Are you satisfied that the Committee is doing its work properly, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that a Labour-dominated Committee in seen to be properly impartial when Labour Members appear before it?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Committee and also for the House. It is not a matter for the Speaker.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I stress that every report in this Parliament has been unanimous. That was not the case in the previous Parliament.

Discrimination Against Older People
3.39 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make discrimination against older people unlawful; to provide for the creation of an Age Discrimination Council; and for connected purposes.
Discrimination on the ground of age has attracted growing attention in recent years. Indeed, it has also attracted increasing popularity as a topic for ten-minute Bills. Less than a for night ago, on 25 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) sought leave to introduce a Bill to establish an age equality commission to advise the Government on discrimination against older people. He also did that in July of last year. A fortnight ago, the House agreed the Question without a Division.
Tomorrow, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will seek leave to bring in a Bill to make some provisions with regard to age discrimination. I do not know what they are, but taken with other initiatives, that suggests that there is substantial support in the House for further action on the subject. Perhaps that is not surprising given the age diversity in this place, where hon. Members' ages range from the early 20s to the 80s. I am sure that we all agree that that diversity is welcome.
Most hon. Members' minds are currently on the forthcoming general election. Nowadays, national campaigning organisations tend to produce manifestos. I should briefly like to draw hon. Members' attention to Age Concern's manifesto, entitled, "Dignity, Security, Opportunity". It is an excellent document both for its clarity and the strength of its arguments. It expresses one of its five priorities in the following words:
"ending discrimination against older people—by law—in work, health, public services and the consumer market".
That is precisely what my Bill seeks to do.
Many other organisations also campaign on age discrimination. LEAD—the Lobby to End Age Discrimination—held a seminar in the Palace of Westminster in November last year. Like many hon. Members, I was pleased to sponsor and participate in it. Representatives from the three Front Benches contributed productively to it. Another organisation, the Association of Retired and Person s over 50, drafted the Bill that I want to introduce today.
What would the Bill do? It would make discrimination against older people unlawful. for example. in employment, access to health care, education and training, credit and other goods and services. It would set up an age discrimination council to advise the Government on detailed codes of practice. The provisions are similar to those in existing anti-discrimination legislation.
Why is it necessary? Many people over 50 have difficulties in finding a job, even when they have extensive qualifications and enormous experience. Some, because of their age, have difficulty in obtaining credit, hiring a car or gaining access to other services on fair terms.
Many of my constituents are convinced that they are discriminated against because they are older. They stress that point whenever I meet the local branch of Age Concern, the South Gloucestershire Senior Citizens Forum, or other pensioners' groups, as I frequently do.

25
Age discrimination has moved up the political agenda and it is not difficult to understand why. First, the population of our country is growing older. There are approximately 20 million people aged 50 and over in the United Kingdom, representing 40 per cent. of the adult population. Consequently, older people realise that they have growing political influence and they rightly want their opinions to be taken into account.
Secondly, there is growing evidence of widespread age discrimination. In its recent evidence to the Education and Employment Committee—which I congratulate on producing a very good report on age discrimination in employment—the Department for Education and Employment drew attention to a survey conducted six months after the code of practice on age diversity had been introduced. The survey found that one in five older people believed that they had been discriminated against in their current job or in a job application simply because of their age. Discrimination was most likely to be reported in the area of recruitment, in which 12 per cent. of older people felt that their age was the key factor militating against them when applying for jobs.
The Department for Education and Employment has also pointed out that many people leaving work before reaching the state pension age have not done so voluntarily, and in the past 20 year the employment rate among those over 50 has fallen dramatically. In 1979, 84 per cent. of men between 50 years old and retirement age were in employment. By 1997, that figure had fallen to 67 per cent. By last year, it had risen modestly to 69 per cent., owing to the substantial increase in employment under the present Government. Nevertheless, it is clear from the trend over the past 20 years that older people who wish to work are increasingly being denied that opportunity.
A further reason why age discrimination is attracting increasing attention is simply that it differs from other forms of discrimination in one important respect: there is
26
no law against it, as there is for discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or disability. It is perfectly possible for an employer to refuse someone a job, promotion or training, not because of his or her ability, but because of his or her age.
The Government have, of course, taken some action to address this problem, and are, indeed, the first Government to take the issue seriously. In 1999, a voluntary code of practice on age diversity in employment was introduced, and last year the Government welcomed the EU directive on equal treatment in employment that will introduce legislation to outlaw this kind of discrimination in employment by 2006. Legislation to tackle age discrimination in employment within five years is better than no commitment at all, but five years is a long time to wait—and what about discrimination in areas other than employment?
Discrimination on the ground of age, like any other form of discrimination, is wrong. To deny people employment or access to services for no reason other than their age is unacceptable and robs us of the enormous economic and social benefits of age diversity. In my view, legislation to tackle age discrimination is required as soon as possible. I hope that the House will support that view this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Berry, Valerie Davey, Mr. Paul Flynn, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. David Winnick and Ann Clwyd.

Discrimination Against Older People
  DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OLDER PEOPLE
  Mr. Roger Berry accordingly presented a Bill to make discrimination against older people unlawful; to provide for the creation of an Age Discrimination Council; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 95].

Finance Bill [Ways and Means]
3.49 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,

Finance Bill [Ways and Means]

  Limited liability partnerships
  That provision may be made in the Finance Bill about limited liability partnerships.
  The resolution covers measures that build on and clarify the tax rules introduced by the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000. First, the measures amplify the rules that provide for limited liability partnerships to be treated as partnerships for tax purposes so as to remove doubts over how the rules might operate in certain circumstances, such as liquidation of the limited liability partnership. The clause confirms the guidelines published in December, which were widely welcomed. Secondly, they prevent tax loss when a limited liability partnership carries on the business of making investments, particularly property investments.
  The substantive measures will apply from 6 April 2001, the date on which businesses could first incorporate as limited liability partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000. A measure to prevent capital gains tax loss will apply from 3 May, the day on which these clauses were published.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: This is a somewhat surreal event, not least because our discussion is due to be repeated in Committee in not many minutes' time. We shall reserve our substantive points—which, I am glad to say, are not deep or wide—for that debate. We understand that the measure is essentially intended to create fiscal neutrality as between partnerships that have limited liability and partnerships that do not, which strikes us as a perfectly reasonable principle.
  I hope the Financial Secretary will not think it ungenerous of me to say that it is slightly regrettable that we are debating the proposal at such a breakneck pace. I do not suggest for a moment that anyone else might not have got into the same difficulty; nevertheless, I harbour a doubt, or worry. I fear that, in a few months, we shall all wake up one morning and realise that an aspect of the Finance Bill—perhaps more than one, quite apart from the aggregates tax, which we already know is loathsome—was ineptly or improperly enacted, conceivably against the wishes of Ministers, simply because we had such a short time in which to grapple with the details.
  There must be some way in which a parliamentary democracy as old and experienced as ours can devise mechanisms to avoid having to deal with a Finance Bill so rapidly just before a general election. I suspect that whichever party finds itself on whichever side of the House after the election may have cause to rue the speed of our proceedings.
  Mr. John Bercow: This is a truly fascinating matter, and I share the concern cautiously expressed by my hon. Friend about the circumscription of debate on it. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is important for us to know what representations, and how many, the Government have received about what might
  28
  prove to be an innocuous measure, in order to kill stone dead any notion that a cynic—obviously not me—might have that it is merely the brainchild of that distinguished group of people known as the Treasury anoraks?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has had such a reputation for eloquence and coherence in the current Parliament that it is hardly necessary for me to say how much I admired both the length of his sentence and his perfect articulation of it. As far as we are able to determine, the industry in this case—or rather the range of industries in which partnerships prevail in his case—has been consulted, and is broadly content with the proposals.
  Conservative Members have had serious difficulties with many aspects of many Finance Bills produced by this Government—and, as I said earlier, with the aggregates tax in the Bill that we are discussing. Our objections, however, have never been directed towards those whom my hon. Friend calls the Treasury anoraks. Treasury and Inland Revenue officials have done a magnificent job in dealing with the inordinately difficult business of trying to translate the Government's wildly over-ambitious taxing plans into practice, in a series of dizzying Finance Bills They deserve our sympathy and admiration. We just hope that, in future, after the general election, we shall have the opportunity to spare them from such activities—by reducing rather than increasing the burden, and by reducing rather than increasing the ingenuity and complexity of tax legislation. As I said, however, the specific provision that we are debating does not fall into any of these latter lamentable categories.
  When everyone has bad time to examine the details of this Finance Bill at more leisure, and if we find that there are serious lacunae, I hope that, together, whichever of us find ourselves on the Treasury Bench after the general election, we shall be a able to cure those deficiencies. We certainly have not had the time that was due before the general election to do I that.

  I shall not detain the House further on the provision. As I said, slightly later today, in Committee, we shall return to the substance of the details of the limited liability partnerships new clause.
  3.55 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: I had conduct of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 during its progress in the House. The Government were represented in those debates by a Department of Trade and Industry Minister, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, and it is good to have a Treasury Minister to discuss the provision today on the Floor of the House.
  I have always been assured that the principle is that limited liability partnerships are taxed in pretty much the same manner as existing partnerships. Nevertheless, I should like to make a few detailed points on the taxation of limited liability partnerships. I am doing so now, as I may not have an opportunity to do so later today, in Committee.
  First and foremost, he Financial Secretary will recall that, in the Finance Act 1998, changes were made to prevent firms that were on the cash basis from staying on the cash basis. There was a transitional period of about eight years, I believe, in which cash-basis firms would go on to a full-earnings basis. Many of those firms, or at least

  29
  some of them, will become limited liability partnerships in that eight-year transitional period It would be good to hear the Financial Secretary confirm that, if they do become limited liability partnerships in that eight-year transitional period, the transitional relief will continue.
  Secondly, I should like to have the Minister's confirmation on the attribution of capital gains and losses. Will he confirm that, even in cast s of liquidation, the members of a limited liability partnership will be subject to capital gains tax in accordance with their beneficial interests in the assets disposed of, rather than their shares in the limited liability partnership?
  The third point concerns statements of practice and extra-statutory concessions, some of which currently apply to existing partnerships. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that those extra-statutory concessions and those statements of practice will apply to limited liability partnerships just as they apply to existing partnerships.
  In relation to a statement of practice, for example, although it may be an extra-statutory concession, assets may be owned by members of a limited liability partnership—perhaps by one member of the limited liability partnership, or by two members if the partnership consists of more than two members, and so forth—and leased to the limited liability partnership. Will the Minister confirm that those assets will count as business or agricultural property for purposes of 100 per cent. inheritance tax relief? Will he also confirm that the assets will count as business property for purposes of capital gains tax roll-over relief, for example?
  I realise that those points are relatively esoteric. I join my colleague the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in saying that we should very much have liked to have an opportunity today, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, for a detailed debate on the tax aspects of limited liability partnerships. Nevertheless, I have flagged up three or four important points which will affect the commercial judgment of individuals who are considering entering into limited liability partnerships. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Financial Secretary on the points that I have made, either when he responds today or perhaps at a later date.
  4 pm
  Mr. Timms: The House will be aware that we need to agree the resolution in order to allow for a debate in Committee later. I hope that it will be possible to have a discussion of some of the points that have been raised in
  30
  the brief debate that we have just had. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for his tribute to the technical skills with which this and previous Finance Bills have been enacted during this Parliament. I agree with him about that. I can reassure him that this particular matter and new clauses 16 and 17 have been well considered. The intention to proceed with these matters was set out in paragraph 3.53 of the pre-Budget report last November. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that they did not cause much consternation then or since, and we have had a number of discussions and taken account of representations.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked me to confirm the principles that we are applying here, comparing the tax position of ordinary partnerships with limited liability partnerships. As we said in the pre-Budget report sent out on 8 November last year, in general, limited liability partnerships will be treated as partnerships for tax purposes and there has been no change in that policy. These measures expand and clarify the rules put in place by the Limited Liability Partnership Act—as he said, the hon. Gentleman served on the Standing Committee considering that Bill. Limited liability partnerships also prevent tax loss through investment and property investment, as announced in the pre-Budget report and confirmed in the Budget in March; so I do not think that there are any surprises here.
  On the other point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I hope that he will catch the eye of the Chairman in the relevant Standing Committee and that there will be the opportunity for a discussion that will be expertly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
  Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful. The reason I raised these points on the Floor of the House is that I am serving on two Standing Committees concurrently and I can only be in one place at a time. If by any chance I am unable to catch the Chairman's eye in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, I hope that someone from the Treasury will reply to the points that I have raised.
  Mr. Timms: I shall be glad to provide a written response to the hon. Gentleman on those points.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,

  That provision may be made in the Finance Bill about limited liability partnerships.
Orders of the Day
  Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 4

      COMPLAINTS
      '() Any person who has cause to complain of the conduct of a private security operative or approved contractor may lodge a written complaint to the Authority on the following grounds:

      (a) that an operative or approved contractor has been convicted of a crime:

      (b) that an operative or approved contractor has breached a provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act;

      (c) that an operative or approved contractor has been guilty of negligence or misconduct in the course to which the operative or approved contractor is licensed or approved;

      (d) that the operative or approved contractor has breached the provisions of a code of conduct published by the Authority'.—[Mr. Bruce George.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.3 pm
      Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Based on my reading of the debate in another place and on having served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I am supremely confident that the Minister will not accept my new clause. I certainly understand the reasons for his reticence, which is due mainly to the fact that time is running out. Some weeks ago, I had to decide whether half a loaf was better than none; after some agonising, I decided on half a loaf—with the possibility of its dramatic expansion. I am not a cook, but there is always the possibility that, with careful nurturing and cooking, bread will expand. I hope that in time there will be more legislation.
      There are one two gaps in the Bill, to put it mildly. New clause 4 would introduce a complaints procedure and enable the regulatory authority to establish a complaints committee. I hope that the need for that is self-evident, even if the proposal is not accepted. When the authority is set up, it will draft its working procedures and embark on an extensive process of consultation, which I am sure will show that a complaints committee has a place in the authority's committee structure.
      My hopes that a similar provision would be included in the Bill were dashed, but the omission is not disastrous. The need for a complaints procedure is pretty clear, as there are an infinite number of possible causes for complaint. For example, an hon. Member might be duffed up by a security guard or badly advised by a private investigator; or his daughter might tell him that drugs were being distributed in a night club by a firm of bouncers in league with drug distributors; or a security guard who purported to be licensed might not be. The new clause lists other examples, and it would be superfluous to add to them.
      Only part of the security industry will be regulated. The industry has been open to enormous criticism, much of it unfounded, but there has been no one to complain to. To whom can one complain in the period before the Bill is
      32
      enacted? I have no idea, and suspect that very few people know. There are many self-regulatory bodies, and people can seek advice about which one can help. No doubt those bodies have complaints procedure, but the overwhelming majority of companies in the private security industry belong to none of those regulatory bodies.
      Let us take the example of a person who wants to complain about the firm that installed his alarm, but discovers that it does not belong to the British Security Industry Association or any other body. Where does he lodge his complaint? Should he turn to the local consumer protection department? Should he write a letter of complaint to the editor of a newspaper, or resort to a lawyer in an attempt o secure a legal claim against the company? The process is a patchwork and does not work.
      Do the trade associations with a self-regulatory structure have teeth? How many firms have they slung out for breaching the rules? If recourse is had to the criminal courts, it will be difficult to secure evidence, and the case will be protracted.
      Mr. John Bercow: In terms of the otherwise admirable construction of new clause 4, I am a little perturbed by what seems to be the mistaken insertion of "to" in the second line of subsection (c). Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to substitute "of for "to"? If the answer is no, can he enlighten me as to the purport of that subsection?
      Mr. George: I had not spotted that. I shall look at the new clause carefully and, after the hon. Gentleman speaks, I will, with the approval of the Chair, intervene to correct any mistake.
      When the industry is properly regulated, it will still produce a large number of complaints. I do not want to encourage frivolous complaints—if the regulatory authority feels that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious, it may not wish to proceed with it—and I do not want to establish a vast bureaucracy, but the complaints committee should be distant from the main body of the regulatory authority to give it a degree of independence.
      The industry will metamorphose to achieve the standards that will be laid down and built upon by subordinate legislation. Many of the complaints that are inherent in the current process will become redundant and the industry will become more professional. Companies will become better; they will realise that their cards are to be marked and that if they commit misdemeanours or criminal acts they ruts the risk of having their licence withdrawn.
      I hope that a code of practice will supplement the Bill's provisions. As I said in Committee, private security companies should not be the bases of campaign headquarters in any parliamentary election, as is the case in my constituency; that should not be within the scope of a security company's operations. A company should appear somewhat distant from the cut and thrust of an election.
      I have no intention of boring the House with speeches of one hour and 20 minutes, as, regrettably, I did on Second Reading and in Committee. I am not a snooker player of any competence—my record break was nine, which included a black—but I know that a player must identify for the referee or opponent the pocket that he is

      33
      aiming for; that is certainly the case in pool. Every time I speak from now on, I shall indicate the time I will take. I have spoken for less than 10 minutes in moving the new clause, without much expectation of success.
      Mr. Bercow: The self-effacement of the right hon. Gentleman is legendary in this House, but I am bound to say that there is no justification for it. As he knows, and as I am happy to communicate to other hon. Members, I invariably find his speeches racy and intoxicating in equal measure. As we are in the dying embers of this Parliament, it is right that we should pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. Not only is he a first-class Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—a point on which I shall not expatiate, Mr Speaker—but, more particularly, he is without question the foremost authority on the subject of the private security industry in this House. He and I enjoyed a chat on the subject the other day. He profited nothing from our exchange, but I profited a great deal.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. George: I caution the hon. Gentleman against further eulogies; otherwise, his speech may appear in my election material, and my opponent may complain to the party chairman. I urge him to refrain from further compliments if his future in his party is to be secured.
      Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his protective hand, but, as he knows, I am a modest and self-effacing fellow and I know that 1 have a great future behind me and a great past in front of me. None the less, I appreciate his tender care.
      The nub of the matter is accountability. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to press the motion to a vote, but if he does we are minded to support it. We are concerned to have a lever whereby we can ensure the effective accountability of private security operatives. I long ago gave up seeking to penetrate the inner recesses of ministerial minds, but the Minister might say, "Ah,' tis implicit. No one is arguing that these people should be able to operate without let or hindrance, with no requirement to be subject to scrutiny or assessment."
      It is certainly the case that the granting of a licence to operate in the private security industry is not a blank cheque. For example, if an operative conducts himself inefficiently, or worse, is guilty of malfeasance or corruption, he is likely to be deprived of that licence. These matters were touched on briefly in Committee and I am well aware that the fact that someone is a licensed operative does not mean that he or she will always remain so, but the right hon. Gentleman has usefully highlighted what I might call the issue of transparency or, if I dare use a late 1980s term, glasnost.
      I am an enthusiast for glasnost. Are we to know that there is a procedure for complaints? Will there be a procedure for public complaints? Will someone who is genuinely dissatisfied with or anxious about the performance of an operative's duties be able to go to the authority and express both the fact of and the grounds for that anxiety or dissatisfaction?
      There is an analogy with the police complaints procedure. I am an enthusiast for the police, as Conservative Members are on almost all occasions and as Labour Members are periodically. There would be
      34
      consensus in the House on the importance of having a complaints procedure, of its being clear and transparent and of people having the maximum opportunity to know about it and be able to use it.
      We are talking about an embryonic regulatory regime that is being instituted very late in the day compared with those that are already up and running in other countries. People should know what their entitlements are.
      I have not discussed new clause 4 with the right hon. Gentleman but I have read it several times, and his simple purpose seems to be to let people know that there is a chance to complain, to explain how they can do so and to guarantee that there is a more or less approved, regular and satisfactory method investigating those complaints. I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman any further than I have already done, but in this context, as I have had reason often to observe in others, the point that he makes is so blindingly obvious and sensible that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it.
      The Minister is an extraordinarily clever person. He is very important, very senior and very industrious, assiduous and ambitious—a man with many commitments and a full diary. I do not doubt that he will want to explain either why he agrees with the right hon. Gentleman and say that it was merely an occasional slip of memory that prevented him from including such a provision originally, or why, despite his brilliance, assiduity, dexterity and ambition, he is unwise enough to disagree with his senior colleague.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by saying that his kind remarks will not be included in my election address, despite the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). There is an oleaginous quality to the hon. Gentleman that would not convince the discerning electors of Norwich, South to give weight to his judgment on such matters.
      Mr. Bercow: I am genuinely taken aback by the Minister's comments. I do not want to prolong this exchange, Mr. Speaker, because you might become restive, and we do not want that to happen, but what I said in all seriousness about the right hon. Gentleman's expertise was very sincerely meant. I have long been an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman—frankly, since I came out of short trousers and observed politics from 1980 onwards. I am a trifle taken aback by what the Minister has said because although I have periodically been accused—unfairly, but I make no complaint—by Ministers and other Labour Members of being obnoxious, I have never been accused of being oleaginous.
      Mr. Clarke: I was commenting on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about me. I completely accept that his comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South were made in all seriousness. Indeed, I was going to make the same remark. Neither the House nor the Committee has been bored at any stage by my right hon. Friend's contributions because, in almost all circumstances, they have brought light to our proceedings. I say that genuinely, and he should not feel that he has bored anyone in any way.

      35
      I want to say a word about the missing half loaf that my right hon. Friend mentioned. I support Norwich City football club and am one of its season ticket holders. I take my cooking advice from Delia Smith, who is the catering secretary of a small organisation called Canaries at Westminster, which supports Norwich City football club. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on cooking, and I think that he would agree that the missing half loaf in his assessment of the Bill falls into two categories.
      One category is made up of the areas of genuine disagreement between himself and the Government about exactly how far and how fast to proceed. Such matters include, for example, which sectors of the industry should be regulated and which should not, and at what time, and some aspects of the regulatory regime, such as whether the industry should be regulated through a quango or directly. However, those genuine disagreements have been more about pace than about direction.
      The other missing quarter of the loaf is made up of things that are implicit in the Bill, but are not made explicit. I suggest that new clause 4 deals with that aspect of the proposals, rather than with any difference of opinion, such as those that we have discussed in Committee, because we accept that the effective discharge of the authority's duties to license only fit and proper persons will inevitably mean that it will need to establish an effective complaints procedure against licence holders and/or approved contractors.
      The authority will need to be able to listen to, and investigate complaints made against, anyone who seeks a licence in the first place, or who seeks to renew a licence. The views of the public and customers will be important in that regard. More widely, the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation in general will again mean that it will need to keep its ear close to the ground so as to find out exactly how the legislation is operating. A complaints mechanism—and, indeed, a wider vehicle for other types of public comment, not just complaints—will be an important and necessary contribution to the authority's discharge of all those responsibilities.
      The authority, like any other effective public body, will need to establish a complaints procedure for matters within its remit. I can give an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South that the Government will build such a complaints procedure into planning to establish the authority. Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event—so unlikely that it is not foreseeable—that an appropriate complaints mechanism were not set up by the authority, the Secretary of State could direct the authority under the provisions of clause 2 to establish one. I give an assurance on behalf of this Government—and the hon. Member for Buckingham implied the same on behalf of the Opposition—that such a direction would be issued by Government in such a case.
      In keeping with the framework approach that we have adopted with the legislation, we do not, however, consider it necessary for such a requirement to appear in the Bill. It is important, but, as we discussed in Committee,
      36
      our approach has been to focus on the outcomes that we want from the authority, rather than to over-prescribe the precise means by which they may be achieved.
      Mr. Bercow: I think that we have had an assurance that the complaints procedure will apply all the time, and not only within the time-limited periods in which somebody is either applying for a licence or seeking renewal of it, but will the Minister confirm that he has ideas in mind for developing the complaints procedure, culled from the practice of other professional services? Can he offer us some inkling of those ideas?
      Mr. Clarke: I can give the general assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks that the complaints process will cover the range of complaints that could arise. We do not have in our back pock a particular form for that process, but it will be culled from the best practice of similar national bodies to try to establish the best form for the complaints regime.
      I urge my right hon Friend to consider withdrawing his new clause. I give him the assurance that this Government will build a complaints procedure into our plans for establishing the authority. In the unlikely event that the authority does not establish an appropriate mechanism, the Secretary of State will be ready to direct it, under the provisions of clause 2, to establish such a procedure. To use even warmer words, I might say that we do not believe that such an authority could operate at all unless it operated an effective complaints procedure.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Bruce George: I noted a slight altercation between my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I would have liked to join in, but oleaginous is not a word that I use regularly. I have been called many things but never that by my constituents, and I suspect that most of them are as oblivious of the etymology of that word as I am. I shall look it up and if it is so abusive I shall belatedly come to the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
      Once an election has been called is not the best time to become a rebel, and I do not propose to divide the House. I have received assurances on the main points, although I remain sceptical about some earlier promises. The Minister will go on to higher things—I shall not say better things, because looking after the private security industry is a noble task. I certainly accept his assurances. I apologise for the slight error in the new clause; as the hon. Member for Buckingham pointed out, his knowledge of the English language is greater than mine—he actually knows what oleaginous means. Subsection (c) should state that the
      "contractor has been guilty of negligence or misconduct in the course of which the operative or approved contractor is licensed or approved."
      I hope that the record is clear.
      With the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      REGULATION HARMONISATION COMMITTEE
      'The Authority shall establish a regulation harmonisation committee with representatives from government departments and other relevant bodies for the purpose of developing and harmonising security standards.'.—[Mr. Bruce George]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is my second and final proposed change to the Bill. Under the new clause:
      "The Authority shall establish a regulation harmonisation committee with representatives from government departments and other relevant bodies".
      In a similar proposal that was not selected for debate in the Standing Committee, I used the phrase "liaison committee". As I am a member of the Select Committee on Liaison, perhaps that was not the ideal wording. Perhaps the Liaison Committee would have thought that additional functions would be bestowed on it. I meant no confusion.
      In the less than eight minutes available for my speech, I hope that my reason for proposing the new clause will be obvious. I have often been guilty of arguing that the private security industry—unlike almost every other industry in the world—is wholly unregulated and unaccountable. Strictly, that was and is true, as other people have also pointed out. However, the security industry is enormous, and only some of it has been brought within the orbit of this Bill. As much of the industry is outside as is inside—that is one of the main deficiencies of the measure.
      Even more obvious to me, however, is the fact that a vast sector of the private security "industry" falls within the scope of the public sector. For example, probably as many people are engaged in physical guarding, investigation, installation and monitoring of equipment and information security in Departments, Government agencies and local government as in the private sector. An enormous number of public sector personnel have job descriptions almost identical to those in the sectors of private security that will eventually be covered by the measure.
      In many countries, the public sector is subject to the same regulatory standards as the private sector. In all honesty, therefore, one must realise that the security industry is well entrenched in the public sector. The reality is that the Government regulate their own areas of competence extremely well; they look after the private security in their own orbit quite well. However, that does not mean that they are good payers. Until recently, some of the worst paid personnel in private security were employed in Departments.
      Furthermore, I certainly would not argue with anyone who believes that security in the museum and art gallery sectors, for example, is infinitely superior to that in other sectors. I had a good friend who was consultant. Despite my frequent protestations and pleadings for him to divulge the contents of a research project that he undertook on a particular museum. he would not go into any detail. However, he told me that the situation was truly appalling. He briefly mentioned that more people were engaged in guarding the museum, which is enclosed
      38
      and closed for half the day, than there are policemen in my constituency or, indeed, the three constituencies that cover Walsall. He took the full secret to his grave.
      I am not arguing that outside the private sector the activities that come within the scope of central and local government are infinitely better regulated. However, in some cases they are. Departments have tried to save for themselves precautions to prevent them from being open to the same criticism as the private sector. That sounds contradictory, but it is true. The Home Office has established statutory and mandatory standards. The privatisation of prisons and prison escorts was implemented alongside a tough regulatory framework set up by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The standards of security in prisons are high, despite bad publicity, and outside the scope of regulation. The Guard Dogs Act 1975 provided powers, some of which have not been implemented. The Home Office employs in-house and contract security guards, and the in-house sector is certainly regulated.
      The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has extensive statutory responsibilities for regulating security in respect of transport. The transport security division—Transec—is responsible for monitoring and enforcing regulations. Its role is to deliver secure public transport systems in accordance with United Kingdom legislation and international agreements, so all those people who fall within the scope of the Department's remit, such as the guards at Heathrow or Gatwick, are clearly subject to strict control and regulation. When I made a close study of Ministry of Defence security, I discovered that its police and guard service employ a variety of private security companies, so it, too, applies strong regulatory standards.
      The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for much activity within the public and private sectors. Guidelines on leisure and entertainment are produced by Departments. They set the norms and are mandated in sports ground licences, safety certificates, occasional licences and contracts. The Department of Health, which has responsibility for a vast number of hospitals and other institutions, has laid down clear standards for the hiring of private security staff.
      We should consider the role of central Government as a whole. Although I have not tabled parliamentary questions since the 1994–95 Session, it is possible to make a rough calculation based on the figures that were given for those years. I asked how much Departments had spent on security agencies, contract guards, in-house guards, private investigators, in-house investigators, security consultants and the purchase of security equipment. In 1994–95, the total cost of Departments' spending on private security and security agencies was more than £337 million.
      Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Home Office plays an enormous role in funding closed circuit television and neighbourhood or community wardens—four such schemes have been funded in my area. It takes 20 days to train a community warden, and that training is infinitely superior to that carried out by almost any private security company. Organisations in central Government—such as the DETR. those in Northern Ireland, and nuclear and defence establishments—employ private security personnel according to different standards.

      39
      However, a variety of voluntary standards have been influenced by the Government. For example, the British Standards Institution, Securicor, the Security Industry Training Authority and the International Institution of Security all have different regulatory standards that apply to personnel and to equipment. Hovering in the background—too often, it comes into the foreground—is the better regulation taskforce and it, along with the other organisations, has an influence on security issues.
      My new clause is designed to give the Home Office and the regulatory authorities food for thought. I wish to make it clear that they deal with just one part of the private security industry. Other Departments have regulatory authority, and other standards—albeit voluntary—apply particularly to security equipment. I suggest to the regulatory authorities that there should be a committee or some form of grand summit—that may sound rather pompous—that involves the Home Office, regulatory authorities, local government associations and other Departments. The aim should not be to standardise procedures, because that is not possible. However, we should at least try to make the different sectors of the security industry—contract, in-house and those within and without the scope of regulation—aware of what the others are doing through a regular exchange of information.
      If my hon. Friend the Minister shocks us all by accepting the new clause, I hope that the Home Office and other Departments will give serious consideration to the practices of a whole range of bodies, many of which I have not mentioned. Although harmonisation is not feasible, we should at least ensure that the guards employed directly by the Home Office or the Foreign Office are subject to similar standards. Consultation is important, and much of the industry will fall outside the regulations. Therefore, the influence of the public sector is important in ensuring that the different organisations meet each other with the aim of achieving a greater degree of commonality than has hitherto existed.
      I do not know whether I have spoken for more than 10 minutes, and apologise if I have. None the less, I have pleasure in moving the new clause.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Bercow: I am not certain whether the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has got it right in new clause 5. I have not reached a conclusion on that point, but it is important for right hon. and hon. Members to understand the gravamen of his concern which, I believe, he highlighted on Second Reading initially, and certainly in the enjoyable and stimulating debates that we had in Committee.
      The right hon. Gentleman is concerned that, either by an error of commission or—more likely, I suspect, if we follow what might be described as the cock-up theory—by error of omission, the Government may not provide a consistent regulatory framework. The principle of consistency and commonality has run through his contributions on that point. Whether one is an advocate of big or, to put it another way, heavy regulation of the private security industry or, by contrast, an advocate of small regulation or what might be called the light-touch approach, one can nevertheless form an alliance, which may even be an unholy alliance, in support of a consistent approach.
      40
      I do not mind conceding to the House that I am a little worried by the reference in the right hon. Gentleman's new clause to "a regulation harmonisation committee", not because I suspect his motives but because I am suspicious of committees. That is the reality of the matter; I am a little alarmed about a new committee emerging. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's best endeavours to ensure the contrary, a committee under the tutelage of the Minister would be pregnant with peril. My anxiety on that point is not intense, because I do not expect the Minister to chair any committee in the near future in a ministerial capacity, but there is an inherent tendency for regulation, once established, to increase.
      I am sure that it will not have escaped your beady eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the debate that we had a few moments ago, I referred to the potential for read-across between the new clauses and other pieces of legislation that the House has digested on previous occasions. To explain my point about regulation, I should like to pray in aid the wise words of my noble Friend Lord Biffen who, over many years, has uttered many wise words on many subjects.
      When I was taking my A-levels in 1981, I well recall that the then Chief Secretary and right hon. Member for Oswestry—as John Biffen then was—lamented publicly the difficulty of controlling public expenditure and said:
      "You have to run very fast to stand still."
      There is an analogy with regulation: to keep regulation at a reasonable level at which it is effective, but not burdensome, discipline; and fixity of purpose are required. I—and, I very much hope, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South—do not want a committee to have the ambition to increase regulation exponentially. If the committee had a tightly defined remit—I would be more confident if its remit were drafted by the right hon. Member for Walsall South than by the Minister of State—which was confined to consistency between one sector of the private security industry and another, that might augur well and my initial scepticism about the committee might be reconsidered. However, we do not know—although I imagine that we shall shortly discover—whether the Minister of State has any enthusiasm for the right hon. Gentleman's proposed harmonisation committee.
      We need to touch briefly on a number of issues because they are conceptually different from each other and should be treated separately. The first is the form of the regulation—I was tempted to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on this, but I was enjoying his speech so much that I decided not to—and the procedures that govern the regulation of one sector of the private security industry and another. I was anxious to discover whether the kernel of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was a worry about inconsistent practice and procedure between one sector and another, and that some sectors of the industry would be more rigorously scrutinised and held to account than others.
      A separate, but no less significant, issue is whether there would be more exacting training requirements in one sector than in another. There is a stronger argument for absolute consistency in relation to the issue about form than there is in relation to standards of training or qualification. The reason is obvious. Whether we are regulating the work of man guards—or, for the edification of the politically correct classes, perhaps I should say

      41
      person guards—or are concerned with those who are engaged, through their private security work, in intelligence gathering, the principle that there should be clear procedures before deciding whether someone is bona fide, and legitimate and should be granted a licence should, presumably, be the same. The procedures need to be rigorous, whether we are talking about licensing person guards, their supervisors or those engaged in the important business of gathering intelligence.
      I hope that the Minister will accept that things are different when it comes to training requirements. In short, the jobs are very different. The nature and, arguably, the level of skills required for the performance of one function relative to those required for the performance of another are substantially different. I do not believe that the training systems can be the same because the training will be different, and of a different duration. It may be provided by people who on the strength of their experience are expert in one aspect of the private security industry, but not in another. However, there is the principle—I may have been overly pedantic, as this is probably what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—that there should be a system of training requirement, and that it should not be voluntary. It should be obligatory and apply to everyone who wants to enter the sector or to stay in it.
      If someone working in the private security industry in its unregulated form is an effective operative but has no formal qualification, that individual might be offended by any suggestion that he or she is not suitable to perform the duties that he or she is performing under contract. Nevertheless, that individual is not performing the job on the strength of any professional or other qualification, for the simple reason that he or she has never been required to obtain such a qualification. Presumably, whether or not the Bill is amended, it will be obligatory for existing operatives to acquire the qualifications that we are about to insist that new entrants should acquire. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister of State on that point.
      Such an approach might be burdensome for people who already work in the industry, but it would be consistent with the letter and spirit of the new clause and would at least prevent the existence of two categories of citizen. It would ensure not only what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is inclined to call equality of esteem, but equality of treatment. We would be making it clear that everybody who works in the sector must measure up to the standards. It may be an entirely prosaic matter for a very experienced operative briefly to take the relevant course and examinations, to acquire the certificate and to wear the tee-shirt to say that he or she has done so. Nevertheless, the certainty that existing operatives have acquired the qualifications that their new counterparts will be obliged to gain as a precondition of service is likely to he central to the achievement and retention of confidence in the newly regulated industry.
      I have not the slightest idea what the Minister will say about the matter. I have expressed my natural apprehension about regulation and regulation harmonisation, and my even greater apprehension about a regulation harmonisation committee. The proposal seems a slightly suspect specimen, although I am ready to admit that it is much less suspect in the tender and competent hands of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South than it would be in
      42
      the hands of almost any other hon. Member. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, it should be said that the purpose that he has in mind is absolutely sound. The issue is this: does the Minister agree with that purpose and, if he does, does he think that the new clause is necessary? If the answer is yes to the first question, but no to the second, perhaps he would care to explain what I think he would describe in his inimitable terms as his preferred third way.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I was glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the definition provided by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) of equality of esteem. I am certain that, after the general election, there will be a debate on that subject in the Conservative party, between the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—the current Leader of the Opposition—and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), as they appeal for the ideological support of various bits of their party. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham is on the fence with regard to those various attractive propositions.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: He will go with the wind.
      Mr. Clarke: I doubt it. The hon. Gentleman is a rather oleaginous man, and oleaginous people do not go with the wind.
      On the central point of the new clause, I can answer the hon. Member for Buckingham positively. I recognise its aspiration and I welcome it with enthusiasm. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is right to raise the matter with which it deals. As a minor aside, he should acknowledge that one of the ambitions of the better regulation taskforce, which has its pluses and minuses in his lexicon, is to achieve a more harmonised regulatory regime, with a view to lifting burdens from small business in particular. That is important where inappropriate regulation as a result of years of legislation introduced by Governments of all parties has imposed burdens that might be inappropriate for particular firms, industries and so on. Harmonisation—perhaps "simplification" is an even better word—is an important and worthy aspiration for the Government and I can enthusiastically endorse that aspect of my right hon. Friend's approach.
      However, the new clause falls into the category of the quarter loaf that I described earlier. There is no fundamental difference of approach between my right hon. Friend and me, but we must consider how to deal with the matter in the context of the Bill. The Security Industry Authority is being established as the central and authoritative regulatory body for the industry and will be given a number of specific and important remits to discharge. To respond to the specific point that the hon. Member for Buckingham made, every organisation that the authority regulates will be obliged to adhere to its standards. That is the right way in which to proceed. To carry out its remit effectively, the authority will need fully to consult all interested parties throughout the industry while preserving its authority and independence. That is axiomatic to our thinking.

      43
      5 pm
      The industry will be one of the prime sources of intelligence for the authority. However, there are also several other stakeholders to whom it will listen. They include the police, local authorities, customers, employees of the industry, and other public bodies and Departments.
      Mr. Bercow: The Minister has reassured me that the Bill will require all existing and new operatives to be suitably qualified, and I am grateful for that. Nevertheless, he also said that he wanted to minimise burdens on business when possible. In the spirit of marrying those twin, equally important objectives, perhaps we should provide an opportunity for existing operatives to acquire the relevant qualifications by short-circuited means. It is possible to take a crash course—it is an unfortunate term in relation to driving—of lessons to qualify to drive. Would the Minister therefore admit of the possibility that existing operatives could acquire the standard and gain the qualification through an intensive course over a shorter period, rather than a more leisurely course over a longer period?
      Mr. Clarke: I admit of the possibility, but I do not envisage things being as the hon. Gentleman describes them. As everyone involved in change management knows, managing change from the status quo to the required desirable state is one of the most difficult tasks. It is difficult for any organisation, including a regulatory organisation, such as the SIA when it is established, to achieve. I cannot predict specific paths or educational courses for the change from the status quo to the future, regulated state.
      However, when the authority determines its regime for facilitating the change, it is right for it to take account of the fact that many people who currently work in the industry have not had the opportunity to gain the qualifications to which the hon. Gentleman refers. An overnight transformation in such circumstances would therefore be ridiculous. Such matters are all part and parcel of the art of making the change, which the new authority must tackle. That is one reason for the importance of conducting wide consultation. The board that we have discussed will comprise a range of interests that will enable the authority to operate sensitively.
      Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 allows the authority to establish specialist advisory committees to help it in its work. That is another important means of establishing a regime. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South knows, we have taken the consistent view that we should not specify at this stage that committee X is right and committee Y is wrong, or that it is right to establish committees A, B, C, but wrong to set up committees D, E and F. That must be a matter for the authority. That is the only reason for urging my right hon. Friend to withdraw the motion.
      New clause 5 would require the establishment of a specific committee. Clause 1(2)(e) places a general duty on the authority
      "to set or approve standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision".
      We believe that it is better to focus on outcome rather than to prescribe in detail the precise bureaucratic structure—I do not use "bureaucratic" pejoratively—for achieving those ends.
      44
      I am enthusiastic about a properly harmonised regulatory regime. I believe that we should move towards universality in the way my right hon. Friend suggests. However, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe in the Bill the precise regime for achieving that. We should allow the authority to determine that, in consultation with all the relevant parties. On that basis, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider withdrawing the motion.
      Mr. Bruce George: I realise that I should have contacted the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) earlier, because his knowledge of the English language is clearly infinitely superior to mine. The words "liaison committee", which I used in an earlier amendment, might have been better for this purpose. Perhaps I should have stuck to that choice, rather than using the word "harmonisation", which has connotations in relation to Europe and the dislike of anything associated with it.
      The new clause is not an attempt to create homogeneity inside and outside the areas to be regulated. I merely wished to make it obvious that the world of private security is infinitely more diverse and complicated than the Bill suggests. I wanted to introduce food for thought and raise awareness in the SIA, which I hope will be enlarged, that it does not encompass the totality of the private security industry.
      Because we are part of the European Union, and because existing EU directives and other forms of instructions apply to this country as well as to other member states, there will have to be a degree of harmonisation—as there is already—between the standards in our security industry and standards elsewhere, not necessarily in terms of the Bill, but in terms of training standards, for example. I gave a number of examples of that earlier. The security industry that is to be regulated in this country is therefore part of a larger jigsaw.
      I have jotted down the areas covered by private security and by security and community safety in local authorities, in relation to the arrangements pertaining before and after the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In Walsall, for example, we have market security for the mediaeval market; an art gallery that might be subject to the legislation; and significant benefit fraud investigations, as does every local authority. Our trading standards department operates according to many of the standards of policing and of private security. It investigates crime and counterfeiting, exactly as the private security industry can do, and its staff has the power to kick down doors, which is more than the police or, certainly, the private security industry have. Because of the way in which that department operates, therefore, it is partly private security and partly police.
      Local authorities such as Walsall have education security and housing security. We also have architectural liaison officers, because the Home Office has inculcated a set of attitudes relating to security by design. Most local authorities have community safety departments—Walsall certainly does—and risk assessment units linked to insurance, which advise the local authority on how to minimise risk. That can involve building fences and installing alarms, which, in a way, pertain to some of the responsibilities of the private security industry.
      I presume that every local authority has parks—with what used to be called parkies when I was a kid and what might be now called park rangers—and facilities

      45
      management services. They have a whole list of facilities that might pertain to private security. I had a long list from the Minister of the projects funded by his Department on risk reduction in community protection, of the vast amounts of funds going into drugs awareness and of what is being done to reduce drug dependency. I hope to have a parliamentary answer shortly to my question about the money provided by other Departments for regeneration. That package contains elements relating to security, including private security.
      Focusing on one local authority, Walsall borough council—albeit relatively briefly—reveals a bundle of functions within an authority's competence that are somewhere between policing and private security, both before and after the Crime and Disorder Act. I wanted to broaden the horizons of the regulatory authority, and make it realise that there was a world of security outside its scope. I did not wish to lay down communal standards: investigation of art thefts is clearly different from investigation of benefit fraud.
      Standards cannot be uniform, but it is to be hoped that if different organisations are aware of the nature of private security—and of Government security that looks like private security—best practice will be disseminated from one sector to the other without the imposition of rigid standards. Perhaps reading the record of our debate will at least encourage the regulatory authority to commission research, and give it some ideas about how to operate. Even if no amendments are accepted, we shall have stimulated discussion. I hope that much of what has been said will percolate into the new authority, whose conduct and operations I shall observe with enormous interest.
      Having received some assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      CONDUCT PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENCE
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 5l, at end insert—
      '(3A) Before making an order under subsection (3) which designates any of the activities specified it paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, which relate to the security of information which is held in electronic form, the Secretary of State sha11 lay a certificate before each House of Parliament stating that in his opinion the order complies with the provisions of European Directive 2000/31/EC (on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in schedule 2, page 28, line 17, at end insert—
      '(5) This paragraph does not apply to the giving of advice in relation to the security of information which is held in electronic form.'.
      Mr. Hawkins: Amendment No. 3 would require the Secretary of State, when introducing regulation of the information technology security sector, to state specifically that doing so does not conflict with the European directive on e-commerce. The issue, which we raised more than once in Commitee, relates to many concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and others about whether regulation of the IT
      46
      security industry would conflict with the directive, which is designed to ensure a level playing field for the IT industry throughout Europe.
      On 26 April, in response to the concerns that we had raised, the Minister said in Committee:
      "I was aware of the directive in general, but not in detail, and if I have any further thoughts on its implications I will comment in the debate on schedule 2."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 26 April 2001: c.146.]
      As the Minister will recall, when we came to debate schedule 2, time was extremely short, owing to the operation of the Government's programme. The Minister therefore made no further reference to the directive. We shall press him to do so today, but in the meantime yet further serious concerns have been raised.
      As recently as today, I have read the views of the important and influential group that was so involved in drawing attention to the Government's defects in connection with IR35. The Professional Contractors Group—the contractors' industry body, one of whose leading members happens to be a constituent of mine—says:
      "We're very aware of this piece of legislation and understand that it is not intended to target IT contractors … We would he very surprised if the government attempted to bring IT contractors within the scope of this legislation. If they did we would object to it."
      More significantly still, the Professional Contractors Group goes on to say:
      "Any government that talks about being joined-up but wants to treat a 21st century industry in the same simplistic way as its approach towards wheel-clampers and getting drunks out of bars effectively is not taking the IT industry seriously, and is making a mistake."
      Mr. Caspar Bowden, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, said:
      "If the Home Office has no intention of wading into this area, why not grant an amendment?"
      5.15 pm
      The Government are in trouble over this issue. On 26 April, when he was responding to our initial debate in Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that, while sitting on a train, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had been badgered about the very obvious conflict between the European directive—to which the Government, in the form of the Department of Trade and Industry, have signed up—and this legislation. However, although the Government have accidentally caught the information technology industry in the Bill, they have thus far been very reluctant to acknowledge their mistake and to do something about it.
      Chapter II, article 4 of the directive is very specific. It states:
      "Member States shall ensure that the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider may not be made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect."
      The directive specifically states that the provider "may not" be made subject to those matters, and its provisions are mandatory. Moreover, the directive—to which the Government have signed up the United Kingdom—is due to come into effect in February 2002. However, the CBI has made it clear that the Government's proposals in the Bill to require licensing of the information security industry—which is of course a key information society

      47
      service—would be directly contrary to the electronic commerce directive. Very fairly, in responding to our debate on 26 April, the Minister did not for a moment suggest that he could positively state that the provisions and the directive were not in conflict. Indeed, it had all quite clearly taken him by surprise.
      A requirement, as proposed in the Bill, for members of the information security industry to obtain licences from a regulatory authority to enable them to operate clearly would constitute requiring "prior authorisation", thereby directly contravening the directive. That article of the directive is intended, among other things, to prevent member states from introducing regulation that would stem the much-needed supply of information technology professionals. The directive is therefore intended to prevent member states from doing precisely what the Government have been seeking to do—albeit perhaps initially by accident—in the Bill. As the provision is still in the Bill, we have tabled and moved our amendment to deal with that concern.
      The CBI has also pointed out that, when considering the conflict between the electronic commerce directive and the legislation, consideration should be given also to article 3 of the electronic commerce directive, which aims to free up the internal market for information society services by requiring member states to avoid any measures that might
      "restrict the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State."
      As the CBI has pointed out, regulating the information security industry in the United Kingdom would be very difficult to do without putting practitioners outside the United Kingdom at a disadvantage—which would obviously contravene article 3 of the directive.
      When we raised the issue on 26 April, there was no doubt that the Home Office had not had an opportunity fully to consider the matter. However, the Minister promised that he and his officials would do so. We shall look with interest to see whether they have done so. Nevertheless, those who are commenting on our debates—particularly, as I said in Committee, the journalists on Computer Weekly—are describing the issue, as last Friday's Computer Weekly headline did, as the
      "Last chance to prevent licensing threat to IT consultants".
      Mr. Miller: Come on.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the learned editors of Computer Weekly, but I think that I prefer their expert judgment to his sedentary comment.
      Our amendment No. 2 would go further than amendment No. 3 by entirely excluding IT security consultants from the legislation. We say that given the botched nature of the consultation and the hurried way in which the Government have conducted all their dealings in respect of this legislation, the Minister and his officials should ask themselves whether the IT security sector should be included in the Bill at this stage. If the Minister wants to include it after the Bill is enacted, he can always do so by way of amending schedule 2 through a regulation taken under the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that there was proper parliamentary
      48
      scrutiny. We expect to hear some very firm answers from the Minister today. The IT security consultants will look very carefully at the Government's response.
      The sector is one of our success stories. I know that from my experience prior to entering the House in 1992 and from the growth in IT security since then. I used to deal with those involved in IT security in financial services and banking and I know that it has been a UK success story. Our IT security consultants are regarded as among the most skilful and best in the world. We do not want the Government to damage their future opportunities, particularly through carelessness and inadvertence. If the Minister gets this wrong, he will be under huge pressure. The Government have already given themselves one self-inflicted wound over 1R35 and destroyed a great deal of their credibility with consultants in the IT field. Labour Members know that perfectly well. The Government have, suffered huge embarrassment over IR35 and it is no doubt one reason why they will lose the general election. However, I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Minister will concede that our amendments Nos. 3 or 2 would improve the matter dramatically and we look forward to hearing whether the hon. Gentleman will at long last see sense on this very important matter.
      Mr. Miller: I want briefly to respond to a couple of points that were made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—via Blackpool—(Mr. Hawkins). This afternoon we have already identified the fact that definitions are rather difficult. Indeed, we have discussed whether or not the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is oleaginous, but I will not get drawn down that route. I tried to make this point right at the end of our proceedings in Committee, at column 229 on 1 May, but unfortunately owing to the timetable of our proceedings I was cut short in my prime. Let me try again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.
      It is not that there is no problem. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to identify the problem, but he failed to point out the fact that the Minister has offered a solution. The hon. Gentleman needs to respond to Caspar Bowden, Computer Weekly, the Confederation of British Industry and others, is I have responded to people who have contacted me, that the solution lies in secondary legislation.
      Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why his amendment fails badly and would severely damage the Bill. Let me say, in the spirit of the way in which the Committee was conducted, that there is broad cross-party agreement on the principles behind the Bill, but amendment No.2 includes the phrase "held in electronic form". That must refer both to the intellectual property that is digitalised and held in electronic form and to the physical medium. It is impossible to separate the two. The amendment must therefore refer to both.
      If the amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to distinguish between companies that should be regulated and companies that need not fall within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, it could possibly mean that provision of security to a firm with a computer—and that would cover an awful lot of firms—would not require a licence under the Bill. Clearly, that is not the intention and I accept that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not trying to wreck the Bill, but the logic of his position is flawed.

      49
      It is right to draw attention to the problem, but the solution is obvious and was presented to the Standing Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will restate that solution when he responds to the debate, and thereby put at rest the minds of the many people in the computer industry with whom I have close contact. It is wrong to try to instil fear in an important sector of the industry with a scare story such as this.
      I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment, which could damage the spirit of the Bill. Debate should turn to the extremely difficult question of defining, in the context of this Bill and of future legislation, the difference between the medium in which data are held and the information itself. That matter will crop up in many debates in the next Parliament. However, I am sure that the Opposition by that time will have a new leader, and that the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be supporting a new tone of Toryism.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for not being here for his opening remarks, although I did manage to hear them. The announcement of the dissolution of Parliament meant that I was trying to organise Home Office business with the Government and the two Houses of Parliament.
      I shall be brief. I agree that we must uphold and develop Britain's e-commerce industry and information technology sector. We must not frighten people in the sector, or allow unfair regulations and controls to drive the industry out of the country at a time when it is doing well. We must be careful that we do not legislate in part and in haste, and repent much more fully and at leisure.
      Liberal Democrat Members share the Government's view that it would be wrong for the Bill to sweep in and regulate the information technology and e-commerce sectors. Some issues cannot easily be accommodated in the context of a regulatory system, even if that is an opt-in system. Those issues arise from the legislation covering data protection and the regulation of investigatory powers, which have been dealt with in other Bills.
      We need to understand the Home Office's approach to this matter, and the relevance of the interests that other Departments—such as the Department of Trade and Industry—have in it. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said earlier that we need proper harmonisation and co-ordination to avoid sending the wrong signal by legislating unwisely.
      If I thought that there was a clear doubt about the subject—and if I had not been satisfied by the Minister's assurances—I would be sympathetic to the amendment. The Conservative party is perfectly right to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and I disagree only to this extent; I do not think that the Conservatives are unfairly raising an issue, and they are not frightening people It is perfectly proper to raise the issue and to get the position on the record. We always need a balance in this place between getting certainty in legislation on the one hand and not making legislation so long that every eventuality is covered on the other.
      I understand and sympathise with the genesis of the Conservative proposals, but I am relieved to say that they are not necessary. The Bill adequately deals with the
      50
      issue. I will be keen to hear the Minister confirm, as he did in Committee, that the Government are not excluding the IT industry from their consideration and that it is on the agenda. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will make sure that there are no adverse consequences of early action?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Bercow: That is a veritable masterpiece, even by the high standards that the hon. Gentleman has set over a long period. [Interruption.] The Minister of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious effect. It is welcome to have the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey's reassurance about the good intentions of the Conservative party in this matter, but his speech has highlighted the problem. He says that he agrees with the Government that it is not intended to regulate the IT sector-but that is precisely the point. There is an apparent disparity—in the intention and, so far, in expressed words—between the stance of the Home Office on the one hand and that of the DTI on the other. It is about that that we are arguing.
      Mr. Hughes: In amendment No. 2, the Conservatives are seeking to exclude for all time from the Bill advice in relation to security and information that is held in electronic form. The Government have said that the Bill is a rolling programme; this is a framework Bill. It is not compulsory, and people can opt into it. Some of us have argued that the Bill should have been compulsory for some sectors. I also understand that sectors move quickly. The Minister will know that I have concerns about accountancy firms that were not doing security work at all but now are and which have fallen within the remit of the Bill.
      The central criticism of the amendment is that it shuts the door for all time on the matter. That is not reasonable. If an appropriate agreement can be made, there is logic in having everybody who does security work included. No matter which party is in power following the 7 June election, nobody will suddenly sweep the IT industry into the regulations. We have had a perfectly proper debate about an important sector. We may not need to include this type of information in legislation. If we do, we ought to try to identify all the relevant sectors. We would then have a great list in the legislation, and that is not necessary.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: In broad terms, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because their analysis is correct. I am looking forward to fighting the general election campaign if the Leader of the Opposition chooses IR35 as the slogan behind which he hopes to unite Conservative voters throughout the country so as to sweep the Conservatives to power.
      As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, it is reasonable to raise the issue addressed in the amendments. However, the case is not strengthened by arguing that it is on a par with the fixed penalty notice debate that we had on earlier legislation, and that was a trivial point made by the individual who argued the case to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Nor do I accept the adjectives that the hon. Gentleman used. The Bill is not careless, inadvertent,

      51
      botched or over-hasty, either in relation to the IT sector or more generally. The process, from consultation to White Paper to legislation, has allowed a wide contribution from wide interests to the crafting of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 3 requires any order designating as licensable conduct the activities of IT security consultants to be preceded by a certificate stating that the order complies with the electronic commerce directive 2000/31/EC, which is designed to ensure the free movement of information society services between EU member states. It relates to the provision of remunerated services at a distance by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. Services provided in the physical presence of the provider and recipient are not covered, even if they involve the use of electronic devices.
      Article III of the directive, about which I was questioned, is about the cross-border provision of information society services, and article IV prohibits the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider being made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect. Article IV does not apply, however, to prior authorisation schemes that are not specifically targeted at information society services, so it would be unlikely to affect the application of this Bill.
      Nevertheless, the Home Office would clearly need to consider very carefully the implications of the directive if it intended to introduce regulation of IT security consultants under the provisions of this Bill, but—and here I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—as we do not intend to, we will not have to address the issue in the way suggested by amendment No. 3.
      Amendment No. 2 is more substantive. We recognise that part of the information technology sector has been concerned about what application, if any, the Bill will have to it. Specifically, the sector is concerned that the Government want to regulate it under the Bill. We discussed the point in Committee at some length, and we said that the definition of "security consultant" used in schedule 2 is deliberately broad. That is because we want it to remain usable in the face of changing security systems, in particular those making use of technology. It is in that context that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston are right to say that we must draft the Bill and implement it in a way that is sensitive to how the industry may develop.
      The term "security consultant" means someone advising on
      "the taking of security precautions in relation to any risk to property or to the person".
      The licensing requirements under that definition will, as with all parts of the Bill, be brought into effect in due course by implementing regulations, and those regulations will need to specify exactly which security consultancy activities are licensable. Activities that are not specified will not be licensable.
      It is our fundamental principle to ensure that the Bill is targeted at those specialist providers of security services whom we have indicated we want to regulate, and that the provisions do not inadvertently catch groups that are not
      52
      relevant to our policy aims. I tried to put the position of IT security consultants in relation to the Bill beyond doubt on Second Reading and in Committee. In the light of the remarks made in Computer Weekly, I should like the IT industry to take careful note of what I said in Committee:
      "I should like it to be clear to the industry and the Committee that the information security consultancy industry is not under threat of licensing at a future date under this Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 May 2001; c. 230.]
      I made it clear that the Department of Trade and Industry will consult the IT industry on the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions and on whether further action is required. I look forward to seeing the results, because the Government believe that there are issues that need to bo explored in relation to confidence in the information security consultancy industry. The business has a vital role to play in protecting the new economy from vandalism and other forms of crime.
      Consideration of the Bill has started a valuable debate about how information security consultants may match or exceed the levels of confidence that the Bill will create for other security contractors. The Government's position is absolutely clear and the principles that we set out, of legislating with the industry following proper consultation on an evolving basis, are encapsulated in our approach to the IT security industry.
      The amendments are helpful in enabling us to elaborate and clarify an important area of concern, but I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw amendment No. 3, on the basis the assurances that I have given. I urge hon. Members not to follow those in the IT security industry who have used exaggerated language about the threat that the Bill might present to the e-business world. That world has absolutely nothing to fear from it.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am afraid that the Minister has not persuaded me and, far more importantly, has completely failed to persuade the experts at the Confederation of British Industry. He has repeated yet again that what he is offering is simply further consultation by his friends at the Department of Trade and Industry on the secondary legislation, but the CBI said:
      "Consultation on secondary legislation creates more problems, doesn't solve them. The proposal by the Home Office Minister, Charles Clarke MP, to have the DTI consult on licensing the industry does not help matters. It simply obliges the DTI to carry out a consultation in which all affected parties—the industry itself and its users—are likely to say that regulation is unnecessary. Given that there has been no demand for regulation in the first place, is this a worthwhile use of the DTI's and industry's time and resources?"
      The Minister said Mat we should not suggest that the industry got dragged into the Bill by inadvertence, but the CBI said:
      "Legislative accident, so no consultation:—The IT security industry has fallen under this legislation in an unexpected and accidental way, and this only became apparent during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords. Because of this, the IT security industry and its users had no participation in the consultation that led to the White Paper CM 4254 and the draft legislation itself."
      The Minister's two arguments have been comprehensively demolished by the leading experts.
      Mr. Clarke: I will not pursue all the hon. Gentleman's points. For clarification, in the event that a criminal individual or organisation sought to develop a presence in the IT security industry in order to undermine companies'

      53
      security, is he suggesting that there should be no process for looking into the people involved and no application of the general principle of the Bill?
      Mr. Hawkins: We are saying that there has been no demand for such regulation and that to use a blunt instrument that is intended to deal with the admitted abuses of cowboy wheelclampers and nightclub bouncers to hit a sophisticated e-business is quite wrong.
      The Government have recently been criticised for failing to take user interests into account in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
      Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: No, I have already given way to the Minister once and I am coming to an end.
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, accused the Opposition of indulging in scare stories, but I remind him and other hon. Members that the headlines are written not by us but by those experts in the industry who have considered the Committee proceedings and who have found the Minister's attempted reassurances in Committee and on Second Reading completely unconvincing. They do not think that the problem has gone away at all.
      5.45 pm
      I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for suggesting that they think that we were right to raise this issue, but we go further; we think that we are acting on behalf of one of the United Kingdom's most important industries. The Government have inappropriately used the blunt instrument of the Bill to try to hit a successful industry that was never intended to be caught, so I am determined to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 315.

      Division No. 204]

      [5.46 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Day, Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Flight, Howard

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fraser, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Garnier, Edward

      Butterfill, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Cash, William

      Gill, Christopher

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Green, Damian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Greenway, John

      Collins, Tim

      Grieve, Dominic

      54

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Paice, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Paterson, Owen

      Hayes, John

      Randall, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Horam, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Johnson Smith,

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Soames, Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spring, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Swayne, Desmond

      Leigh, Edward

      Syms, Robert

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Thompson, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Luff, Peter

      Trend, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Walter, Robert

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Whittingdale, John

      MacIean, Rt Hon David

      Wilkinson, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Madel, Sir David

      Yeo, Tim

      Maples, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mates, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Mr. James Gray.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Allan, Richard

      Burnett, John

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      (NE Fife)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Austin, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Bailey, Adrian

      Casale, Roger

      Ballard, Jackie

      Caton, Martin

      Banks, Tony

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clapham, Michael

      Battle, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Begg, Miss Anne

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Tony, (Northampton S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clelland, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann

      Best, Harold

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Colman, Tony

      Blackman, Liz

      Connarty, Michael

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Corston, Jean

      Borrow, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cranston, Ross

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Crausby, David

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Breed, Colin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Browne, Desmond

      55

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      (Copeland)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Davidson, Ian

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dismore, Andrew

      Joyce, Eric

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Drew, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Etherington, Bill

      Lammy, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Laxton, Bob

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Lepper, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Livsey, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foulkes, George

      Lock, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Galloway, George

      McCabe, Steve

      Gapes, Mike

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWilliam, John

      Gunnell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hain, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hanson, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Healey, John

      Maxton, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hendrick, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hill, Keith

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moore, Michael

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

      Hope, Phil

      (B'ham Yardley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mountford, Kali

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hurst, Alan

      Olner, Bill

      56

      O'Neill, Martin

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Öpik, Lembit

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stevenson, George

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pike, Peter L

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pope, Greg

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pound, Stephen

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Prentice, Ms Bridger (Lewisham E)

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Purchase, Ken

      (Dewsbury)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Timms, Stephen

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robertson, John

      Todd, Mark

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Touhig, Don

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Trickett, Jon

      Rogers, Allan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tyler, Paul

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tynan, Bill

      Salmond, Alex

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Salter, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sanders, Adrian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wareing, Robert N

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      (Swansea W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Ian Pearson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 12

      REGISTER OF LICENCES
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) (a) The Authority may, at the request of any person who holds a licence, remove the particulars specified in subsection (3)(b) from any copy of the register which is available for inspection by members of the public under subsection (4) if the following condition is satisfied.
      (b) The condition is that the Authority is satisfied that the availability for inspection by members of the public of particulars of the person's usual residential address creates, or (if the Authority were not to comply with the request) would be likely to create, a serious risk that he or a person who lives with him will be subjected to violence or intimidation.
      (c) Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted as allowing any person not to provide the Authority with any of the particulars required by subsection (3).'.

      57
      The amendment deals with 42an important concern, which we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, about the security of the details of people who are licensed by the new Security Industry Authority, which will be available for public inspection in the register that it maintains. We have repeatedly stressed the fact that there will be obvious difficulties for people who are engaged in sensitive security work, or who are night club bouncers or wheelclamping operatives, if they are placed at risk of grudge retaliation attacks by having their addresses made publicly available on a register that can be accessed through the internet. We recognise that disgruntled criminal elements could carry out revenge attacks.
      In the Committee's final sitting on 1 May, the Minister said that a similarly worded amendment might find favour with the Government. His approach has been constructive. He recognises that, sadly, links have been proven between more disreputable night club bouncers and the trade in illegal drugs. That world is heavily populated by criminal elements. I have raised with him more than once the possibility of attacks on people's homes if they are trading from their home address and it is published on the register. It is not hard to envisage the consequences of such an unpleasant attack, in which petrol is poured through someone's letterbox and set alight. We see that all too frequently in our towns and inner cities. In many of those tragic cases of criminal arson, people in the house have no connection with the subject of the grudge attack, and young children have been burned to death. That has always worried us, and I am glad chat the Minister has been sympathetic to the issues that we have raised.
      We drafted the amendment along the same lines as the measure that the Government included in the recent Criminal Justice and Police Bill on the security of company directors' addresses. It would set the same test, whereby the authority should be satisfied that there is a serious risk of violence or intimidation before an address is removed from the register. The issue is serious and we make no apology for returning to it. In the light of the Government's response to it in earlier debates, we hope that the Minister will take a positive approach and, perhaps even at this late stage, break the habit of a lifetime and accept an amendment from the official Opposition.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, shall be brief.
      The amendment deals with an important issue and, once again, we have to consider the difficulty of balancing interests. The Bill allows people to opt into a registration system for the security industry. When they register, they become part of the database of information that allows the consumer to discover the nature of the industry, who the owner of a company is and the details of prospective licensed security people. That proposal was debated in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and there has been no disagreement that it is a good thing, but we have to consider whether people should then be able to hide themselves once they have opted in. Although we are sympathetic to the idea, I want to flag up the need for consistency in Government policy.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was right to refer to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is before the other place. The ability of animal rights activists to get hold of the addresses of shareholders and company employees with a view to protesting has been debated. A separate debate has taken place on whether Members of Parliament should be able to conceal their
      58
      residential address, because some have been harassed or intimidated. Those arguments raise proper democratic issues. I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be entitled to conceal their residential address because it is important that the public know where their MPs live.
      I am more sympathetic to shareholders and people involved in companies that deal with animal experimentation. They do not stand for elected office and are not, in that sense, seeking to do a public job. The caveat is that we need two assurances before they, or people involved in the security industry, are able to conceal their addresses. First, a proper process must be in place to establish whether it is justified to keep them out of the public domain. Secondly, we need to protect people against the fiction of the corporate state. The reality is that to pursue the details of a registered company, it is necessary to go first to the register at Companies House to get its address. However, that might be only a post office box number, which simply receives post, or the head office of a set of companies, from which the company in question might not operate. Technically, the address is a link, but it might be a distraction because it does not get us any closer to the action.
      I shall be interested to discover where the Minister's sympathies lie. First, should the address be concealed only in exceptional circumstances, after proper authority has been applied, and when it can be challenged? Secondly, would there be protection against a fictitious or meaningless address being displayed? We are worried that people who opt into the registration system might try to opt out of giving their personal details so that the consumer, who might have a complaint about or an interest in the registration, is unable to track them down and obtain the necessary information.
      As a postscript, I want to refer to something that was raised in Committee. I do not know how many Charles Clarkes there are in England or how many Nick Hawkinses there are in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I think that the Minister might have been to a certain football ground in Norwich recently. I heard him utter an almost descanted, "There's only one Charles Clarke." I hope that I am allowed 10 seconds of self-indulgence to tell the House that I was on Millwall's terraces on Saturday when it won its last home game of the season 5-0 and took the second division championship. We made a similar chant, although in our case it was a collective "There's only one Millwall football club." That is certainly true, which some people have said is a good thing.
      My serious point is that there are many people with the same name. For example, a much more famous Simon Hughes is a very good cricketer, and I was honoured to speak at his benefit. If the residential address is removed, it may be difficult to track down the person who is registered as a licensed private security operative. Nothing will identify the one Charles Clarke, Nick Hawkins or John Bercow from the tens or hundreds of people who share the same name. We need a sensitive response, and I am not sure that removing the address from the register will solve all the problems.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: First, may I congratulate Millwall on its promotion to the first division? I assure the team of a very warm welcome when they come to Carrow road. Incidentally, there are more Clarkes in this

      59
      Parliament than any other name. We are divided only by the presence or absence of the letter "e". The superior clan, such as me, have an "e" and the less distinguished members of the family do not. [Interruption.] The surname of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has an "e" and he is a very distinguished Member of the House. We can only commiserate with those who do not have an "e" and regret their carelessness in losing it or their absent-mindedness in not having one in the first place.
      It is not entirely fair of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to chide me for not accepting amendments tabled by the official Opposition. I do not accept every amendment that they table, but I have a reasonable record in accepting their amendments to several Bills that have been considered this Session.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister confirm that the factual record will demonstrate—not least in relation to the passage of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001—that, although he did not accept any amendments from the official Opposition. by way of a face-saving alternative he accepted the gravamen of the amendments and introduced new clauses of his own at a later stage?
      Mr. Clarke: When we discussed the issues in Committee, I genuinely tried to do that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I shall ask my friend Mr. Mark Seddon—the hon. Gentleman's opponent at the general election—to pay the appropriate tribute to him when the opportunity arises. I have also accepted Opposition amendments straight off with whatever loss of face that may result for me. That is the right way for the House to consider such issues.
      The issue is serious and was discussed fully on Second Reading and in Committee. However, the best debate that I have attended on the subject took place in the Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill when we discussed animal rights activists. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the way in which he moved the amendment. There is common ground in the House on the need to deal with these issues properly.
      As I explained in Committee, the wording of clause 12(3)(b) makes it clear that the address to be published in the register is that
      "which satisfies the prescribed requirements".
      In prescribing the requirements for addresses that are entered in the register, the Secretary of State can take account of the personal safety concerns that lie behind the amendment.
      Our intention is that the regulations will require that, in the vast majority of cases, the address entered in the register should be the business address of the firm employing the security operative, or from which the operative works. Some security operatives work from home, so it may be necessary to require the home address to be included in the register, but—as we have said before—we are open to alternative suggestions. The important thing is for the licence holder to be identifiable and to be traceable by the authority.
      60
      6.15 pm
      Clause 12(1) requires the authority to establish and maintain a register containing the details laid down in subsection (3). Clearly the authority must itself have full details of those it has approved for licences, but that does not mean that the authority must publish that register in full. Indeed, subsection (41 makes it the duty of the authority to ensure that such arrangements are in force as it considers appropriate for members of the public and others to inspect the contents of the register. It will thus be open to the authority to establish a means for individual licence applicants to make a case for limiting the personal information appearing on the publicly available register, and for a suitable mechanism to be established for that purpose.
      The general usefulness of the register to the user of security services will depend on its ease of access and the reliability of its contents. The balance is an issue that the authority will have to consider carefully. The key point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath must consider is whether it is necessary for the authority to consider the appropriateness of publishing information on individuals or more generally. Although it is important for the Secretary of State to take account of personal safety concerns in prescribing requirements, the evidence factor must be a consideration. In the case of the animal rights issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is clear evidence of such organisations' preparedness to attack people in their homes. Evidence is clearly a factor.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for the serious way in which he has considered these matters. As he said, there is same common ground between the parties, but is he prepared to go a little further? In any discussions that he might have with his officials over the next few days, which might lead to the Home Office advising the authority when it is set up, will he specifically draw attention to the fact that he will urge the authority to exercise flexibility when people work from home? It would be vary helpful if he could say that.
      Mr. Clarke: I am happy to give that important assurance. Two factors are important. First, the Secretary of State can take account of personal safety when he or she specifies the requirements for addresses and, secondly, the authority must decide whether it considers it appropriate to publish the register in full. In both circumstances, evidence—specific or generic—must be taken into account.
      I can give the hon. Gentleman the specific assurance that he seeks. I will make sure that the issue is drawn to the attention not only of my officials but of any future Government—whether of his persuasion or mine—after the general election. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Hawkins: As I had hoped, the Minister has been helpful. In the light of what he said about the advice that he is prepared to give and the fact that the authority will examine all our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight, it would not be helpful to press the amendment to a Division. We have ventilated the concerns that are widely shared by all three major parties and this has been a useful debate.

      61
      We remain concerned that there will be cases in which the authority feels that it needs to give someone who is in the security sector and who works from home a dispensation so that his home address is not published in a register—either one that is open to physical inspection or one that appears on the internet—so that that person, his family or anyone who stays with him is not in danger from a grudge or revenge attack. The Minister placed much stress on the need for there to be evidence of a threat, but sometimes there is no warning of a revenge or grudge attack, which creates a difficulty.
      We recognise that the Minister has been helpful and has said that the authority will consider carefully the use of its powers. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 19

      POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 15, line 18, at end insert—
      '(3A) A person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) shall do so reasonably only in the course of his duty and only as part of a series of routine checks or as a result of reasonable suspicion of breach of regulations or commission of an offence under any provision of this Act.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 20, page 16, line 23, at end insert—
      '(4) No document shall be published under subsection (1) or (2) unless a draft of the document has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Hughes: The amendments are straightforward. They relate to clauses 19 and 20 which are among the four clauses that deal with entry, inspection and information. For various reasons, these matters were not debated at any length in Committee.
      Once a regulatory authority for the security industry has been set up under the Bill and people and concerns are regulated, clauses 19 and 20 give power for the authority to go in, inspect and regulate. One cannot argue with that; a regulatory authority has to go in and see what is going on. The amendments seek to make sure that that is not done with oppression or harassment. To step back for a second, there is a difference between the way we regulate activity subject to a licensed regime and the way we regulate normal daily activity that does not need licensing.
      Motoring is an obvious example: if people apply for and obtain a driving licence, they do not have to drive a car—that is optional. However, if they do, by definition they subject themselves to a regime involving both inspection of the vehicle that they drive and related controls. People do not have to run a pub, but if they apply to run one, they know that there are certain rules and conditions when the magistrates grant a licence. That is different from the way in which we should be regulated as we walk down the street or live in our homes. I am against the idea that people should be able to climb up drainpipes, climb through windows and stop someone for no good purpose, claiming that they are just carrying out a spot check to see if he is behaving himself. That applies even to controversial things; without reasonable
      62
      suspicion, the police and other authorities should not be able to stop people going about their lawful business just because they think that someone might be carrying a stolen item, a little cannabis or whatever. Quite rightly, criminal law states that there must be reasonable suspicion of an offence before an authority can act.
      A distinction therefore has to be made when we talk about the licensing regime. People do not have to be bouncers or employ others to run a security business; they do not have to be wheelclampers or work for a wheelclamping firm. The regime is therefore an opt-in regime so, naturally and reasonably, there will be powers of entry and inspection that allow the authority to exercise its proper functions, as agreed in legislation.
      Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not embarrassed about what he has just said, as he certainly does not need to be. Does he accept that his objection to the idea that police officers and other agents of public authorities should be able to go marauding around private property or commercial premises without authority or good excuse should not divide the parties in any way? The argument is between those who might genuinely be considered libertarians and those who are unthinking and arrogant authoritarians.
      Mr. Hughes: I agree. I do not want to be over-distracted, but the tension between the two tendencies is interesting. Sometimes the hon. Gentleman's party expresses excessively authoritarian sentiments which, in all probability, he does not agree with; the Labour party certainly includes libertarians, but it also has people who are clearly authoritarian.
      I know that the example I am about to give is not central to the Bill, but it is a parallel. Later this evening, the House of Lords will debate DNA sampling, a matter which hon. Members have already discussed. The lords will consider whether it is appropriate for the police to take samples and keep them if people are innocent of suspected crimes. Those of us with a libertarian perspective believe that it is wrong for the state to keep acquiring possessions if that cannot be justified on the grounds of an offence against the rules of the state. That is the issue.
      Amendment No. 8 would impose, at an appropriate stage, a limitation to the power exercised under clause 19. The other place accepted an amendment stating that a person exercising the power of entry and inspection
      "shall do so only at a reasonable hour."
      I am conscious of the fact that we are at the end of the parliamentary Session, but we are seeking to persuade the House to add to clause 19 a statement that a person exercising such power
      "shall do so reasonably only in the course of his duty and only as part of a series of routine checks or as a result of reasonable suspicion of breach of regulations or commission of an offence".
      We are obviously trying to guard against someone in the regulatory authority calling on a certain person, company or club every Thursday simply because they have decided to do so. It is reasonable to have routine inspections, a bit like those for schools, and the odd spot check, and it is certainly reasonable for the authority to go in if it is tipped off that something funny is going on, but we must have protection against oppression.
      When the Minister responds. 1 should be grateful—if the amendment is not accepted—for an explanation of what protection the legislation provides against the abuse

      63
      of power. He may deal with the drafting of clause 20, to which we tabled amendment No. 9. Clause 20 recognises that the power of entry is controversial and states that the authority shall have a duty
      "to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance"
      on how people should go about discharging their right to enter and inspect premises.
      In Committee, we had a long debate about the different things that the authority will do. The Bill makes provision for guidance, and the Government may introduce secondary legislation. We are pleased that there will be management of the power of the authority by a guidance document but, because rights of entry and inspection are civil liberty issues, it is important that that document should come before Parliament for approval. Amendment No. 9 requires that the guidance document will not be published unless both Houses of Parliament have seen and approved a draft. Colleagues will know that that is a common procedure when Parliament deals with sensitive matters: we allow someone else to do the work, but want to sign off the document as appropriate, having ensured that we will protect the liberties of our citizens. I hope that the amendments appeal to the House in their detail, but certainly in their spirit; I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled a sensible set of amendments; he will be aware of the significance of our exchanges on the subject in Committee.
      I am always a generous-spirited fellow, as you will readily testify, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Far be it from me to accuse the hon. Gentleman of plagiarism; he would not be guilty of any such thing because he has an original and penetrating mind. However, he would be prepared to concede that there is a commonality of spirit between his party and ours on the subject. Because of his recollection of our deliberations in Committee, he will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) argued that the power of entry and inspection should not be exercised by an officer unless he reasonably suspects a breach of the regulations or the commission of an offence under the Act.
      To his credit, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has followed my hon. Friend's train of thought on that occasion, as well as before and since, in deploying the formulation "reasonable suspicion" in amendment No. 8. He makes an eminently sensible point. Nobody disputes that there should be powers of entry and inspection; the argument is about the means by which they are exercised. The hon. Gentleman chose to focus on an important point about the nature of the exercise of the power. As he put it, his concern is that, unless the power is reasonably circumscribed, not least by the use of the word "reasonable" or by a reference to ordinary hours of the day, an overly zealous officer, probably in the minority but nevertheless burdensome for the person suffering from the exercise of the power, may choose willy-nilly, almost at random and without obvious good cause or excuse, to rampage through—I accept that that is an evaluative and strong-minded term—the property of the person who, however unreasonably and without evidence, he suspects of a breach of the regulations or the commission of an offence.
      64
      6.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has a point—there is a danger that inspections will otherwise take place without justification. There is also a possibility, again highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, that an overly zealous officer might choose to make regular inspections at the same time on what might be regarded as such a repetitive basis that it becomes intimidating.
      There are other possibilities. Far from choosing to visit at the same time for a series of weeks in succession in such a manner as to appear intimidatory, an officer might choose to visit the same property, premises or sets of premises held by a company on various days and at various times but without obvious authority or good cause. That would be equally intimidatory.
      In fairness, the Government have said that there must be an element of unpredictability. If people know in advance that they are to be visited or that they can expect to be visited at exactly the same time, they are likely, particularly if they are in breach of the legislation, adequately to prepare themselves to ensure that they are not caught out. The Minister has said that on a number of occasions, and he has a fair point. However, I understand that there is to be an obligation under clause 19, in its unamended form, for the person who is conducting the inspection to be authorised in writing. If so, I assume, for the purposes of the argument and our assessment of the merits or otherwise of the clause, that that will mean not only authority in writing to make the inspection but notification in writing of the intended date and time. If I have misread the clause on that significant point, I should be happy to be corrected by the Minister and thereby reassured.
      The Minister, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will have noticed, has looked eagerly in the direction of those whom I cannot name or refer to by title, but whose responsibility it is to provide the Minister with advice. They are what might be described as the nameless and faceless ones, but they sit not far from the Minister.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even obliquely, the hon. Gentleman should not pursue that.
      Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not proposing to dilate upon the point; I thought that I might get away with the occasional animadversion to them, but you have told me, with your formidable shake of the head, that I cannot, and therefore I will not try. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have some guidance on the point I raised. [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene? No, he was merely chuntering from a sedentary position—beneficially, I am sure, as far as our exchanges are concerned.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has highlighted a significant possibility, and there are others. Inspections could take place at awkward times, possibly in an over-zealous way, and in a manner that would be calculated to intimidate or would in practice do so. The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I share a basic unease about the exercise of entry and inspection powers, which leads us not to dispute the need for them but to try and build in the maximum protection for those who are to be subject

      65
      to them. 1 make no bones about it—some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may think that I am a wet liberal on these matters—
      Jackie Ballard: Oh no
      Mr. Bercow: I am greatly reassured by the hon. Lady's remark, made from a sedentary position. However, I am concerned that people should be properly protected. I am always anxious about the overweening power of the state to busybody and interfere, to harass people and subject them to impertinent inquiry without good cause. In short, this is an issue of civil liberties. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a champion of civil liberties, but so are my right hon. and hon. Friends and me.
      I should like to put a slightly different point on the amendments to the Minister. It is a new point in the consideration of the Bill but it is not new in the exchanges that the Minister and I have had. I have a feeling that, with his remarkable perspicacity, the Minister will have anticipated this point, which is culled from the experience that we shared in the Committee 'cage of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman and I simply disagreed about this point, and we may do so again. It is this: it seems to me that under the terms of the unamended clause 19, people who are or who appear to be—I will come back to the point about appearing to be—regulated individuals under the terns of the Bill will be entitled to greater protection under its terms than people who are not registered or who do not appear to be registered.
      As not everybody is familiar with this argument and as I do not want an entirely self-contained and, to everyone else, unintelligible argument with the Minister, it is worth explaining what I have in mind. Clause 19(1) provides that someone who is authorised to enter and inspect the premises of any person who appears to be a regulated person can do so if he or she has authorisation in writing. However, it specifically refers to an entitlement to enter and inspect the premises of someone who appears to be a regulated person. What about those who do not appear to be regulated persons or to have a licence to operate but who are suspected of a breach of the regulations under the legislation or the commission of an offence? Those who are not thought to be regulated—and, to put it more accurately are thought not to be regulated under the legislation but who are thought to be practising, illegally or as cowboys, and to be committing offences—should surely be subject to the not insignificant powers of entry and inspection that clause 19 is intended to confer upon officers. I am not sure what the answer is.
      The Minister is a sometimes sagacious fellow but almost invariably a resourceful one I feel sure that he will have some sort of answer and that it probably will have been provided for him in advance of our debate. I will be fascinated to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about those who do not appear to be regulated—indeed, who appear not to be regulated—but who do not seem to be subject to the substantial power of clause 19(1).
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I follow that point but I am not certain that everyone listening will follow the regulated and non-regulated alternatives proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Is not the logic of the conundrum or dilemma to which the hon. Gentleman refers that it is far better that
      66
      there is one regime and that everybody should be regulated? Otherwise, there is a two-tier system. Policing those who have opted for regulation means that when someone knocks at a door and the defence is, "Sorry, mate, I am not regulated", nothing can be done about it. That cannot be in the consumers' interest.
      Mr. Bercow: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that everybody who has characteristics in common in terms of job description and the functions they fulfil should be subject to equal treatment. That is a longer but, I hope, accurate way of saying that we should treat like with like. Obviously, we should not treat in exactly the same way people who are in very different categories and who are not performing similar functions, but the hon. Gentleman is otherwise right to say that people who are performing similar work should all be subject to the same regime, so that there is no scope for the inequality of treatment that would otherwise almost inevitably result.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, will he pause and give his attention to clause 19(8)? Will he consider paragraph (b) in particular?
      Mr. Bercow: I am always happy to be referred to a subsection of any clause of which the Minister is the parent. I have focused my beady eye on clause 19(8), which features on page 16 of the Bill, with which I am sure all hon. Members who are present will be intimately familiar. For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that subsection (8) deals with the meaning of the term "regulated person". That seems clear, but I think that the only provision of even modest significance in the subsection—this point is important if the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop an argument—is paragraph (d), which refers to
      "any person who is not so approved but provides security industry services which he is prohibited by any such regulations from providing."
      I assume that the Minister is suggesting that an individual who is not fully approved, but who is nevertheless providing services, will be subject to the entry and inspection powers contained in clause 19(1). That is not entirely clear, but if that is what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall not object. Indeed, I shall be tempted to dance around the mulberry bush in appreciation of the fact that the Government have seen the point and have incorporated it in the clause. However, although I am grateful to the Minister for moving me on from page 15 to page 16, I see no good reason why such provision should not be included in subsection (1) to ensure that the matter is clear beyond peradventure. That is my answer to him, but if he tells me that the matter is dealt with and that there is no need for any further i-dotting and t-crossing, I shall be happy to accept his assurance. I would be grateful if he made the matter clear, as it is not trivial. I hope that he will accept that civil liberties and the important issue of equality of treatment, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I keep returning, are of the first importance.
      I should like briefly to comment on clause 20 and on the attempt of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to amend it. As I understand it, amendment

      67
      No. 9 would ensure that no document on the guidance about the way the powers are to be exercised should take effect before
      "a draft of the document has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
      In short, that is an argument for the affirmative method—I use that term for want of a better one, as we usually use it in relation to the statutory instrument procedure— rather than the negative one. The hon. Gentleman was slightly doubtful about whether everybody would understand the distinctions between regulated and unregulated matters. I argued only that people who are not regulated should not be treated preferentially in comparison with those who are regulated. The point is simply stated: the question of affirmative and negative procedure should be clear beyond doubt to those outside the House who take an interest in these matters. As the Minister, but not everybody, knows, the negative procedure does not allow debate. It means that measures are rammed through the House on the nod, without the opportunity for speeches or voting. However, the affirmative procedure gives hon. Members the chance to express an opinion.
      My view is consistent with that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I believe that the guidance on the exercise of entry and inspection powers is critical. Great issues are at stake. The powers of the officers must be adequate, or there will be no point in providing for them. Equally, there must also be adequate protection for those who will be subject to the exercise of those powers. It is not entirely a matter of those words that Ministers tend to use in the context of amendments to proposed legislation—our old friends "minor" and "drafting". Issues of judgment, evaluation, degree and what I might best describe as proportionality are involved. In that context, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a good point. Let us see the draft, which can be placed before this House and the other place, and let there be a debate on it in which we can offer our opinions about whether the Government have got the balance broadly correct.
      6.45 pm
      Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath expressed with a world-weary cynicism born of his nine years in the House his hope that the Minister would change the habits of a lifetime and accept an Opposition amendment. I want to renew that plea in an unselfish fashion. on behalf of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The request in amendment No. 9 for an opportunity to see a draft document and to scrutinise it, as well as for an acknowledgement of hon. Members' right to speak and the possibility of a vote, is of the essence. That request is so transparently reasonable that only an extraordinarily unreasonable Minister could resist it.
      The Minister is an assiduous, eager and very ambitious man, as I continually remind him. He is a man who was described by Mr. John Kampfner, the distinguished political commentator of The Guardian, as a future leader of the Labour party, and he is now under inspection.
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bercow: I shall perorate in a moment, but how can I refuse to give way to a man who is not only older than me, but substantially bigger?
      Mr. Soames: What my hon. Friend says about the Minister is true. Does he agree that it would be a terrible
      68
      shame if blind, untrammelled ambition were to stand in the way of such a reasonable request from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). and such profound and splendid oratory from my hon. Friend"
      Mr. Bercow: I say to my hon. Friend frankly that I am in danger of becoming emotional. We had a rocky start when this Parliament began. I think he doubted whether I had any right to sit in this place at all, as I went to a state school, paid a mortgage and bought my own furniture. Since then, he has been reconciled to me, and we have what might almost be described as a symbiotic relationship, so often do we see eye to eye on matters of state, both great and small. His interventions are invariably sensible and eloquent. With his unfailing skill in hitting the proverbial nail on the head—a skill that only somebody who has spent as much time on the Clapham omnibus as he has could demonstrate—he has got it absolutely right. We are considering a question of ambition versus reasonableness. I say to the Minister, who is always anxious to throw red meat in the direction of his under-utilised and ordinarily militant Back Benchers—
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Ah!
      Mr. Bercow: I say to the Minister that he should prove reason, independence of mind and generosity of spirit. I say to him that now is the opportunity to show oneself to be a man of independent mind and generous nature. Will he pass or fail the examination? I await his response and the answer as to success or failure with bated breath, eager anticipation and beads of sweat upon my brow.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Before I begin, let me say how glad I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her place. I would not say that I have a symbiotic relationship with her, as I have been advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) that the only known example of a symbiotic relationship in the natural world is that between a plover and the crocodile from whose tongue it plucks leeches. When the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) described his symbiotic relationship with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I was trying to work out which of them was the soft little bird and which was the crocodile. I think that most people would acknowledge that, at a time such as this, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has the more meat-eating characteristics.
      I was amused that the hon. Member for Buckingham began his speech by referring to the alleged plagiarism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I do not think that he was correct. Plagiarism is often a two-way relationship. When we discuss the relationship between libertarianism and authoritarianism in the Conservative party, we get into deep waters. At the end of the Conservative party conference last year, everyone lined up behind their libertarian or authoritarian leadership challengers.
      Some people listen to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Some libertarians in Conservative party ranks—perhaps including the hon. Member for Buckingham—may support him, but others would not.

      69
      The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would not agree with him. In all friendship, I therefore advise the hon. Member for Buckingham not to go far down the road on which he embarked. However, it is an interesting debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not make the same mistake as some do of confusing civil rights and libertarianism with the rights and interests of the legal profession.
      Let me consider more serious matters. I asked the hon. Gentleman to examine clause 19(8), which defines a regulated person as either
      "the holder of any licence granted under this Act"
      or
      "any person who engages in licensable conduct without being a holder of a licence under this Act".
      Licensable conduct is defined in clause 3(2). Clause 19(8) defines the powers that we are discussing as applying to licence holders and people who are engaged, without holding a licence, in the sort of activity that the Bill tries to regulate. I do not, therefore, believe that the hon. Gentleman's anxiety has substance.
      Clause 19 provides the authority with an important power that will help it to enforce its licensing regime effectively. It gives it the power to enter premises and require the production of documents or other relevant information.
      A person who is properly authorised by the authority will be able to enter premises owned or occupied by a regulated person. Proper authorisation is defined in clause 19(1) and in clause 20, which states
      "It shall be the duty of the Authority to prepare and publish a document containing … guidance"
      about the way in which authorised people will act. There is no precondition in the Bill for an authorised person to provide prior notice. In general, one would expect prior notice to be given of a visit for routine purposes. However, there is no requirement to do that. Clause 20 provides for the production of guidance, which will set out the terms for giving prior notice. That is also the burden of amendment No. 8.
      The Bill provides for guidance, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argues that Parliament should consider that guidance. The answer to his question about whether prior notice will always be given under authorisation is no. He also asked whether the notice and the operation of the authorisation would be set out in clear guidelines, which were publicly available and hopefully agreed. The answer is yes
      A regulated person is defined in clause 19(8) as anyone who has or who ought normally to have a licence. Such a person may be required to produce documents or information about licensable conduct, the provision of security services or conditions attaching to approved contractor status under any compulsory scheme, should the voluntary scheme ever be converted into a compulsory one.
      Amendment No. 8 would require a person who was authorised to enter premises to do that in a reasonable manner and only as part of a routine check, or as a result of reasonable suspicion of a breach of regulations or commission of an offence. The main effect of the amendment would be to limit the authority's ability to conduct random checks of regulated persons.
      70
      The provisions already place several requirements on any person authorised by the authority when exercising the powers. They include: exercising the power only at reasonable times; operating only in relation to persons "appearing" to be regulated—mere suspicion is not enough; and stating the purpose of the inspection. The inspector must produce evidence of identity and authorisation; a record must be made of what happens during the inspection; and a copy of that record must be given to those on the inspected premises if requested. That would form the basis of any subsequent challenge.
      Those measures place several requirements on persons entering premises. They take appropriate account of civil liberties while providing a powerful and focused tool to enable the authority to enforce the licensing regime.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister deal with the specific question that the hon. Member for Buckingham arid I asked? What provision protects against misuse, harassment and obsessive interest by the regulatory authority? Such behaviour could be covered by the random check, the routine check and the reasonable check but be oppressive none the less.
      Mr. Clarke: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance will include dealing with such an effect. However, I do not believe that the state of affairs that he described is likely to arise. The need to state the purpose of the inspection, for which the Bill provides, makes it difficult to make the repeated inspections that he fears.
      Amendment No. 9 would require laying before Parliament the guidance, which the SIA will draw up under clause 20, on the exercise of its power of entry. The Bill already requires a significant amount of further parliamentary input to get the authority and its regimes up and running. Several clauses allow the Secretary of State to introduce statutory instruments that activate or specify in greater detail the operations of the SIA.
      The content of the statutory instruments will be central in establishing the authority's detailed operating framework, and it is right that they should be brought before Parliament. I am therefore not persuaded that we need to ask Parliament to approve the detail that the amendment would require.
      The Bill's main purpose is to establish the SIA and vest in it appropriate discretion to regulate the industry, backed up by specific parliamentary sanctions for its most important aspects. I believe that the authority's approach will be sound and that to require the laying of draft guidance and, perhaps more important, revised guidance—we shall conduct regular revision—before Parliament would detract from the ability to be flexible in evolving circumstances.
      I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will consider withdrawing the amendment.
      Mr. Hughes: The debate has been important, and the Minister has given welcome assurances on the first issue that we mentioned. However, the Bill could be described as an outline measure, and we do not know the details. We cannot judge whether the guidance will be adequate until we see it later.

      I was amused when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) had the exchange with the hon. Member for Buckingham. It was suggested that serried ranks of

      71
      militant Labour Back Benchers sat behind the Minister. There was a gasp of astonishment from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) because she shares the view that although the Government may want to claim much credit, claiming that their Back Benchers are militant, nearly militant or even active—let alone interested and critical—is an exaggeration well beyond the understanding of anyone who has watched our proceedings in the past four years. The Government may not have had an easy ride from the Opposition, but they have had a mighty easy ride from their Back Benchers. Whatever the result of the election, I hope that that does not continue in the next Parliament.
      I sense that interest in the debate has risen to an unexpected height. The Bill has taken on a new and greater importance. For once, I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. On one occasion only, and with no promise of a repeat, I beg to ask leave to withdraw an extremely good amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Business of the House
  7 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Following the Prime Minister's announcement earlier today, and following discussions through the usual channels, the business for tomorrow will now be as follows: a procedural motion relating to the business of the House, followed by the remaining stages of the Finance Bill and remaining stages of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to approve all outstanding estimates. and we will take proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords Messages that may be received. I hope that the business for later in the week will be announced tomorrow, following further discussions.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for making her business statement available to me earlier. Following the Prime Minister's valedictory address earlier today, will the right hon. Lady confirm that what is in the second statement tomorrow will be the subject of tomorrow's procedural motion, because it is not clear at the moment whether the procedural motion tomorrow will deal only with tomorrow's business or with the business for the remainder of the week? If that motion will deal with business for the remainder of the week, it is important that the Government should allow sufficient time for it to be debated by the House. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that will be the case?
  Will the Leader of the House also confirm that all the scheduled oral questions for the remainder of the week will take place, including those tabled for Thursday, and will she also tell the House whether the business in Westminster Hall will continue as announced for the rest of the week? Is she able to make a statement tonight about a possible date for Prorogation, as that is obviously a matter of interest on both sides of the House? Also, does she anticipate there being a gap between Prorogation and the Dissolution of Parliament?
  Mrs. Beckett: First, on the assumption that the hon. Lady was asking me about a further business statement tomorrow, and about a time for the motion to be debated, was she referring to the business motion?
  Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that I did not make that clear. I asked whether the motion that the right hon. Lady has announced today—the procedural motion relating to the business of the House—would include tomorrow's business and any subsequent business.
  Mrs. Beckett: My anticipation is that it will certainly include tomorrow's business. It is not yet certain whether it will include business for later in the week, because there will—as I have said—be a further business statement. [Interruption.] I suggest that Conservative Members bear in mind the fact that these are matters for negotiation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.'] Yes, they are.
  Secondly, the hon. Lady asked me whether oral questions would take place as scheduled. 1 anticipate that they will. I also anticipate that the business in

  73
  Westminster Hall that has been scheduled will take place. 1 fear that I cannot give the hon. Lady any of the other information that she seeks.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Given that my right hon. Friend has said that she will make a further statement tomorrow about business for the remainder of the week, which includes Thursday, and given that Thursday is at present scheduled to be an Opposition day, will she do her best to persuade the Opposition to maintain it as an Opposition day so that the House can have the opportunity to hear from the Conservative party how it intends to keep many thousands of people segregated on aeroplanes until the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has inspected their credentials?
  Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes an enticing case, but that it is not the business that I have announced—nor do I anticipate doing so.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: May I encourage the Leader of the House to make tomorrow's statement and the procedural motion as comprehensive as possible and to cover the whole period up to the Dissolution if possible? Otherwise it will be extremely difficult for the House to deal with unfinished business in an orderly manner. There is some very important unfinished legislative business, on accountability in the health service, for example, which I hope will be given proper accountability in the last few days of this Parliament. Some Executive business also remains, and it is extremely difficult for us to maintain our scrutiny of such Government action when the House is not sitting.
  I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis, which is still with us, and to the effect of the crisis on the tourist industry, which is causing huge problems at the moment. I note that the Select Committee report on the funds available to the regional development agencies and the tourist boards is totally critical of the amount of funding available. Indeed, the report states, "We find this astonishing." We still require important statements from the Government before the Dissolution of Parliament, and I hope that we shall get a comprehensive programme tomorrow, rather than having to wait until the end of the week.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady's statement covered the business for tomorrow. Another statement will follow. Questions now should only be about the statement that the right hon. Lady has made tonight.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Of course I understand the House's anxiety to be fully informed. Certainly, it would be the Government's wish to put as much information before the House as we can, and we will do so.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that she will make a statement tomorrow on what is to happen on Friday to my excellent private Member's Bill, which will protect the interests of low-paid shop workers throughout the United Kingdom and which I am quite sure Her Majesty's Government strongly support?
  Mrs. Beckett: I listen with sympathy to what I am sure is the first of many fervent pleas. I fear that it is not at
  74
  present clear to me whether we shall be taking private Members' business on Friday, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: To clarify that point, and in relation to the statement tomorrow, does the Leader of the House envisage that the House will sit from 11.30am to 7 pm on Thursday—or will it sit later? Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether she envisages any time for private Members' Bills on Friday, and does she envisage announcing the Dissolution on Friday or on Monday?
  Mrs. Beckett: I fear that all those questions take me into the territory of what would be the business beyond tomorrow. I am not, therefore, in a position to assist the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there is nothing in the business that she has announced for tomorrow—or, indeed, in the parliamentary business that she will announce tomorrow—that would keep the Deputy Prime Minister out of Scotland over the next wee while, or will he just be kept out because he would blow the gaff on the Government's plans to cut public spending in Scotland after the election?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has been listening to misinformation. I fear that I am not familiar with the Deputy Prime Minister's present schedule.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Leader of the House arrange tomorrow to make a statement to the effect that the Government—or perhaps the House of Commons Commission—will refer to Sir Nigel Wicks and the Committee on Standards in Public Life the issue of the resourcing of the Commissioner's Office in the House and the procedure for the re-appointment of the Commissioner for Standards?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I am not aware that that is a prime matter in the business to be brought before the House.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Leader of the House not think that she owes a public apology to Southend-on-Sea? Given that today is the first day in the history of Parliament that we have had an exhibition promoting the glories of Southend in the Upper Waiting Hall, will she urge all her colleagues to visit the exhibition before they go off to fight the election?
  Mrs. Beckett: I sincerely apologise to Southend-on-Sea. I shall urge my colleagues to visit not only the exhibition but the town.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I raise a matter that is of concern to all Members of the House, whichever their party? The Prime Minister has announced an election. Although I accept that it might be necessary to wait until tomorrow for details of how the House will conduct its affairs for the rest of the Parliament, is it not possible for the Leader of the House to tell us when the Dissolution of Parliament will take place, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)

  75
  asked? It is necessary for Members of Parliament—although not for the Government— to make arrangements as to where their secretaries and equipment are going to be by the end of this week or the beginning of next week.
  Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I understand his point. However, he will be aware, as there has long been an excellent analysis in the Library on this point, that if the general election is to be held on 7 June, the House will have to be dissolved on or before 14 May.
  Mr. John Redwood: Why is this such a shambles? Is the Leader of the House the only person in the country who did not know that an election was planned? Is she the only person who was not let in on the secret? Have not the Government been planning for this election for more than four years, and should they not be able to tell us when this miserable Parliament is finally going to be dissolved?
  Mrs. Beckett: I can only suggest that, not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from an extraordinarily selective memory. If he looks at Hansards relating to this stage of past Parliaments, he will find that nothing I have said is in any way unusual.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will there be time for proceedings on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill to be completed tomorrow? If not, when will there be time for them to be completed? The Bill is widely supported by Members in all parts of the House, and the Welsh Assembly has worked closely with the Government in trying to secure its passage. If it is not possible to pass the Bill before dissolution, will that not constitute copper-bottomed evidence that the Assembly needs powers to make primary legislation?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that it will not be possible to deal with the Bill tomorrow—but, like other business that is before either House, it is very much in the Government's mind.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House guarantee that the rights of the House to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account will in no way be compromised by this unseemly last-minute dash into an unnecessary election?
  Mrs. Beckett: Certainly the House will continue to enjoy the rights that it has always enjoyed. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he, like his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has clearly forgotten this stage of every Parliament in which he has served.

  Private Security Industry Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Private Security Industry Bill
    Schedule 1

      THE SECURITY INDUSTRY AUTHORITY
      7.12 pm
      Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 24, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1A) Any such report shall include details on the progress of implementing this Act and all new secondary legislation and guidance passed under this Act.'.
      Schedule 1 deals with the setting up of the authority—[Interruption]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?
      Jackie Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
      Schedule 1 deals with the setting up of the authority. On Second Reading I expressed disappointment at the fact that all its members would be appointed by the Secretary of State; nevertheless one of its duties will be to present him with an annual report which will then be placed in the House of Commons Library. We fear that the Bill, being a framework Bill, will leave a lot of detail to be dealt with later, and that there will not be as much parliamentary scrutiny of that detail as there could be.
      This is a small amendment, and I shall not take up much of the House's time. I merely say that, in our view, it is unlikely that an authority set up by the Secretary of State will produce a report on its work over the year that will be in any way critical of what it has done during that period, or will draw attention to its shortcomings. The purpose of the amendment is merely to ensure that the report gives real information, and provides details of further legislation and the progress of this legislation during the year, rather than being a glossy annual document that is of no interest or use to anyone.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: The Government do not disagree with the substance of the amendment, but in the spirit of the argument frequently advanced by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and her hon. Friends that there is no need to include in legislation requirement for action that would routinely be taken, I urge her to withdraw it.
      I would expect the SIA's annual report to contain the information that the hon. Lady requests. Clause 1 obliges the authority to report on all the functions specified in that clause, which include the elements identified in the amendment. In the extraordinary event that the annual report did not contain such information, it would be open to the Secretary of State to direct the authority to provide it. I can certainly make a commitment on behalf of the present Government that a future Secretary of State would give such directions if they were necessary.
      The precise content of the report will be a matter for the authority, but as I have said, the authority is required to report properly on the operation of its functions as set out in clause 1, and I cannot imagine how it would be possible to do that without including the information

      77
      specified in the amendment. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment, given my assurance that all the aspects mentioned in schedule 1—including those that she has identified—will be covered.
      7.15 pm
      Jackie Ballard: I expected the Minister to be courteous and helpful, as he usually is, and I shall be equally courteous and helpful: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 2

      ACTIVITIES LIABLE TO CONTROL UNDER THE ACT
      Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 27. line 8, leave out—
      `purposes of any accountancy practice'
      and insert—
      `sole purposes of accountancy activities.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.12, in page 28, line 9, leave out—
      'purposes of any accountancy practice'
      and insert—
      `sole purposes of accountancy activities.'.
      Jackie Ballard: I suspect that we may not get through these amendments as speedily as we got through amendment No. 10. They raise genuine concerns, and have been the subject of debate in Committee and subsequently. The issue was originally raised in the other place.
      The Minister and others will be well acquainted with the arguments that have already been rehearsed. They arise because many accountancy firms have branched out into security consultancy work. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to a Financial Times article that described five big accountancy firms as the top players in the intelligence industry. It seems sensible, if such firms engage in the same activities as others in the security industry, to make them subject to the same licensing regimes. The accountancy firms argue that that is not necessary because they are licensed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and other bodies, but those bodies were not established to regulate security consulting investigations, or the security activities of accountancy firms.
      I accept that employees of accountancy firms who are not members of such bodies, but who engage in licensable conduct, will require licences. Our amendment seeks to limit the exemption to what is purely accountancy work, and tries to ensure that accountants who branch out into the security industry fall within the licensing regime if they deliberately engage in activities that are otherwise covered by the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey withdrew his amendment in Committee, because the Minister said that he recognised the seriousness of the issue and would examine it again.
      78
      My hon. Friend asked me to pass on his gratitude to the Minister for arranging the meeting that they had this morning.
      I stress that the issue for professional security firms is not one of cost compliance; they are happy to be regulated, but they want a level playing field. I look forward to hearing the Minister's further thoughts.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) rightly said that we had discussed these issues in some details in Committee. Moreover, they were raised in amendments proposed by my noble Friend Lord Cope in another place, accepted by the Minister's noble Friends, and introducing some protection for leading accountancy firms.
      In Committee, we sought to introduce amendments giving similar protection to those working for law firms. Even at the end of the Committee stage, there was continuing concern among accountants. I have had a submission from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales suggesting that even the amendments that were tabled by my noble Friend Lord Cope—which now form part of the Bill and which the hon. Lady is seeking to water down—do not go far enough. Therefore, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants is saying that it requires more protection for those who are not chartered members of the institute—they may be students or part-time employees—and that the Bill should go further, and as the hon. Member for Taunton is saying that the Bill goes too far, perhaps we have reached a happy medium, thanks to my noble Friend Lord Cope.
      Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Taunton has raised an important issue which will no doubt continue to be considered carefully by the members of the new authority. I look forward to hearing the Minister's confirmation that he will again be prepared to instruct his officials to send the members of the authority information about this debate and our debates in Committee, so that these important matters can be kept under review. I see the Minister helpfully nodding.
      As with any new authority, we shall not know for certain how the provisions operate until the authority is up and running. Further revision of secondary legislation or the introduction of fresh primary legislation may be necessary to adapt the regime in the light of experience. The way in which law firms or chartered accountants are covered in future clearly will be a matter of continuing scrutiny by the authority and by the new, incoming Conservative Government who will replace the current Labour Government.
      As I said, these are important issues. It is important that the hon. Member for Taunton has raised them again, enabling us to debate them briefly on Report. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: This is an important issue, and it is difficult to find the right way of addressing it. As the hon. Members for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) both said, the position of accountants and their employees has been discussed at length in our earlier debates and in the other place. The Bill is targeted on selected providers of private security services; the intention has not been to target it on accountants in general. We also recognise that big accountancy firms have diversified into spheres in which they undertake designated services as defined in the Bill, particularly private investigations and security consultancy.

      79
      We did respond to strong lobbying in the other place to the effect that members of recognised accountancy bodies should not be caught by the definitions on account of their professional qualifications. It was not only a matter of the self-interest of private firms, as the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority also had concerns which were reflected in the debate in the other place.
      Amendments were duly tabled and approved in the other place, but they were focused on exempting only members of defined accountancy bodies. We recognised that diversified accountancy firms have many employees who are not members of the relevant accountancy bodies but are undertaking designated activities as defined in the Bill. We fully accepted that to exempt them too would create a seriously uneven playing field. We have also accepted that doing so would mean that private investigators and security consultants describing themselves as such would be licensable, whereas employees of accountancy firms who undertake precisely the same type of consultancy would not be licensable. We have therefore resisted calls, particularly in the other place, to extend exemptions to those employees also.
      Jackie Ballard: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: I shall in a moment.
      Notwithstanding the arguments made in Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the complexities of diversified accountancy businesses —although the issues are not dissimilar in relation to IT services—would result in major definitional difficulties in attempting to describe, within the framework of definitions used in the Bill, a clear distinction between accountants acting solely for the purposes of accountancy activities and those undertaking designated activities as defined.
      I have some comments to make on my discussion this morning with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but shall first give way to the hon. Lady.
      Jackie Ballard: The Minister's argument seems to hinge on the fact that accountants will gain an exemption because of their professional qualifications and membership of professional bodies. However, can he give any other example in which someone's membership of a body exempts him or her from regulation when performing a task that is not covered by his or her specific qualification?
      Mr. Clarke: As I said, we made concessions on accountancy after hearing representations in the other place. However, as I said in relation to our earlier debate, I think that there are similarities in IT services, in relation to which not dissimilar issues arise.
      This morning, following the representations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I met him and some of the industry bodies concerned to discuss some of the concerns that have been expressed. I was glad to have the opportunity to meet—and my officials had already met—some of the individuals concerned.
      I understand the concern of some in the private investigation sector that even the narrow exemption for members of recognised accountancy bodies could have
      80
      the effect of creating, as the hon. Member for Taunton said, an uneven playing field. An important point to emphasise—it was not clear to me until this morning—is that it did not seem that the cost burden of licensing within the private investigation sector was the prime cause of an uneven playing field. As that point came across strongly this morning, I think that I should place on record my understanding of what was being said.
      The concerns as expressed to me were that potential customers for investigation services might be tempted to regard accountants exempted from regulation in the Bill more favourably than regulated private investigators. It was essentially a branding image competition point rather than a cost competition point. Although I could see that the argument had some weight, I was not wholly convinced by it. It seemed to me that potential customers for investigation services are more likely to look in the round at the depth, breadth, quality and cost of potential contractors than at the position under the Bill of senior members of the accountancy and investigations professions.
      I have, however, listened to the concerns that were expressed at this morning's meeting and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Although I cannot undertake to accept amendment No. 11, or to promise change in the Bill at this late stage, I can give an absolute undertaking to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Taunton that the new authority will keep a very close eye on use of the various exemptions granted in the Bill.
      We would positively expect the authority to make recommendations for changes if it became clear that the exemptions are operating in a manner that either distorts the level playing field in the provision of services which we are committed to establishing or allows individuals to practise in the sphere who might otherwise be reprehensible in the way in which they were operating a private security business.
      I do not put my hand on my heart and say that the compromise that is before us today is defensible against criticism from any of the parties from whom criticism might come. However, in the spirit of trying to legislate in an evolving manner in this area, as we are attempting to do in the Bill, I believe that the Bill provides a perfectly acceptable way of addressing the issue. With the assurance that I have sought to give the hon. Lady—that the authority will watch the issue extremely carefully in relation to accountants and the other professions involved—I hope that she will be prepared to accept that the amendment was intended to make an advance in the sphere, and to consider withdrawing it.
      Jackie Ballard: Before responding directly to the Minister's request at the end of his speech. I should like to deal with the comment made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to the effect that a proposal that is being attacked from both sides, as going too far or not far enough, must be just about right. I assume that he will not be invoking that maxim in the forthcoming debates in the general election campaign.
      Mr. Hawkins: 1 was restricting my comments to this particular provision and the hon. Lady should not draw any parallels from them.
      Jackie Ballard: I am relieved to hear that.
      Mr. Bercow: One is not supporting fence sitting, is one?
      Jackie Ballard: I would never expect the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to support fence sitting. He is probably the least fence-sitting Member of this place.
      The Minister said that, earlier today, he met members of the private investigation sector who still have concerns. He was right to say that the key issue is concern not about cost compliance, but about the promotional aspects of the different applicable regimes. He has clearly heard the arguments. He also accepts that a finely balanced decision was required to get it right and that compromise is sometimes, but not always, the right way forward.
      The Minister has given the House an assurance about the scrutiny of the operation of exemptions, and on the basis of that assurance I am sure that the private investigation sector will feel happier about that. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It gives me a good deal of pride to move the Third Reading of this important Bill, which has been awaited for 25 years. It establishes a new authoritative and independent body, the Security Industry Authority, and it gives the SIA the tools to do an important job: to drive out criminals and cowboys through a system of personal licensing; to recognise good companies by encouraging them to become approved contractors; and to improve standards throughout the industry. The Bill has been subject to comprehensive and constructive debate throughout its parliamentary passage, and, indeed, beforehand.
      I acknowledge that the Bill is not perfect. Like any Bill, it is based on judgments that not everyone shares. I acknowledge that some would argue that the Bill is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said at beginning of our debate, half a loaf rather than the whole loaf that they would have preferred. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend and others accept that in offering what I think is more than a half loaf—but let us not quibble about fractions—we are laying a path for the regulation of the industry that will achieve the important functions set out in the Bill.
      We have listened to arguments on a number of topics. We do not agree with all of them, but we acknowledge them and the effectiveness and constructiveness with which they have been moved. We believe that the Bill is a flexible measure. It contains the ability to address every one of the points that have been the source of criticism during its passage. For example, it can address the criticism that it does not regulate enough sectors as new sectors can be brought into regulation by secondary legislation. The criticism that we are not making the approved contractor scheme compulsory can be addressed by regulation if necessary.
      We have accepted some sensible proposals—if this is not an oxymoron—from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In particular, the Bill has improved provisions relating to appeal procedures from SIA decisions, appeals to magistrates courts and the use of powers of entry and inspection.
      82
      I want to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, whose contributions in Committee were both knowledgeable and passionate. As he knows, and no doubt will comment on in his speech, we did not agree with everything that he had to say, but I am sure that he will continue to influence the development of the SIA, and that the spirit that he set of an independent authority that regulates the industry in a way that not only improves its standards but drives out criminality will be the central watchword as it develops.
      I should also like to thank Opposition spokespersons and right hon. and hon. Members from all parties who served on the Standing Committee. We considered the Bill in a constructive and positive manner. I should also like to thank my officials who have given me such effective advice throughout the passage of the Bill. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
      7.33 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has been very brief in his summary of the Bill, which, as he rightly says, has been the subject of constructive debate on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I agree with the tributes that he paid to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Everyone who has been involved in the Bill and has heard the detailed speeches that the right hon. Gentleman made on Second Reading, in many of the debates in Committee and once again today on Report pays tribute to his expertise and longevity in dealing with this issue. I think that he said that he has introduced no fewer than seven private Member's Bills on the subject during some 25 years in the House. No doubt the discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister about whether the Bill is half a loaf, which is better than no bread at all, rather than the full loaf that the right hon. Gentleman was asking for will continue when the right hon. Gentleman contributes to this debate.
      I was fascinated by the Minister's description of his fellow Norwich City supporter, Delia Smith, when discussing culinary matters. We all have our favourite football teams and we all have our favourite dishes, but one thing that might unite us all is a great respect for Delia Smith and her skills as a practitioner of the culinary arts. Speaking as someone who cooked one of Delia Smith's recipes as recently as last night, I have particular reason to be grateful for her skilful direction. However, I cannot share her fascination or that of the Minister with that particular football club.

      I agree with the Minister that the Bill is not perfect. Opposition Members would say that the Bill is undercooked rather than properly cooked—
      Mr. Bercow: Half-baked.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend says that it is half-baked, but that is a little unfair.
      There have been constructive debates throughout the passage of the Bill. On Third Reading it is important to recognise that if the new Security Industry Authority works properly it will deal with the serious abuses of the so-called cowboy wheelclampers. I hope that it will also deal with the massive problem that I have highlighted in many debates in the House: the involvement of bouncers on the doors of pubs and clubs in the appalling illicit drug trade. We have all heard of cases where night club

      83
      bouncers have supplied the most dangerous drugs to young people, with tragic consequences. One remembers the appalling case of Leah Betts with particular poignancy when one considers the number of young people who have died as a result of being supplied with drugs by night club bouncers. I see that the Minister agrees. We all recognise that serious issues are involved.
      We have had our reservations about whether the authority will be over-bureaucratic and whether it will work properly in practice. We had particular concerns that were addressed earlier this afternoon, including our fear that the Bill will not operate properly in relation to the IT security industry. Those doubts and concerns remain, but today we are prepared to give the Bill and the potential new authority the benefit of the doubt, although will want to keep it under scrutiny.
      I have no doubt that the points that have been made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and me about the need for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of the authority's work and for more issues to be dealt with by way of an affirmative resolution will continue to be live issues.
      I do not want to detain the House unduly. At this stage we are prepared to give the new authority a fair wind, with the proviso that we will keep the matter carefully under review. We hope that it will work in the way that the Minister and those who advise him believe it will. We have our fears and concerns, but let us see how it works in practice. I will listen with great interest to the other contributions to the debate.
      7.38 pm
      Mr. Bruce George: This speech will be short, for no other reason than I am due at a dinner at the American embassy to meet the "wise men" who have been sent over to persuade the British Government about national missile defence. I remain to be convinced, but I may just about make it in time for pudding.
      Despite being Welsh, I am not a particularly emotional person, but I am very happy because, at long last, the private security industry is about to be regulated. Those in the industry will be the winners. They have not always realised that regulation would make them winners, but it will because it will give them something that they have been denied by their own indifference and hostility to regulation over the years. The Bill will give the industry a reputation that it can be proud of. Its previous bad reputation was deserved, because many of its members did not meet the standards set in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, which have eagerly embraced regulation.
      International companies operating in a regulated environment elsewhere encountered no problems, and I feel rather sorry about their experience in this country, where the prevailing standards are depressing. Here, an absence of training is the norm, and the public's attitude to the security industry is a combination of mirth, hostility and indifference.
      That will change, and not only as a result of this long-overdue legislation. The market has changed, technology has moved forward and crime levels have risen. The police realise that they must work with technology produced in the private sector and with an
      84
      industry to which they can relate. In the past, the police were the professionals and the private security industry, in some sectors, was anti-professional.
      This is a good day, and, as no further amendments have been tabled, the House of Lords can do nothing to injure the Bill. 1 do not believe that that would be what the other place would want, but we are at the beginning of a process of metamorphosis.
      The process of transformation of the police in this country began in 1829 and it took 40 years before the new police force was in existence throughout the kingdom. I am sure that 2001 will be seen in a comparable light, and considered to be the date which the private security industry began the real process of reform. That process will not be completed overnight. It will not be complete even when the regulatory authority puts in place the new standards envisaged in the subordinate legislation. It will take some time, but the process is seriously beginning.
      There has been much use of bread metaphors this afternoon. Having seen the consultative paper and the Bill, I believe that sliced bread is the appropriate term, as some of the contents of the consultative document have been sliced away. The loaf has thereby been diminished, but I hope that it will expand.
      I began campaigning on this matter in 1975. My wife compelled me to clear out the garage, which had been unable to accommodate a motor vehicle since 1972. I knew that there was a big sack containing my material on the private security industry. The state of the Labour party in the 1980s, under the previous Government, made me think that it would be some time before regulation on the private security industry was introduced, so the sack was near the back of the garage.
      When I opened it, it was like opening a time capsule. There I was—slim, fit and single, with much more hair than I have now. The paper was pink with age and some of it disintegrated in my hands. I looked at the debates from those early years. Had I realised that it would take a quarter of century to introduce measures establishing a regulated, accountable, efficient private security industry—measures that I considered to be inevitable and necessary—I probably would have thrown in the towel a long time ago.
      Many private Members' Bills to regulate the industry, in whole or in part, have been introduced over the years. The list of sponsors contains the names of people who are either dead or long forgotten—Gardiner, Walden, Huckfield, Fowler, Fiddler, B. George, Lord Willis, Dixon, D., B. George, J. Wheeler, B. George. Michael Stern, B. George., and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
      Many people have been supportive all along, including Group 4 and many medium-sized and small companies in the sector. The International Professional Security Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Institute of Security Management, the regulatory bodies representing the private security industry and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union have also been positive. Long-standing friends include Peter Heims, Peter Jones and John Smith of the Prudential. They made me realise that some people in the private security industry shared my views.
      Many others, however, continued to fight a guerrilla war. Until 1997, they included officials and Ministers at the Home Office, large private security companies whose

      85
      names I will not mention, and the associations representing them. In recent years, an incredible homogeneity has been evident. Opponents realised that the game was up and that it was in their interests as well as the public's to bring what is an enormous industry into the orbit of a regulatory system.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill is not the final version of the legislation. That may never be achieved. Instead, the Bill is the start of a rolling programme of improvement. We know what the deficiencies are—the lack of regulation of companies, the absence of regulations covering in-house security, and so on—and we have spoken about them often. However, I share the hope of many hon. Members that, in the course of the next couple of years, more sectors will be added to the regime.
      The iron law of bureaucracy should not be imposed, but many bodies want to be regulated. They include the Master Locksmiths Association, the body representing the better end of the alarm system sector, and companies operating security shredding or storage services.
      Ms Rosie Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many members of the wheelclamping industry believe that the time is now right for regulation, to ensure that people will not suffer as they have in the past?
      Mr. George: I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard to have wheelclamping regulated. I did not mention it because I have never considered the wheelclamping industry to be part of the private security industry. However, the more the merrier: people who want to join the regulation regime should write to my hon. Friend the Minister of State before he leaves office.
      It is ironic that wheelclamping should be regarded as part of the private security industry, many members of which will stay on the outside, looking in. That will remain the case until subordinate legislation is introduced.
      I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with whom I have had many constructive meetings. My thanks go also to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who in the past has had to sit through many lectures on the subject. Opposition Members are lucky to have come to the debate rather late in the day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sat through my endless and futile attempts to convince the previous Government's Home Office Ministers and officials of the need to regulate the private security industry. I am deeply grateful to everyone who has contributed.
      The hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) have said some kind things, and I thank them. The Standing Committee was useful, and I am indebted to the hon. Gentlemen for their willingness to tolerate long speeches and to join in the spirit of near consensus on the Bill. That spirit is not unique, but it is fairly rare. That is particularly the case in the matter of crime and policing, which, at a public level, is divisive.
      The passing of the Bill will be greeted by me and the industry with satisfaction, but it is not the end of the matter. Should the Minister of state be transferred to the Ministry of Defence, I warn him that, like Hannibal
      86
      Lecter, who pops up in a variety of guises, I will be there to greet him at one of the first inquiries of the Defence Committee, which will be a long one into policing and security in the MOD.
      The security industry is being transformed. Many bad companies will get out now and take their money and run, as those involved—who have serious criminal records—will never get past the regulatory authority. Their companies will not be able to meet the standards. I have mentioned the growth in technology, and it is an exciting time for the industry. The future is not just in the hands of the Home Office and the SIA, but in the hands of the industry. My interest in the matter will survive.
      There has been talk of football teams, and Coventry City has had a bad time. Among Coventry's famous sons are the group, the Police; I think they were from Coventry. To paraphrase one of their famous songs—which I did not realise until years later was about stalking—"Every move you make, every step you take, we'll be watching you." That applies to whoever will be sitting in the Minister's place one month from now.
      I am delighted that we have reached this point and I hope that the security industry will feel reasonably satisfied with our work. Finally, I thank my research collaborator, Mark Button, for all his work in bringing the interests of the private security industry before a wider audience. We have done a pretty good job of work and I look forward to the years ahead.
      7.52 pm
      Jackie Ballard: The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is right to be proud of the role that he has played in bringing regulation to the private security industry. The House and the public will be grateful to him for not throwing in the towel over the many years that he has been involved.
      Many hon. Members have spoken about football teams; I do not see the reason for that, but I do not want to be left out. That gives me a good excuse—in what will probably be my last speech of this Parliament—to congratulate the players of Taunton Town, who won the FA Vase on Sunday, playing at Aston Villa. I was there to watch them win it; the first live football match I have ever watched. They lost the trophy when the town had a Conservative Member, so it is a good omen that they have won it now.
      Congratulations have been given to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the Government on the Bill, which has been in gestation for more than 20 years. There seems to be a greater need for security measures and operatives in all our lives, whether it is CCTV, burglar alarms, clubs and shop door staff or security patrols on housing estates. I have grave doubts about some of those roles—which should be matters for police forces—being taken over by the private security industry.
      As has been said, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill, although we have some lingering dismay that not all our helpful amendments were accepted by the Minister. They were helpful, particularly the proposal to include in-house operatives within the regulations—a matter to which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South drew attention. I suspect that that may find its way into the Bill at some point.
      The Minister said that the Bill was flexible, and it is a framework Bill. We share the view of the official Opposition that it is important that the House is able to

      87
      scrutinise the application of that flexibility in future. I hope that the SIA will be truly representative of all the legitimate and relevant sectors of the industry and will have the powers and ability to scrutinise effectively an industry that, in the past, has often attracted the wrong sort of people who, far from making people feel more secure, have made them feel very insecure.
      I suspect that there will not be a vote on the Third Reading of the Bill. If there were, I would urge my colleagues to vote for it.
      7.56 pm
      Mr. Bercow: Others have kept their contributions short; so will I. I congratulated the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) earlier, and having extended a bouquet to him I will spare him the embarrassment or indignity of further unwarranted and excessive effusions from me. Suffice it to say that everybody is aware of his expertise on the subject and everybody respects the dedication with which he has pursued issues and causes that are dear to his heart. The right hon. Gentleman is pleased with the Bill, and I hope that his expectation of its efficacy will be justified. If it is, it will be in the interests of the sector as a whole and of those who have reason to have contact or interaction with the private security industry.
      In essence, a number of key areas are relevant to the sector that is covered by the Bill and of concern to those who scrutinise its contents. First, there is the key issue—what might be described as the macro-subject—of the Security Industry Authority; not only the powers and functions that are conferred upon it, but the way in which it is composed. We discussed these matters in reasonable detail on Second Reading and in Committee. The jury is out to an extent on whether—and, if so, to what extent—Government thinking and decisions on the matters reflect the spirit and content of our exchanges. Suffice it to say that there is a recognition that the authority needs to draw on the experience of the private security industry itself. If it were to fail to do so, it would not be adequately informed in the exercise of its powers.
      On the other hand, it is important that people of ability and good intent who do not have a background in the private security industry but might have a capacity to offer an alternative view should have the chance to do so. One does not want the functions of the authority to suffer, however inadvertently, from the existence of what might be considered to be a parallax view; that is to say, the domination or exclusivity of a view that is drawn only from those who work in the industry. The Minister assured us in Committee that it was the intention to have a broad range of people. I hope that people will not be appointed to the authority by way of the offer of a bauble, but because they have ability, competence and good will. I am happy to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on that point and I hope that our best expectations and justified hopes for the composition of the authority will be reflected in due course.
      A second important issue is the licensing and approval regime, including the provision for appeals and representations in relation thereto. We knocked these issues around by way of a game of legislative table tennis. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath
      88
      (Mr. Hawkins) and I—as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is not in his place today but who contributed to the Committee—still have concerns about the way in which the Government intend to proceed. Nevertheless, Ministers made their case, and I hope that it will be borne out by the evidence of the efficacy of the Bill.
      The fact that the Government and Opposition differ in their opinions serves only to underline the importance of the publication of findings and the opportunity for all Members of Parliament to come to a conclusion about whether the authority and the Bill have been effective in the first year. I hope that such opportunities will arise in the months ahead. The efficacy and transparency of the licensing regime will be important.
      A third consideration is equally important—that of equity. We do not want the legislation to be a blunt instrument that over eggs the pudding. It should not trample over the legitimate rights of people employed in the industry, or those who deal with them, in order to achieve its objectives. The legislation must be proportionate at the same time as being effective.
      There is a legitimate debate about who should be included under the rubric of the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South—we defer to the strength of his long experience—believes that other sectors should be subject to the Bill's provisions in future. We shall wait and see. I do not necessarily disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, nor with the present stance of the Government, but in practice the hopes held out for a measure and the words the Government use to justify their position often differ from the evidence of the practical impact of the legislation.
      The Government have made a case for regulation of the private security industry. They are also able to invoke as ballast in support of their case the fact that most of the sector wants some regulation. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that just as not all of the large employers in that 350,000-employee industry are good, not all the small operators are bad. Some of the small operators would like to grow and it is therefore important to keep a proper focus on the balance between efficacy and zeal. Small companies should not be so smothered in excessive regulation that they do not have an opportunity to develop their legitimate commercial activities.
      My final concern is the way in which the powers of entry and inspection will be implemented. Without those powers, the Bill would not have any practical effect if people could not inspect on behalf of the authority to discover whether companies were respecting its provisions. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) observed earlier, it is important that the powers are equitably enforced. People should not be intimidated by excessive inquiry or over-zealous interference by public authorities. Defences should be built and protection provided. The guilty should be apprehended and punished, but the innocent should be left to go about their lawful business, consistent with the principles of a liberal and pluralist democracy.
      My concerns are reflected in the 25-odd clauses of the Bill, and the jury is out on how effective those provisions will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden wish the Bill well. We have a duty to maintain a certain critical and dispassionate distance from the

      89
      Government on the subject and, in a fair spirit, to remind Ministers that, in the end, they will be judged on the evidence. I hope that the Bill will be effective and that people will judge this activity of Parliament as having been worth while.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      ASYLUM
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13119/00, a Commission Communication on a Common Asylum Procedure and Uniform Status for Persons Granted Asylum; and supports the Government's active participation in the debate on the Communication and the Government's Intention to participate in measures which would lead to the establishment of a common European asylum system, without undermining the integrity of the UK's frontier control.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      FINANCIAL SERVICES
      That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act and Meaning of Collective Investment Scheme) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 1421), dated 10th April 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Question agreed to.

  Dyslexia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  8.6 pm
  Jane Griffiths: I am honoured to have secured this Adjournment debate on such an important subject. There is an element of circularity in that what is probably my last speech in this Parliament is on education, because my first action in the Chamber after being elected was to ask a question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and my maiden speech was in the debate on the Bill to end the assisted places scheme and reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; so it seems right that my last contribution in this Parliament should be on education for people with dyslexia.
  The Prime Minister promised that the first three priorities for this Government would be education, education, education. A child goes through education only once. Anything not done right in that time will stay with that child for the rest of his or her life. That is why it is so important that we get education right first time. It is even more important that we get it right for people with special needs such as dyslexia.
  So what is dyslexia? I am grateful to the British Dyslexia Association, and particularly its policy director Carol Orton, for a briefing for this debate. The British Dyslexia Association is based in my constituency and further information about it, dyslexia and the support available can be found at www.bda-dyslexia.org. The word "dyslexia" comes from Greek and means difficulty with words. It involves a difference in the part of the brain that deals with language—it affects the underlying skills that are needed for learning to read, write and spell. More and more evidence has been gathered from brain-imaging techniques showing that dyslexic people process information differently from other people. That is particularly important and there is much more to be learned about what is and is not dyslexia, together with how it happens.
  Around 4 per cent. of the population are severely dyslexic. A further 6 per cent. have mild to moderate problems. The recent Moser report found that 7 million adults had poor basic skills, many as a result of dyslexia, although many of them might not know it, having never been diagnosed. Dyslexia occurs in people from all backgrounds and of all abilities, from people who cannot read or write to those with university degrees. Dyslexic people of all ages can learn effectively but often need a different approach to learning.
  Dyslexia is a puzzling mix of both difficulties and strengths. It varies in degree and from person to person. Dyslexic people often have distinctive talents as well as typical clusters of difficulties. Examples of difficulties include reading hesitantly; misreading, which makes understanding difficult; problems with sequences, such as getting dates in order; poor organisation or time management; difficulty in organising thoughts clearly; and erratic spelling. Examples of the possible strengths include innovative thinking; excellent troubleshooting; intuitive problem solving; being creative in many different ways; and lateral thinking.
  The range of difficulties and strengths, along with the possible difference for different people, is part of what makes dyslexia difficult to detect. There has also been a

  91
  reluctance for far too long among educationists to accept the existence of dyslexia. Too many were reluctant to accept it because they thought that middle-class parents would claim that their child was dyslexic when in reality the child was simply not as clever as they would like.
  My experience as a Member of Parliament, as well as as a councillor before that, confirms that there are indeed parents who will claim dyslexia in such circumstances, but I would contend that a child's comparative achievements should be dealt with honestly, and I think that the growth of testing has helped enormously with that. The problem should not lead to a denial of the existence of dyslexia.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on a very important issue. Only yesterday, I spoke to Mr. Jordan, an optometrist in my constituency, who has been undertaking research involving 5,000 people in the United Kingdom over a period of 10 years. He believes that there is a way of measuring visual dyslexia. He and his colleagues have developed programmes that will be useful for teachers, including tests for visual reversals and a CD-ROM for teachers. If I forwarded that information to her and indeed to Ministers would they take it on board and examine it carefully?
  Jane Griffiths: I warmly welcome what is clearly innovative research being done in the hon. Lady's constituency. I would be very glad to be furnished with information to help to make progress in research and development on this important subject.
  It is important to identify dyslexia early. If it is identified early, support can be put in place so that a dyslexic child learns to its full capacity, just like any other child. If dyslexia is left unidentified, the child will have difficulties learning and will not develop to its full potential. In more extreme cases, which may be more numerous than we know, the inability to learn will result in the child switching off from education and from society, leading to disruption in school, to truancy and possibly to involvement in crime.
  Angela Devlin, a prison visitor and researcher, found high levels of dyslexia in the prison population, which she considered both a symptom and a major cause of the prisoners' condition. That shows graphically why it is so important to get it right first time. Baseline assessment exists to assess how children perform when they enter school, but it will not normally identify children at risk of developing literacy difficulties because of dyslexia. Some schools use dyslexia screening tests so that they can pick up potential problems as soon as possible.
  An audit was carried out for the BDA last summer by Members of Parliament during their school visits. It was admittedly not a scientific survey, but it covered 473 schools so it is worthy of note. It showed that only 11 per cent. of respondents had any formal procedures in place to identify dyslexia. A worrying 26 per cent. felt that they could not give specific help until the local authority educational psychologist had formally identified the child as dyslexic. Many pointed out how few visits they received from the educational psychologist and said that they had to prioritise what happened in those visits.
  92
  How many dyslexic children are still not being diagnosed, are being misdiagnosed or are being offered unsuitable provision? Are there any plans to standardise and distribute an assessment for dyslexia?
  The literacy hours have been a great success and there has clearly been a significant improvement in literacy among children, but dyslexic children have fundamental difficulties with remembering and understanding sounds, and because the literacy hour moves fairly fast they can easily be left behind. How can we ensure that any falling behind is investigated long before it seriously affects self-esteem and causes frustration?
  Too often, dyslexia is still seen as simply a reading problem, which means that children are being punished for dyslexic characteristics such as untidy handwriting or not listening, when in fact they have not been able to process language at speed and have been humiliated by the teacher's insisting that they read aloud in class, or even, in some cases, that they read out their work phonetically. We do not want such practices to continue.
  The Department for Education and Employment has funded the printing of 35,000 dyslexia-friendly schools resource packs. That is a very positive and inclusive move, but it requires a proactive approach, which is too often missing. What steps will the Government take to ensure that similar policies are taken on board? I have heard about too many schools that are reluctant to admit children with dyslexia.
  I am pleased to have had the chance to raise this important issue. I would like to summarise the points. They are: identifying dyslexia early; the impact on dyslexic people of the literacy hour; understanding dyslexia; and dyslexia-friendly schools.
  A child goes through education only once. That is why it is important that we get it right and that intervention happens early. I have ambition for all our children. I have ambition that the potential of all our children is fulfilled though the education system. I do not want anyone to be held back—that is why ambition is so important: deliver help for children with dyslexia, deliver ambition to all our children.
  8.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing this debate. Dyslexia is an important subject which the Government take very seriously. It affects 4 per cent. of the population, with a further 6 per cent. displaying some dyslexia traits, with the effects that my hon. Friend ably and clearly outlined in her thoughtful speech.
  I assure my hon. Friend and the House of the Government's awareness of dyslexia and specific learning difficulties, which is in no small part due to the positive and constructive working relationships that we have with organisations that support children and adults with dyslexia, such as the British Dyslexia Association, the Dyslexia Institute and the Adult Dyslexia Organisation.
  The Government's drive to raise educational standards has to be seen in the context of our wider efforts to work towards an inclusive society and an inclusive education system. An important part of that is ensuring that special educational needs are recognised and acted on as early as

  93
  possible. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his foreword to the booklet for the recent British Dyslexia Association conference in York, we must strive to ensure that children with special educational needs are not sidelined. All children must be helped to achieve their full potential.
  The recently published Green Paper affirms that we need to have high expectations of such pupils, to tailor the curriculum to their needs and to ensure that teaching challenges and stretches them. My hon. Friend spoke about the importance and centrality of the national literacy strategy, which was one of the first steps that the Government took to achieve their goal of an inclusive education system with high standards for all. It is intended to raise standards for all children, including those with special educational needs.
  The national literacy strategy has at its heart the concept of inclusion. We have some evidence that the literacy strategy is benefiting pupils with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia. Ofsted's report on the second year of the national literacy strategy confirmed that, in line with its inclusive philosophy, very few pupils with SEN are withdrawn from the literacy hour and that specific support for pupils with SEN was in almost all cases satisfactory.
  An essential element of the literacy strategy is the training and support provided to schools. We have produced materials that support the national curriculum 2000 statement on inclusion and give teachers practical advice on including pupils with SEN effectively in the literacy hour.
  Our training file "Supporting Pupils with SEN in the Literacy Hour" contains detailed guidance on the practical application of strategies for inclusion, the role of the teaching assistant and, with the help of the BDA, some specific guidelines on providing for pupils with specific learning difficulties.
  Mrs. Ewing: I hear all that the Minister says, but there is a need to support teachers to ensure that they understand the complexities of dyslexia. Is any money being allocated to ensure that teachers receive such training at college before they are placed in schools?
  Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I shall deal with precisely that point in a moment.
  A variety of methods exists to help children catch up, and they are included in the literacy strategy, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East correctly said, the priority must be not to let children fall behind. All too often, the parents of dyslexic children have told me that it is not good enough to wait until a child has fallen behind before recognising that there is a problem. That is why we have piloted a year 1 intervention strategy—early literacy support—in 40 local education authorities during the current school year, and we will extend the strategy on a national basis from this financial year.
  Evidence from the pilot scheme suggests that we can reduce the number of children encountering significant difficulties with literacy at the end of year 1, by a combination of extra training, the careful screening of children against literacy objectives and additional, daily, small-group literacy support for identified children from a trained teaching assistant.
  94
  As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has said, it is, of course, particularly important that teachers are aware of the needs of children who have, or may be at risk of developing, special educational needs of any kind. That is why, since 1998, to secure qualified teacher status—in other words, during initial teacher training—students must demonstrate that they can identify pupils with SEN, that they know where to get help so that they can give positive and targeted support and that they are familiar with the SEN code of practice.
  Those arrangements are further reinforced by the induction period arrangements that all teachers must undertake, and opportunities for in-service training also need to be provided for teachers once they are in post. That is why, in 2001-02, under the Department's standards fund programme, we are supporting expenditure of £82 million on SEN and envisage that £30 million of that sum will be spent on training and professional development. Although LEAs are responsible for determining precisely how that money is spent, I certainly would expect in-post training in recognising and dealing with dyslexia to be included for staff.
  As I suggested earlier, we are also actively working with the voluntary organisations to raise awareness. For example, with the BDA, we jointly developed a poster providing hints for primary school teachers to help them identify those pupils with dyslexia. As my hon. Friend said, we have also provided a grant to help the BDA produce a schools resource pack, called "Achieving dyslexia friendly schools", and we have recently agreed funding to reprint that as well. The pack promotes a whole-school approach to supporting pupils with dyslexia and provides examples of best practice.
  We also want to play an active part in research on dyslexia. Together with the National Lottery Charities Board and W. H. Smith, we are funding a two-year "Spell It"—which stands for study programme to evaluate literacy learning through individualised tuition—research project, run by the Dyslexia Institute, to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention. The project is targeted at seven-year-old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties in learning to read, write and spell. Two key elements of the project are to develop activities that parents can do at home—parents are often keen and able to support their children—and to share the knowledge and skills of specialist teachers more widely. The results of that research are expected in 2002.
  My hon. Friend rightly identified the key issue—the early identification of special educational needs and dyslexia in the early years of education. Such early identification and early intervention to support those needs are a critical part of the Government's programme to raise standards. We are taking a number of steps to reinforce SEN structures in the early years. First, the introduction of the foundation stage of the national curriculum and the early learning goals in September 2000, alongside the significant expansion in places for three and four-year-olds, is an important part of the programme. The foundation stage guidance, published last May, is designed to help all early years settings to create inclusive learning environments and to support early identification and appropriate intervention.
  Again, we are focusing on the need to ensure that practitioners are trained, and we have set ambitious targets for early years and child care development partnerships, which are responsible locally for the strategy, to provide

  95
  high-quality early education and child care places. The targets that we have set them cover the next three financial years and include establishing SEN co-ordinators in every registered early years setting by 2002; providing three days relevant training for every one of those SEN co-ordinators by 2004; and establishing a network of area co-ordinators to work with early years settings in the non-maintained sector, to provide expert advice and support. Significant funds are being provided to help carry forward that agenda.
  My hon. Friend also rightly raised the important issue of baseline assessment. Baseline assessment can be a useful first screen. It helps teachers to consolidate their knowledge about pupils and devise strategies to follow up and meet any needs they may have. It also helps them to identify children whose needs may require further assessment and intervention, including those with dyslexia, if that has not been done already.
  Although baseline assessment was not devised primarily to identify SEN, research into the current 90 local schemes shows that about two thirds of schools use it effectively as an early warning of learning needs, perhaps signposting a need for further screening, but there are differences between schemes. That is one of the reasons why we recently asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consult on proposals for a national scheme for baseline assessment at the end of the foundation stage, to replace the current local schemes for the 2002-03 school year. The responses to that consultation are currently being analysed.
  We believe that a national scheme would enable quality and consistency to be improved. It would build on the best features of successful local schemes, including pointers to raise awareness of phonological and language difficulties which indicate reading difficulties later on. It would also
  96
  allow children with particular needs for intervention, such as dyslexia, to be identified before literacy and numeracy sessions begin in year 1.
  The consultation document also asked whether and how baseline assessment could be used specifically to help to improve the early identification of special educational needs. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is a complicated area. There are of course many questions as to how baseline assessment might relate to the code of practice, to the early years provision that I outlined and to school-based provision. I have been especially keen to pursue answers to those questions, and am keen to work with any organisations which have ideas for such early identification.
  We have considered other avenues of early diagnosis and intervention that can be pursued. We recently announced funding of £100,000 to support work by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Farnborough, the Royal Berkshire hospital and the laboratory of physiology at Oxford university, through the Dyslexia Research Trust, on the development of a new diagnostic aid for childhood dyslexia. The objective of the project is to design a prototype, child-friendly eye movement and tracking system that may enable early detection of childhood dyslexia. That is a particularly interesting project, combining as it does the existing world of fast-jet technology with research expertise in understanding the physiological bases of childhood dyslexia.
  In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I reassure her that the Government put both high standards for all children and the inclusion of all children at the centre of their education policies. We shall continue to work with partners to ensure that children with dyslexia are identified early and are given the best possible opportunity to develop to their full potential.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Light Aircraft Insurance and Regulation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Hill.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of helicopter and light aircraft insurance and regulation. I look forward to hearing the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not least because all the information at my disposal has been put at his disposal, so that he can give an informed response. I shall be focusing on a particular tragic accident in Leicestershire just over three years ago, when a helicopter crashed killing all on board.
The case is important for three reasons. First, it highlights the hardship faced by the Linhart family in my constituency. Secondly, it shows severe shortcomings in the law and regulations concerning light aircraft and helicopter insurance, and pilot training. Thirdly, on the day when we all expect to hear when Parliament will be dissolved, it is as good a demonstration as any of how a Member works in Parliament to help those in tragic circumstances and puts forward ways in which to avoid similar incidents in future. I pay tribute to those who have been involved in the case during the past three years, in particular my long-serving private secretary, Mrs. Thurza Rowson, who has worked hard on the case, and Philippa Carling from the Library, who has also provided invaluable support.
On 19 April 1998, a Robinson 44 helicopter crashed into a hillside near the village of Gumley between Leicester and Market Harborough. The pilot, James Coulter, and his three passengers, sisters Katie and Helen Linhart, and Helen's husband, Andrew Byrne, were killed. Helen and Andrew's three young children were orphaned and are now being brought up by their grandparents, Michael and Mary Linhart who, sadly, are unable to attend today's debate. I feel strongly about the case. Michael and Mary Linhart have suffered a terrible tragedy, losing two daughters and a son-in-law, as has Rachael Linhart—the surviving sister—who lost two sisters.
The case has several wider implications. It has revealed a serious inadequacy in the insurance requirements for private pilots, helicopters and light aircraft. Three small children, one of whom suffers serious health problems, have been left without compensation and proper provision for their upbringing, welfare and education. Not one penny has been paid to these children for the loss of their parents. In fact, it has cost Michael Linhart, a 75-year-old pensioner, a considerable amount finally to establish the position.
2WH
The three children now receive a total of £68.60 a week between them. It is made of £32.40 guardian allowance and £36.20 child allowance. That cannot be right in a society where such emphasis is placed on the provision for all eventualities and for the victims of every type of misfortune. From my involvement in the case, I have found that anyone listening to an account of the accident and its consequences for the first time expresses considerable amazement and anxiety about the situation. I can think of almost no other circumstances in which the children would end up with no compensation.
Before discussing how I understand the insurance situation, I shall briefly outline the circumstances of the crash. We must understand what happened to consider the insurance implications. The crash occurred on 19 April 1998 in Leicestershire, but not in my constituency. The party in the helicopter was returning from an evening meal at a nearby hotel, and the conditions were dark. Within five minutes of take-off, the pilot became disorientated, and the helicopter crashed. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Region's air accidents investigation branch at Farnborough concluded that
"at the time the pilot took off the weather was unsuitable for his proposed flight."
The report also pointed out that the pilot had ignored the manufacturer's operating handbook, because guidance note SN-26 states:
"Be sure you never fly at night unless you have clear weather with unlimited or very high ceilings and plenty of celestial or ground lights for reference."
On that night, a front brought rain and a cloud base between 300 and 600 ft above ground level that made conditions unsuitable for flight. As the area is rural, the general lighting is sparse. Coulter, although a qualified pilot, had little night flying experience, and the helicopter was inadequately equipped for safe instrument flying—I see the Minister nodding.
The East Midlands police air support unit, which is based 9 km south of the accident site, was scrambled but the weather conditions were so bad that their take-off was precluded. As the accident report states, at the time that the pilot took off from the hotel, the weather was unsuitable for his proposed flight. The accident that followed was catastrophic, and all people on board were killed.
I turn to the specific aspect of pilot training. Although I shall focus on insurance, I know that Mr. Linhart, who is looking after the children, feels strongly about that subject. I agree with him that the case raises important questions about helicopter pilot training. According to the accident investigation into the case, the pilot had completed the night instrument training necessary for a night rating. The night rating was achieved with only five hours flying at night, and entitled the pilot to fly at night, although outside controlled air space he was to fly in accordance with instrument flight rules. The so-called night rating does not qualify a pilot to fly with instruments at night if appropriate weather conditions do not apply. In other words, the pilot is qualified to fly at night with the appropriate visibility, providing that the aircraft remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. The Robinson 44 helicopter in question had limited flying instrumentation.

3WH
A Civil Aviation Authority review of general aviation fatal accidents from 1985-94 commented that
"usually, training for the Private Pilot's Licence takes place in good weather—and with the advent of more candidates training for the PPL overseas, the trend is likely to increase. The average PPL student has little if any exposure to adverse weather during training and, on obtaining his licence, is unlikely to understand how to assess weather conditions or be able to relate his own skills to a deteriorating weather situation".
The review recommended that training should be subjected to greater CAA oversight, particularly in matters of weather appreciation, calculation of safety altitude, flight planning and diversion techniques.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise for not being here for the outset of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Increasingly, flying training organisations in this country are finding that their business is haemorrhaging, particularly to the United States. The US has virtually wall-to-wall blue skies, which is not the case here. Pilots who train in this country are subjected to bad weather; indeed, they train for bad weather, because otherwise they cannot get airborne.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I enjoyed clear skies in America when I was 23 and had the opportunity to fly in a light aircraft from Boston to Los Angeles and from California to Colorado. I remember what a wonderful way of seeing America it was, and how many light aircraft were buzzing around in America. By way of analogy, one could say that when diving—I am a diver—in the Red sea or the West Indies, the conditions are clear. The Professional Association of Diving Instructors in America runs courses that are designed for fair weather. However, the British Sub-Aqua Club trains in different and difficult conditions. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may call me to order. We are not discussing diving today, although we could move on to sky diving. I do not want to make the debate flippant. We do not intend to spin out the debate—not that we ever do in the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are discussing the safety of passengers and how to protect them. I have always believed that the training afforded by British establishments generally, whether for the air or diving, to be among the best in the world. In this instance, however, insurance seems not to be right, and the aspects of training and the notification of qualifications are involved. These are key matters for the Minister to consider.
The issue is whether the pilot's qualifications are properly known and his insurance is properly advertised. In this case, the pilot took off in conditions that were unsuitable for his proposed flight. Other fatal accidents have resulted from rapidly changing conditions or circumstances that had no bearing on pilot judgment.
On the key issue of insurance, I am worried about what insurance cover is required and whether the pilot has been negligent. It is precisely when the insured is negligent that victims in the aircraft or on the ground require adequate liability cover. I have some
4WH
connections with insurance, being a member of Lloyd's—an interest that I have registered in the Register of Members Interests, although it has nothing to do with this constituency case—and some appreciation of insurance matters. I understand that most claims are made by passengers rather than as a result of surface damage or injury to persons on the ground, but rare claims must be covered.
In January, in another potential accident, a pilot heroically guided a faltering Piper Seneca away from a school at Shoreham, bringing it down without loss of life, although damaging property. At the same airfield yesterday, a small aircraft made a crash landing coming into Shoreham airport, on the beach at Lancing. No one was hurt, thanks to an observant bystander who cleared the beach. One wonders about the frequency of such accidents. All too often we read in the newspapers about aircraft getting into trouble. I am reminded of the accident that happened at the weekend in France, in which a pensioner and, from memory, his daughter, who was about 20, were killed in similar conditions. An aircraft—from memory, a helicopter—came down. I wonder what the insurance situation was in that case.
In the Linhart case in Leicestershire, the pilot, Coulter, seems to have been seriously irresponsible in many respects, and my constituents were the innocent victims. I understand that when the coroner announced the verdict of accidental death, those present at the inquiry gasped in astonishment.
Coulter had hired the helicopter from a local company, Heli Air Ltd., on a self-fly, hire-only basis. As such, he was neither allowed nor qualified to give instruction to others, yet it emerged during the coroner's inquiry that he had offered shares in the helicopter and had received more than £3,400 from various sources, including Mr. Andrew Byrne, who paid £3,400 in cash, which was receipted. In return, those who had paid received a part share in the aircraft or helicopter, as well as instruction from Coulter. Although it is accepted practice for pilots to take petrol money, that does not seem to be the case in this instance. Mr. Coulter, under the name Helitravel Ltd., advertised services of sales-hire-charter-pilot training through local leaflet drops. He was, therefore, flouting the rules, just as he went on to do at the controls of the helicopter when he took off at night in breach of regulations.
Apparently, Mr. Coulter held no personal insurance but was insured by the owners of Heli Air Ltd. for flight subject to all warranties, terms and conditions of policy, which are the normal terms of an insurance policy. However, because he flew the helicopter in conditions that were manifestly prohibited by the insurance agreement and the aircraft's manufacturers, the leading underwriters, Ace Global Markets, denied liability to indemnify Heli Air Ltd. in respect of the accident on two grounds: illegality and failure to comply with air navigation orders and manufacturer's instructions. The underwriters further stated that Mr. Coulter had taken the helicopter without permission, in direct contradiction to the sworn statement given to the coroner by Mr. Mark Greenway, who was in charge at Stoughton airdrome, that he had given permission for the flight that night. The underwriters refused to pay compensation to the relatives and, when liability was denied, Maxwell Marland and Associates of Wandsworth, the aviation loss adjusters, stated that

5WH
they had no authority to let Mr. Linhart's solicitors see a copy of the insurance policy. Essentially, the underwriters, on behalf of the hire company, denied liability on the ground that the pilot had broken conditions of the insurance cover.
The weaknesses in the law appear to be as follows. Insurance should be a buffer to provide protection against human error, but liability in this case manifestly did not apply when error occurred. That seems ludicrous. In the three years before I was able to bring the case before the House of Commons, Mr. Linhart instructed Mr. Paul Balen of solicitors Freeth Cartwright of Nottingham to act on his behalf. Despite every effort, Mr. Balen was unsuccessful in obtaining compensation for the children. However, he had other important qualities and responsibilities.
Many passengers are carried by aircraft helicopters and balloons, almost certainly believing that they or their relatives are covered when, in fact, they are not. That will continue as long as there is no statutory requirement for operators or pilots to hold third-party insurance. That is the nub of the case that we are discussing. The requirements for light aircraft, including helicopters and balloons, are in stark contrast to those for car drivers, who must have third-party insurance under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Hon. Members will recall that extensive negotiations took place years ago between the insurance industry and the Government to ensure that third-party cover. I suggest that the Government need seriously to consider such provisions for the light aircraft industry.
There is no scheme similar to the Motor Insurers Bureau to deal with uninsured losses. Furthermore, no legal requirement exists for pilots to show their passengers and the company from which they hire aircraft evidence that they have insurance. In the case to which I am referring, it seems that everything was jolly; the parties involved were friends with a part-share in the helicopter. However, basic, fundamental issues were not addressed; insurance cover was not in place and no questions were asked. That brings us back to pilot regulations. Perhaps insurance certificates should be placed on the wall. After all, hon. Members must have an insurance certificate for liability insurance on the walls of their offices. I wonder whether that applies in the light aircraft industry. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
At present, there is no statutory requirement in the United Kingdom for aircraft insurance of any sort. That is astonishing but true. The Civil Aviation Act 1949 included provisions setting out a scheme for compulsory insurance for third-party liability. It included a limitation of liability provided that an appropriate insurance policy could be issued, and further restricted the right of the insurer to repudiate claims up to the specified limitation of liability. However, those provisions were never brought into force and were subsequently repealed by the Companies Act 1967, which changed the insurance terminology used in the 1949 Act.
In the United Kingdom, it is obligatory to obtain insurance only if an operator applies for an air transport licence. Such a licence is essentially required only by scheduled carriers and not by all public transport operators—taxi operators, for example. The law is
6WH
deficient because it is full of holes and complexities that often preclude relatives or passengers from obtaining compensation. That is what happened in the Linhart family's case—for various reasons, the insurance companies involved have denied liability and there is no cover in place, which has had awful effects. As I said, the children receive only a tiny amount of money.
In developing the arguments on insurance, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Warsaw convention, which is a set of legal rules governing—among other things—the liability of carriers for death and personal injury of passengers. The rules were originally written with regard to international carriage by air. The Carriage by Air Act 1961 makes the Warsaw convention part of English law for international carriage by air. The Carriage by Air Act (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 applies a modified version of the convention to non-international carriage, which includes carriage entirely within the United Kingdom. Hon. Members must forgive me; this is technical, but it is important that we address such technicalities.
The Warsaw convention applies only to carriage of persons for reward and to gratuitous carriage performed by an air transport undertaking. Therefore, in order to qualify for the compensation levels fixed by the convention, the passenger must be a paying or a nonpaying passenger who is flown by an air transport undertaking. Unfortunately, many flights are undertaken without charge by non-air transport undertakings. In my constituents' case, liability was denied on two fronts. First, if the pilot was carrying passengers for reward, he was in breach of the terms of hire for the helicopter. Secondly, if he was not carrying passengers for reward, he was not covered by the Warsaw convention—or the policy, which, in any event, would have been voided by his negligence.
There is no insurance or scheme to act as a back-up to protect victims. Some pilots have hire arrangements with air transport undertakings for the provision of light aircraft, balloons or helicopters and carry passengers without charge. When such pilots crash, causing injury or death, the passengers and their relatives are not protected by the Warsaw convention. The pilot could still be liable for negligence, if negligence were applicable, but is unlikely to be adequately insured or, as in the Linhart case, insured at all.
When the Warsaw convention does apply, the liability of the carrier is strict—without proof or fault. However, the carrier may be able to avoid liability by proving that it did everything possible to avoid the accident. The carrier may also be able to avoid liability if the pilot was negligent. However, an individual claimant cannot bring a claim against the carrier for negligence. We examined all such matters in the hope of finding a way for Mr. Linhart to claim insurance, but following a decision in the House of Lords on Sidhu v. British Airways in 1997, that type of claim is not available in the United Kingdom. Most standard aviation insurance policies covering convention liability exclude liability if the carrier—including the pilot—has not done everything reasonably practical to avoid the loss. Yet, many accidents are caused by error. However, a CAA official said that most responsible operators in the general aviation sector do have insurance, as was the case with Heli Air Ltd. I remind those present that liability was denied due to a breach of warranty

7WH
stipulations, which must be adhered to, although warranties have been consistently criticised.
The 1979 Law Commission working paper noted that
"the present law of warranties fails to strike a balance and…should therefore be changed."
The commission recommended two possible reforms. First:
"The abolition of warranties and the substitution of a continuing duty to notify increases of the risk, together with a provision that in the event of a breach the insurer's liability to pay claims should be governed by the proportionality principle."
That is a mouthful, but that is what was said. Secondly, it recommended a
"modified system of warranties: that is a system including provisions that a warranty should only be effective if it is material to the risk, and provisions limiting the right of the insurer to reject a claim for any loss when there has been any breach of a material warranty, where the breach is quite irrelevant to the loss."
Nothing came of the Law Commission recommendations.
Robin Allan, who is the deputy secretary and legal adviser of the CAA, was involved in the consultation set up by the Department of Transport for a possible general scheme within the UK for compulsory third-party insurance for all UK operators and pilots. In 1990, Mr. Allan delivered a speech to the Insurance Institute of London, entitled "Compulsory Third Party Insurance for Aircraft and its Implications for Insurers". The situation has not changed since he made that speech. Although he pointed out that it seems certain that the vast majority of aircraft are insured, as I mentioned, he said that it was less certain whether policies were sufficiently comprehensive and whether the amount of cover was adequate, and raised questions of what should be done in the event of uninsured risk, which is a central issue.
Mr. Allan suggested that the following four questions would need to be addressed if a compulsory scheme were considered:
"What are the appropriate levels of cover? What is to be done if the amount of cover proves inadequate? What is to be done in the case of uninsured risks? What is the position where any insurance policy may be avoided or cancelled because of a breach of condition"—
that is exactly the situation in the Linhart case—
"eg. a breach of a condition requiring compliance with the provisions of the Air Navigation Order?"
The starting point for the CAA's feasibility study was that the impossibility of a entirely comprehensive scheme should not necessarily rule out the imposition of some sort of compulsory scheme. I shall not go into the details of Mr. Allan's comprehensive assessment. I do not have the time to put forward proposals for what is a highly complex and technical aviation insurance matter, and it would not be desirable to do so. However, I am convinced that the issue can and should be considered again.
I have shown today that the concerns that I have raised in this debate have been considered in the past. Sadly, however, proposals have been shelved, possibly because it would be by no means easy to tackle such issues. Although I wholeheartedly support the avoidance of red tape, which may have been part of the
8WH
thinking in the past—perhaps the inadequacies that I have highlighted today were not given sufficient airing previously—I have come to understand, following extensive investigation of Michael Linhart's case and the devastating impact on his family, that regulation and a positive response from the Government are necessary, albeit that the Government may not be in office much longer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) will be sitting on a Conservative Government's Front Bench in a few weeks' time. However, the Minister has an opportunity to go out in glory and tell us his Department's considered proposals. Although I say that with a smile, I do not jest, as this is a serious subject.
I have argued that the law must be reviewed in respect of both helicopter insurance and pilot training. It is fundamentally wrong that effective third-party insurance, along the lines of motor car insurance, is not available for helicopters, light aircraft and balloons. A strong case also exists for reviewing helicopter pilot training and regulation to make rogue flights by rogue pilots less likely. I urge the Minister to agree closely to examine the present situation, which—almost beyond belief—has left three young children orphaned with just £68.60 a week between them and no legal remedy.
10.5 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am pleased to take part in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing it. As it happens, I was about to lodge a piece of paper with the Table Office two weeks ago to secure a debate on the wider issue of general aviation and not just insurance. However, today's debate ranges wider because my hon. Friend was clever enough to include the word "regulation" in its title. That enables us to debate more widely than his remarks about a tragic episode suggested.
I declare my interest as a life long aviator. I have held a pilot's licence since I was 17 and one of my claims is that I received three licences in four days: a licence to fly an aeroplane on 10 September when I was 17, a licence to drink on 12 September when I turned 18, and a licence to drive a motor ear on 14 September. 1 will not embarrass myself by informing the Chamber of the year in which all those events took place.
I have a close personal interest in the debate. Only yesterday, as a treat for my chairman's father-in-law, whose birthday it was, I took him on a surprise flight from Blackbushe airport in my constituency. The last time that he flew was about 40 years ago in a Mosquito when he was in the Royal Air Force. I was not quite able to emulate the manoeuvres of a Mosquito, but had a good go within the safety parameters that the Chamber and the Minister would expect.
I want to address a few points arising from the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, and some wider issues about which I have given the Minister's office notice. The Minister has been briefed and I thank those in his office for their courtesy in doing so.
My hon. Friend raised a tragic case. 1 put it to him, however, that it is exceptional. One rather crude adage states that sad cases make bad law. I would not want him to believe that I think that it is a sad case in the popular sense—it is a tragedy. However, I am not sure

9WH
that we should extrapolate a huge raft of regulations from that specific incident to deal with it and prevent it from happening again. My hon. Friend rightly said that we are both members of a party that believes in the reduction of red tape. As an aviator, I have seen regulation after regulation piled on. We need to consider carefully how far we continue to pile them on—always, of course, in the interests of safety—before we finally throttle an industry in which Britain leads the world.
On insurance, my hon. Friend made a fair point: anyone taking to the skies should ensure that they are properly insured. However, that is not without its difficulties. Having led a hitherto fairly carefree existence, on getting married I faced up to the realities of life and my new responsibilities and, like others in my situation, took out various life assurance policies. However, I discovered that a loading was placed on my life assurance policy, in that any private flying that I did would invalidate it. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that that loading was dropped within a few years, and in recent times none of my life assurance policies has incurred such a loading as a result of my flying activities.
However, my hon. Friend will find that it is fairly common practice among insurers to provide exclusions for activities that they deem particularly dangerous, such as mountaineering. I am not sure whether diving falls into that category. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend indicates that it might well do so, and it is certainly true that private flying sometimes does. Different insurers take different views. Specialist aviation insurers recognise the associated risks, but because those risks are perceived as relatively low, the insurance market is lively. If the risks were intolerable, no one would insure private fliers, but the fact is that everyone can obtain insurance for their aircraft and their flying activities.
There is the ancillary point that passengers are also at risk. How many people who, on a glorious sunny day such as today, are invited by a friend or relative to fly to, say, Le Touquet for lunch, consider insurance cover before taking to the air? I suspect that most do not. Indeed, the very act of looking up one's insurance policy would probably inspire a nervous reaction. Despite the statistics quoted by my hon. Friend, flying in the United Kingdom is a relatively safe activity. There are some 60,000 private pilots in this country —of whom about 30,000 are active at any given time— and approximately 10,000 aircraft. Putting the accidents to which my hon. Friend referred in that context shows that flying is a relatively safe activity. Of course, the moment that one leaves terra firma, one is in a third dimension that brings added risks, but I believe that those risks are quantifiable.
Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend saying that third-party insurance for motoring has not been a success? Surely it is possible to apply the same principle to the aviation sector without overburdening pilots with masses of regulation. I am not sure that I see a difference between motoring and aviation in that regard.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is a fundamental difference between motoring and aviation. The motoring market consists of millions of policyholders, but the aviation market is very much smaller. I am told that the aviation industry cannot operate a scheme such as that run by the Motor Insurers
10WH
Bureau because the levy required would be great and would bump up costs enormously. A huge levy is not necessary in the motor industry because the scale of the operation is much larger, and most of the millions of motorists in this country get through a given year without an accident. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend raises an important issue and it is right to consider ways of ensuring that the tragic circumstances that he has described are not repeated.
I return to the point that my hon. Friend made about weather, on which I intervened. It is important that flying training organisations in this country should flourish and that we should not export the business to Spain or to the United States of America because weather conditions in those countries are wholly different from those here. The Minister will recognise that my remarks are addressed largely to him.
If a person is to obtain a pilot's licence to qualify them to fly in this country, it seems less than sensible for all their training to take place in a climate where weather conditions are so favourable that, when they return to this country and are pitched into low cloud or fronts suddenly coming through, they will be completely at sea. Being subject to adverse weather is part of the experience of flying training in this country. People must make calculations.
I had to make a calculation yesterday morning. I got up at 7 o'clock, looked out of the window and saw that the cloud base around Farnborough was low. I headed off to Blackbushe airport and saw that the cloud was breaking. I checked the weather forecast from Avbrief—there is the commercial plug for avbrief.com, a very good company that provides private pilots with aviation briefing—and found out that at Farnborough there was a cloud base of broken cloud at 1,000 ft, which tallied with what I could see in the sky. The forecast was good, so I took off and found that the weather improved as the day went on.
Private pilots in the United Kingdom must make such calculations all the time. A pilot who learned in the United States or in Spain would probably not encounter any bad weather apart from looking out for the odd tornado here and there. Here, the only Tornado that one needs to look out for is one coming the other way, up a valley in the Lake district or in Wales, in which case, one hopes that it is a bit lower than oneself. That is one of Her Majesty's Tornados, rather than the Almighty's, and is not quite as potent, although a potent weapon nevertheless.
Every flying club operates proper insurance cover so that aeroplanes are hired with insurance. No one can fly solo who has not had a check during the previous 28 days. I belong to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency flying club, which has its own aeroplane maintained by members of DERA. It has a self-imposed rule, whereby someone who has not flown for 56 days has to have a check. The activity is becoming ever more regulated, ever more draconian.
It is all very well talking about more regulation and about making aeroplanes safer. The ultimate safety is not to leave the ground. but I remind my hon. Friend and the Chamber that aerospace is the one area where the UK is not struggling to keep up. We are a world

11WH
leader, with the United States, France and possibly Germany. We rank equally with the United States in terms of talent, although not in terms of size.
We should not kill the golden goose. We should not make it completely impossible for ambitious and inspired young people to learn to fly. That would kill the business. I believe that there are plenty of safeguards. Air traffic control services in this country are absolutely brilliant. Although human error accounts for virtually all accidents, air traffic control is there to help. If one gets into trouble, the first thing to do is to call it and ask for help. It is only too willing to help. It is not there to try to catch private pilots out, and I think that it does a first-class job.
The cost is increasingly becoming a deterrent. It costs £140 an hour to hire the most basic of aeroplanes. That is a huge amount of money, especially if one does a 35 or 40-hour course—my hon. Friend can do the mathematics as well as anyone else. It is not just a rich man's game. Many people who learn to fly are young boys and girls who do a newspaper round or work in Tesco at the weekend to try to earn the money to do so. The consequence of more regulation is that the cost is pushed up, so that people cannot afford to go flying and lack the necessary experience, which has an adverse impact on safety.
That brings me to my second point. We need a national private pilot's licence that is applicable to people who fly in the United Kingdom but do not wish to fly beyond it, as is mostly the case. Some choose to go abroad. It would not apply to me, for example, because I have flown in France and in Germany and have a JAR—joint aviation requirements —licence anyway. Eighteen months ago, I suggested to the Civil Aviation Authority that we should have a national private pilot's licence. It seems to be coming round to the view that it is a good idea, and has undertaken negotiations with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said in a letter to me the other day that he hopes that it will be effective from the beginning of next year. I welcome that prospect.
Private flying clubs are up against it. The lousy weather has meant that they have been unable to fly. Huge and onerous conditions have been imposed on them by the JAR flight crew licensing requirements. They now see the prospect of a national private pilot's licence, but it will not be effective until the beginning of next year. That means that people are standing off, saying, "I won't start a flying course until the new NPPL comes in." No flying hours that are carried out now will qualify for the NPPL, which is nonsensical. I take this opportunity to say publicly what I have said to the Under-Secretary: any flying that is undertaken as from 1 June should qualify for the NPPL. In his letter to me, he said that
"training to the NPPL syllabus will not be permitted prior to its coming into effect, and no credit will be granted for flying hours acquired under any other training syllabuses.
That suggests that there will be a completely different syllabus for the NPPL, but I cannot think why that should be so.
12WH
I shall give some examples of the exercises that are carried out by private pilots in securing their licence. The first exercise is aircraft familiarisation, which I imagine would be common to both licences. The second is preparation for action for and action after flight, which I imagine would also be common. The next exercises are air experience, effective controls, taxiing, straight and level flight, climbing, descending, turning, slow flight, stalling, spin recovery at the incipient stage, spinning, take-off and climbing to a downwind position —I am halfway through the list already. I cannot imagine that those exercises will be in any way different under the NPPL. I urge the Minister to give the industry a lifeline by saying that from 1 June it will be perfectly lawful for any flying that is undertaken to count towards the NPPL, as long as the student makes it clear at the outset that that is the licence that he or she wishes to go for.
I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. It may well be necessary to ensure that people are properly covered when they go flying. An element of caveat emptor is involved. Someone who is not a pilot and goes private flying should first check whether the pilot is insured and that they are not invalidating their own insurance cover. If a company hires an aeroplane to someone, it has a responsibility to ensure that that person is competent and has the necessary insurance cover. I should like to see common sense applied to those matters rather than further regulation.

All of us who are engaged in aviation in Britain know that the number one priority is safety, the number two priority is safety and the number three priority is safety. The Royal Air Force trained me, and I can assure my hon. Friend that safety is the number one interest of all of us engaged in aviation, because our lives are at risk.
10.26 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing the debate. He has set out the tragic events at Gumley in April 1998 and the frustrations and difficulties that followed for the Linhart family, which was tragically affected. He has opened up a range of issues that deserve serious consideration and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to them.
According to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), sad experiences make bad law. However, he has not made his case because the important issues raised by that tragic accident have wider repercussions. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bosworth and that he will have something positive to say at the end of the debate.
The debate has highlighted not only the horrific lack of regulation or control that started the chain of events, but, despite comparisons with car accidents, that there are many accidents that involve helicopters, light aircraft and microlights. Indeed, the relevant statistics were laid out at the beginning of the debate. The consequences for insurance or regulation will not necessarily be the same in each instance, but we cannot be complacent and ignore those issues; we must treat the matter seriously.

13WH
The hon. Member for Bosworth focused on training. He highlighted the adverse weather conditions on that night and questioned whether the pilot was properly experienced and should have decided to fly. He also raised issues from the accident investigation report about its recommendation that there should be additional Civil Aviation Authority oversight of that type of aircraft. It would be useful if the Minister can tell us what changes, if any, have been made as a consequence of that.
The main thrust of the argument has rightly and properly focused on insurance. In the Linhart's case, liability was denied and compensation removed because of the illegality of the operations undertaken by the pilot, which ignored whether air navigation orders were followed and whether manufacturer's directions were complied with. Shockingly, in all the inquiries that took place afterwards, relatives were unable to see the documents that were at the root of the insurance cover.
The hon. Member for Bosworth said that insurance should be a buffer to protect individuals in the event of error. However, it appears from the way in which current legislation is crafted that exclusion seems possible when error has occurred, which makes nonsense of that principle and makes that a fraught area to consider. The worrying aspect highlighted by the hon. Member for Bosworth is that many passengers may be uninsured, perhaps inadvertently, but perhaps, occasionally, with knowledge. Without a requirement for third-party insurance, that is likely to continue.
The hon. Member for Aldershot referred to the sense of ensuring, before flying, that insurance is in place and regulations are followed. That may be sensible and proper, but perhaps defies reality. How many of us check the insurance status of our driving companion when we accept a lift? The system includes checks and balances, and reviews by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the CAA of the issues may have suggested that belt-and-braces provisions existed. The Linhart case—I believe that there will be other, similar cases—illustrates that although logical protection seemed to be in place, a family suffered a tragedy for which there was no compensation available. Compensation cannot bring back those who have died and cannot hope to make up for the resulting difficulties and emotional traumas, but it would at least provide a future for the family and the young children who were affected.
The hon. Member for Bosworth said that the law must be changed. He made an eloquent case for that and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that something will be done.
10.32 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I shall be brief so that the Minister will have time to do justice to the subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing the debate and on the work that he and his staff have done in pursuing the issue. It is a serious issue because, as we have heard, when people get into an aircraft, many do not realise the difficulties that can arise for their friends and relatives if the aircraft crashes and they are killed. My hon. Friend set out the difficulties experienced by the family with three young children, and we should consider carefully how to improve the situation and ensure better insurance cover.
14WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made a balanced and sensible contribution, and it emerged from both contributions that it is necessary to make changes in the requirements for insurance. My hon. Friend also referred to the problems that pilots sometimes have in obtaining the most appropriate insurance. To move forward, we need a balanced approach in which passengers are covered and pilots are helped to obtain proper insurance cover.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said, international flights are covered by the Warsaw convention, which allows compensation to be paid without passengers having to prove fault. That is critical, because it takes a while to investigate air crashes and if legal action is taken the process can continue for years. My hon. Friend's suggestion for third-party insurance was very reasonable. There is no statutory requirement in general aviation for operators or pilots to hold third-party insurance. That is a matter of concern and contrasts with the requirement for third-party insurance for car drivers under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Motor Insurers Bureau scheme might be worth investigating. We are aware that the narrower market may make it more difficult to set that up, but it should be investigated.
My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulty of warranties and set out the Law Commission's comments on breach of warranty and the fact that suggestions have been made over the years to improve the situation, but, thus far, no one has taken it up. The matter was raised in a ten-minute Bill on the Floor of the House in 1993 by Anthony Coombs, the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest. He said that there were 11,000 small aircraft and expressed his worry about microlight aircraft not being covered by insurance, particularly were they to crash and cause damage to an individual or property. We must review the position and investigate the possibility of such a scheme, as that operated by the Motor Insurers Bureau.
Gliders are required to have third-party insurance. At present, hobby fliers and those with small aircraft who do not ply them for hire are not required to have insurance in respect of passenger liability or third parties. Such a position should be put right. Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 imposes on pilots and fliers an absolute liability to pay compensation to people who are injured and or when property is damaged as a result of their activities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said, unless pilots can receive adequate insurance and be confident that insurance companies will not use small print to get out of paying such insurance, they can end up being sued and lose their homes and businesses. Some years ago, the racing driver, Graham Hill, crashed when flying back his formula one team from the south of France. The resulting legal action wiped out his estate, so his widow and his son, Damon, virtually had to start from scratch because all the money earned from motor racing and sponsorship over the years had suddenly disappeared. Damon Hill has been successful in starting from scratch to becoming a top racing driver. There seems a great deal of sense in our looking not only into insurance matters to cover passengers, but giving private pilots greater protection who otherwise might face a lengthy legal battle that might eventually wipe them out.

15WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made some good points about training pilots in the United Kingdom, given our delightful weather and the difficulties that that creates. The only time that I have ever considered learning to fly was when I went to the Cranfield air show. While talking to a salesman of a light aircraft, I watched an aircraft take off after which time it stalled, crashed and killed two people. At that point, I decided to stick to less dangerous pursuits such as politics. The debate has been good and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. We should be examining ways in which to plug the gap and avoid some of the tragedies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.
10.38 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing this debate on such an important subject. He has carried out enormous research and he understandably feels strongly about it. I thank him and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for their courtesy in giving me notice of the key points that they wished to raise. The worry of the hon. Member for Bosworth certainly led me to study the report on the crash by the air accidents investigation branch. I am also grateful for the helpful interventions of the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). I hope to deal with most of the questions that have been asked. Those that I do not deal with today, I shall follow up in writing.
I much regret the tragic circumstances that have prompted the debate. It has drawn attention to several important issues in relation to aviation insurance, compensation and the training of pilots. I welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's policy on such issues. I shall also say something about how that sector of the aviation industry is regulated. Helicopters and light aircraft that are flown for commercial purposes usually require the operator to have a licence issued in accordance with Council regulation 2407/92 and to be adequately insured. The Civil Aviation Authority stipulates the minimum level of insurance required for the purposes of holding an operating licence. For single-engined non-turbine aircraft and all non-turbine helicopters, the minimum amount of insurance required is —3 million, which includes an element relating to third-party risks. Obviously, the figure is higher for larger aircraft. However, for helicopters and light aircraft operated privately, for pleasure or some other purposes, no statutory insurance obligation exists.
That situation may seem anomalous to the hon. Member for Bosworth, and he has so argued, but there are good reasons why successive Governments have not seen fit to introduce a requirement for mandatory third-party insurance cover for private pilots.
First, no evidence exists that those seeking compensation for damage caused to people or property on the ground by helicopters and light aircraft are unable to recover the cost of their damages. The number of accidents involving third-party damage is,
16WH
thankfully, low and, even when significant damage occurs, we are not aware of claims for compensation not being met.
Secondly, most helicopters and light aircraft are kept at airfields, where it is normally a condition of storage that adequate insurance cover is arranged. People who own and operate such craft, which are expensive items to purchase and maintain, are unlikely to be foolish enough not to ensure that their asset is adequately insured for all risks.
Thirdly, introducing a statutory insurance requirement for pilots would need to be administered and enforced, which would necessarily impose a cost on private pilots. Unless a strict enforcement regime were implemented, there would be no guarantee that those who fly without adequate insurance would comply with the law. Although car drivers are required to have third-party insurance, a significant minority of irresponsible people continue to drive without insurance.
I hope that it will be understood that, for those reasons, the Government do not intend to impose a requirement for insurance on private operators of helicopters or light aircraft. Even if such a requirement were imposed, there is no evidence that those affected by the— thankfully—low number of accidents would do any better than at present. If I have correctly understood the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the details would suggest that, even if the pilot had been insured, he would have invalidated the terms of his insurance by attempting to fly in the poor weather conditions that prevailed at the time of the accident. The accident that we have been discussing was a result not of error but an illegal act by the pilot in choosing to fly when conditions were unsuitable. He was insured by Heli Air, but he invalidated the insurance by his action. We may legislate on many things in Parliament, but we cannot prevent people from breaking the law.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister makes a good point. However, do not ultimate decisions on whether to fly and, particularly. whether to land in adverse weather conditions, always remain with the commander of the aircraft? The pilot himself made the decision.
Mr. Hill: It certainly was his decision, and it is a matter of the pilot's judgment. However, I want to explain the conditions, which are clearly laid down in law, that may guide the pilot's judgment in those circumstances.
The only way for provision to be made for compensation to be paid when such uninsured losses occur would be for the industry to introduce a scheme similar to that established for road vehicles, by the Motor Insurers Bureau. The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned that body, as did other hon. Members. However, it is doubtful whether such a scheme would be economically viable, given the relatively few private pilots compared with the millions of motorists. The hon. Member for Aldershot made that point. Furthermore, it would be necessary to introduce legislation requiring all pilots to be insured, thereby imposing a regulatory and financial burden on this sector of the industry. As there seems to be no compelling case to do that, successive Governments have been reluctant to regulate in an area in which, as far

17WH
as possible, industry self-regulation is to be preferred. I might also add that private boat owners have no obligation to carry third-party insurance cover.
The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned compensation. I shall explain the circumstances in which compensation is payable in the event of an accident. He mentioned the Warsaw convention, which was first adopted in 1929 but has since been amended several times. It sets out the basis on which victims or their relatives may request compensation from air carriers in the event of an accident.
Although the convention apples to international carriage by air, the UK has adopted the same basic provisions for the purposes of domestic flights. More recently, Community legislation I as been introduced that has resulted in much better terms becoming available for air passengers. However, in both cases, the provisions apply only in relation to commercial operations, and exclude private, flying. In such circumstances, no statutory right of compensation applies in the event of damages caused by the actions of private pilots.
I do not want to diminish the tragic circumstances surrounding the case that has been brought to our attention this morning, but such events are rare, and the incidents of victims or their relatives being unable to obtain compensation are few and far between. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot: I am not sure that it is right to legislate to cater for virtually one-off events. Sad or hard cases make bad law.
On pilot training requirements under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority has responsibility for regulatory oversight of a wide rang of aviation-related matters, including training standards, licensing and aircraft certification. The Government have consistently made it clear that they are not minded to interfere in the CAA's day-to-day regulatory functions.
Pilot training requirements for helicopters and aeroplanes are set out in the joint aviation requirements on flight crew licensing—JAR-FCL—which are issued by the Joint Aviation Authorities and implemented in the UK through the Air Navigation Order 2000. The requirements comply with internationally agreed minimum standards and are aimed at ensuring that the student pilot can fly safely and efficiently under visual flight rules, which generally exclude night and poor weather conditions.
The JAR-FCL syllabus covers theoretical and flight instruction, including supervised solo and cross-country flights. Typically, helicopters flown by private pilots are simple in design and are equipped and certified for flight only in good weather conditions. Even in the case of more sophisticated, better-equipped helicopters, pilots are still limited to flights in visual conditions unless they hold a full instrument rating.
The CAA has been worried about the high rate of small helicopter accidents caused by pilot disorientation following inadvertent entry into poor weather conditions. Since the accident, the CAA, supported by the UK helicopter industry, has introduced a range of measures to educate pilots about the risks of encountering poor weather unexpectedly, which is a particular danger at night, when bad weather is harder to detect until too late.
18WH
One of the measures introduced recently is the new private pilot licence (helicopter) qualification for night flight, which includes much more instrument flight instruction than formerly. Although the qualification does not permit a pilot to fly in other than good conditions, the additional instrument training provides him with a better chance of recovering safely should he inadvertently lose sight of the ground. However, the best way to reduce the risk of such accidents is to educate pilots better about the dangers of operating small, inherently unstable helicopters in anything other than good visual conditions.
If a pilot flies outside controlled airspace at night, he must fly in accordance with instrument flight rules, which require that the aircraft remains clear of cloud and in sight of the ground surface, unless the pilot holds an instrument rating and the helicopter is suitably equipped. Given the additional training necessary to obtain the new helicopter night qualification, the cost to an individual pilot has increased, but the previously high accident rate suggests that that is fully justified in the interest of flight safety.
The national private pilot's licence is intended to provide an alternative to the JAR-FCL private pilot's licence for pilots who wish to fly simple aircraft in good flying conditions within the UK. A major concern of the general aviation community about the implementation of JAR-FCL was the increased cost burden on pilots obtaining and maintaining the private pilot's licence. In particular, more stringent medical requirements mean that private pilots are now required to undergo an increased number of expensive medical examinations throughout their flying careers. The NPPL's training and medical requirements, although not as demanding as those of JAR-FCL, will be appropriate to the limitations placed on the exercise of the privileges of the licence, and will enable many hobby aviators to continue to fly safely in UK airspace.
The hon. Member for Aldershot raised the question whether there may not be many areas of flight training that are common to all syllabuses and that could be undertaken and credited against the NPPL syllabus. Presently, private pilots are free to commence training under JAR-FCL. If the NPPL subsequently came into effect and the pilot decided instead to train to that new syllabus, he could apply to the body responsible for administering NPPL to apply for credit to be given for common areas of training. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the NPPL proposals have yet to go to consultation. Therefore, it would be wrong for the Civil Aviation Authority to allow pilots to commence training, particularly on a non-JAR-FCL course, in the hope that the NPPL will come into effect in future.
Mr. Howarth: I cannot understand why there has been a huge fuss made about the differences. A part of the parliamentary answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, that I meant to quote and did not, states:
"As regards previously accumulated flying hours, the NPPL is envisaged as being a 'stand alone' licence, with no read across of equivalence to the Joint Aviation Requirements — Private Pilots Licence."—[Official Report, 10 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 500W.]
I accept that the Minister is not a pilot, but I say to the CAA through him that the syllabuses simply cannot be completely different. That is absurd. I hope that I have

19WH
made my argument to the Minister so that he can tell his officials and the CAA that the matter is perceived as an absurdity.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his points in a forceful, through reasonable, manner. I appreciate that they are based on his own experience and expertise in these matters. Of course, officials and the CAA will carefully read the remarks made by all hon. Members. I am sure that the CAA will give genuine consideration to the points that the hon. Gentleman made effectively.
I shall clarify the regulatory controls that apply to non-commercial flying. As I mentioned, the CAA has ultimate responsibility for aviation-related regulatory matters. The authority has sought to achieve a reasonable balance between maintaining central regulatory control and the devolution of certain flying activities to approved sector bodies. However, there is no suggestion that the CAA should divest itself of its core safety responsibilities. Therefore, for instance, the development of the technical requirements for the proposed new national private pilot's licence is being carried out by representative bodies from the industry, but the CAA will retain responsibility for the auditing of quality and safety standards. "Devolvement of responsibilities" is a much-misunderstood phrase, and the CAA will continue to hold ultimate regulatory responsibility, but will devolve certain oversight activities to approved organisations to act on its behalf. Again, safety standards will be assured.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth for the opportunity he has afforded the Chamber to discuss these questions in some detail.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me a cue to intervene because I wish to address one or two of the points that he made for further comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made the point that law should not be made on the basis of one bad—or, rather, exceptional—case. I gave the Minister a list of 120 fatal accidents. It would be instructive if his Department examined them, as that might lead it to decide that the matter encompasses more than just one exceptional case.
20WH
Reference has been made to new licences that are being introduced, such as new night licences and new standards. Does the Minister not think that there is a case for ensuring that pilots operate within the existing regulations? Greater emphasis should, perhaps, be laid on ensuring that they do not stray from the fold. That could be easily achieved.
Guidance for passengers should also be provided: perhaps it should be a statutory requirement that a leaflet should be given to them. It might be argued that an organisation similar to the Motor Insurers Bureau should not be set up because, although there are millions of passengers in cars, there are only a few pilots. However, there might be inexpensive ways of overcoming that problem to ensure that passengers and their dependants are aware of the horrendous risks that they might run when they fly, notwithstanding the expertise and good faith of most pilots.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for discussing this tragic case in such a reasonable manner.
I have been informed that, during the past three years, there have been, on average, 190 accidents involving helicopters and light aircraft with a gross weight of less than 2,370 kg. Of every 100 accidents, fewer than eight were fatal. On average, two people were killed in each fatal accident.
With regard to third-party damage, during the past three years there have not been any reported injuries to people on the ground, and only 10 instances of damage to property.
I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for pilots to operate within the existing regulations, but it is important to remember that, on the night of the tragedy in Leicestershire, the police and Royal Air Force helicopters were grounded due to poor weather. On the whole, public agencies and private flyers operate within the regulations, but that was not the case on this tragic occasion. That reinforces the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for education, and I and the Government concur with that.
The Government are not complacent about these matters. The training requirements for helicopter pilots have been improved in the three years since the accident. I do not wish to minimise the tragic consequences of the accident, but there are few such incidents, and there is little, if anything, that Government can do when all means to cover uninsured losses prove to be ineffective.

War Veterans
10.58 am
Ms Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on taking over responsibility for war veterans, and I am delighted that he is present. The creation of such a post was consistently blocked by the previous Government. In 1993, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who was Prime Minister at the time, said, in answer to a written question, that its creation was unnecessary and would merely add another administrative tier. It has taken the election of a Labour Government to recognise the need to designate a specific Minister to deal with the issues and concerns of war veterans. I applaud that decision.
Many issues are of concern to War veterans, ranging from the recognition for service in the Suez canal zone to compensation for ex-prisoners of war in Japan. The Government have taken those issues seriously and they are taking action in relation to them. Today, I shall examine two other issues of particular importance to the welfare of war veterans: homelessness and medical treatment for ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Those issues are not the concern of only one Government Department. Therefore, given his new responsibilities, they would best be dealt with by the Minister.
Partly as a direct result of the rough sleepers units, we have seen a real drive under this Government to eliminate homelessness, with earmarked funding for people on the streets, co-ordination between Departments and a clear target to reduce the number of rough sleepers by two thirds by Z002. In the past, Governments reverted to short-tern solutions rather than dealing with the long-term needs of the homeless, which put us in the position which we are in today. To tackle homelessness successfully, we must have a broader policy approach that includes provision for follow-up advice and support. The rough sleepers report from the social exclusion unit acknowledges that. It states:
"There is a central role for Government here, both in what we can achieve directly, and in what we can achieve through the work of others, especially local authorities. This is a crucial challenge for us all. We must ensure that those who have been in our care as children, as prisoners or as servicemen. are properly equipped for and supported towards independent living. Rising to this challenge must be a major component not only of our work to tackle rough sleeping, but also our efforts to deal with social exclusion more widely."
Ex-service personnel, especially single men, are vulnerable to becoming homeless, accounting for at least a quarter of the total number of homeless people in Britain. According to recent research by Crisis, that figure could be as high as a third. Crisis also found that, once on the streets, ex-service men stay homeless for longer. More than half of all homeless ex-service men are homeless for more than 10 years. Ex-service men are more likely than other groups to become homeless for complex reasons: some entered the Army after being in care, while others know little adult life outside the forces. The nature of life in the forces may not prepare them for life outside. In some cases, ex-service personnel suffer psychological damage as a result of serving in the forces, which affects their personal lives and well-being and indirectly affects family relationships—an issue to which I shall return later in my speech.
22WH
Another factor to emerge from the Crisis report is the pattern of homelessness among ex-service men that results from the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation on leaving the forces. More than 50 per cent. of homeless ex-service personnel initially moved into accommodation that they did not want and 60 per cent. stayed in their first accommodation for less than a year. Nearly 60 per cent. took five years to find a settled home, and nearly 40 per cent. had not had a home at all since leaving the forces.
Much work is currently being undertaken by the armed forces to resettle those leaving the services at risk of experiencing housing problems. Indeed, over the past two years, the situation has transformed dramatically. I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence on the progress that has been made. Four developments over the past five years are likely to have a positive impact on future homelessness: the reorganisation of resettlement services, including the establishment of the career transition partnership; the provision of improved employment and accommodation services; wider access to skills and qualifications that are recognised in civilian life; improved provision for medical discharge, especially access to full resettlement packages; and a smoother handover from military to civilian services, including housing and finance briefings, workshops, seminars, training and help with finding a job, which is now being routinely offered.
How can we build on that work? We must acknowledge that gaps in provision still remain and work to deal with them. For example, while resettlement support is provided for many, there is no such support for those who served for fewer than three years, unless they were medically discharged. Those people are especially vulnerable to becoming homeless. We must identify personnel who are at risk but have served fewer than three years—for example, those who have been administratively discharged but have recognisable problems—and begin to create a package of measures of support for that group. Resettlement services for those personnel might be delivered as a specialist project by ex-service welfare agencies in partnership with other voluntary sector agencies that have a track record in working with clients with similar difficulties.
I am aware that a working group of officials from the Ministry of Defence and the rough sleepers unit at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been set up. A pilot project called the single persons accommodation centre for the ex-services — SPACES —has already been launched at Catterick garrison. It is run by the English Churches housing group and provides accommodation advice to service personnel who are about to be discharged from the armed forces. Has the Minister any plans to extend that model to other areas of the country?
Homeless and service charities will need to work closely with local authorities to meet the needs of ex-personnel who are already in civilian life. I welcome the proposal in the housing Green Paper to widen the definition of categories of people vulnerable to homelessness and applaud the Government's decision to add ex-service men to the priority need list so that

23WH
they can be prioritised in local housing strategies. The measures introduced in the Homes Bill, which is being considered in the other place, will put an obligation on local authorities to implement strategies to deal with homelessness. That is a huge step forward. The emphasis on prevention as well as cure in that Bill is a step forward. Many ex-service men do not become homeless immediately on leaving the armed forces. The new emphasis should mean that local authorities would have correct support structures in place to address their problems before homelessness arises.
Although local authorities may prioritise vulnerable ex-service men in their housing strategies, defining vulnerability will be important. The housing Green Paper suggests that local authorities are to determine vulnerability on an individual basis. However, as many ex-service men spend years in accommodation before becoming homeless, housing departments would have to consider circumstances going back many years when reviewing an application under homelessness legislation. Length of time in the forces, for example, is not necessarily an indication of the degree of institutionalisation or housing need. We should also consider the needs of those who have served only a limited time but have nowhere to return to after discharge, because they were in care or have no family to return to, for example. People who have been discharged after court martial or time spent in military prison should also be considered carefully. Will the Minister tell us whether the definition of vulnerability could cover all ex-service personnel leaving the armed forces? Will any guidance to local authorities be laid before the House?
Many ex-service men who become homeless in London are not from London. Resources should be used to prevent that concentration of homelessness in the capital. Will the Minister tell us whether extra resources or attention could be given to local authorities that, on paper, have a small number of homeless people in their area, but have an Army base nearby, for example? There should be clarification, too, about which local authority is responsible for whom. For example, would it be the nearest authority to which the ex-service man was based, the authority he left when he joined the armed forces perhaps 10 or 20 years before, or the authority where his family was living?
I bring to the Minister's attention the valuable work undertaken by the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation, which has set up an ex-service resettlement project, partly funded by the rough sleepers unit, that specialises in assisting homeless ex-service men. The project addresses needs, secures accommodation and gives support in the vulnerable early stages of resettlement. Such knowledge and experience should not be overlooked when guidance is drawn up to include ex-service men in the priority need group and when local authorities develop their homeless strategies. Perhaps the project could act as an example of good practice for local authorities.
Two in five homeless ex-service personnel have alcohol problems, compared with one in four non-service homeless people. There is a clear need for outreach teams to work with ex-service men on the streets and in hostels to deal with alcohol dependency and to provide on-going support. Local authorities will
24WH
have to work closely with homeless and ex-service charities to develop rehabilitation and resettlement programmes for those with substance abuse or mental health problems. The consultation and involvement of service charities such as the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress is vital, as they, rather than local authorities, are likely to be the first ports of call for many homeless ex-service men.
The rough sleepers unit recommended various initiatives to help homeless ex-service men. I am pleased that action has been taken on many of them, but continued monitoring and evaluation are essential to ensure that resources are properly targeted. I note with concern that the ma in subject of inquiry to the special helpline set up for ex-service personnel with health, housing and other seeds has been lost war medals—although that is very valuable.
I welcome the Government's recognition that the problem of homeless ex-service men needs to be addressed and I support the many measures already taken. However, given the characteristics of homeless ex-service men, more resources must be directed towards ensuring that contact is maintained between the Ministry of Defence, and ex-service men. The hurdles that they face in l reintegrating into civilian life can emerge years after they have left the armed forces.
Perhaps we should rethink the current system and institute a new one that is more like the system available to children leaving care, whereby a caseworker is assigned to each individual. A point of contact could then be established with vulnerable ex-service men leaving the MOD and with their families.
I turn to the availability of treatment for ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That was brought to my attention by the families of two of my constituents, both of whom wish to remain anonymous. Both constituents were having difficulty in obtaining funding for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Is it not a paradox that we recognise the role played and the work undertaken by the armed forces during conflicts through statements in the House, awarding service medals and erecting memorials, yet a large proportion of our homeless are from the armed forces, and ex-service men are being denied medical treatment for psychological damage caused while serving their country?
Ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder can commit suicide, slip into alcoholism or end up divorced or in prison. Some to whom I have talked believe that the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder in ex-service men has been exaggerated, but I disagree. My view seems to be backed by a paper published by the British Medical Journal in January 1999. The paper was based on the first 1,000 patients to attend the gulf veterans' medical assessment programme and reported that post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common psychiatric disorder found.
For years, post-traumatic stress disorder in ex-service men was hardly acknowledged and it has been taken seriously only during the past few years. Are we saying that those who served in the two great wars were immune to it? No. It was then termed shell shock, and sufferers who admitted to it were accused of cowardice and desertion and were in danger of execution. I am glad that we have at least moved on from that line of thought.

25WH
Many cases of ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder still go unnoticed, perhaps because of the dismissive reaction of the general public, the perception that the ex-soldier is to blame or the masculine culture associated with the armed forces. For the ex-service man suffering from the disorder, the problem is serious and has been overlooked for too long. It can have a major impact on ex-soldiers, their families and society as a whole.
I illustrate the problems associated with the illness by drawing to hon. Members' attention some incidents clearly associated with post-trauma ic, stress disorder that have been covered in the press. The Evening Standard contained an article on 17 January about the tragic death of Colleen Chudley, who was knifed in the chest several times by her estranged partner, a Gulf war veteran, while her two young children were in the house.
The incident had all the signs of a person suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, evidence for which was contained in an interview that the veteran gave to his local paper approximately six months before the incident. He was quoted as saying:
"Until the Gulf War, I had never been in trouble."
He went on to say that, on returning from the Gulf,
"I started to have problems. Suddenly I'd just had enough, I didn't want to see anyone, I couldn't face anyone, I felt depressed. I couldn't talk to anyone because I didn't know how I was feeling. It was the first time that I had felt like that.
He went absent without leave, but was caught and held in military custody for some time. That scenario was repeated several times until he was dismissed from the Army because, according to the Army, he was too violent to serve. No help or assistance was given to reintegrate him into civilian life. He also claimed that, because of the stress that he felt lie was under, he suffered nightmares and could not hold down a job for any length of time. He turned to drink as a form of escapism.
The second case is more recent. Last month, an 80-year-old ex-Royal Artillery private who served during the second world war pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. He was awoken by the sound of fireworks and had a flashback, thinking that he had returned to the battlefields of north Africa. When his 85-year-old neighbour appeared, he believed that the enemy was breaking in, so he stabbed her.
Those two tragic examples illustrate that post-traumatic stress disorder can ruin, and even end, a person's life, and we should do everything possible to stop such situations occurring again. Because those examples are extreme and involve the loss of life, they have caught the attention of the media. However, there are many other cases—involving domestic violence, family breakdown and crime—that can be attributed to post-traumatic stress disorder.
What help is available to ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder? The MOD has put in place measures aimed at preventing post-traumatic stress disorder and treatment is available at the Duchess of Kent's hospital in Catterick. According to MOD figures, approximately 20 soldiers a year are discharged solely or mainly due to post-traumatic stress disorder. People may think that that is a small number and wonder what the fuss is about, but it is only the tip of the
26WH
iceberg. The symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder can occur days, weeks, months, or even years after the incident. They can occur on its anniversary, or on the anniversary of the end of the conflict in question.
As the second case to which I alluded shows, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder can also be prompted by an event that triggers a flashback. Perhaps that is one reason why the issue has not been given the attention that it merits. As Martin Collins said in his article on post-traumatic stress disorder, published in The Guardian in 1992:
"For many soldiers, the war goes on long after the fighting stops: there is the struggle to cope with trauma."
According to the interim report of the ex-service resettlement project, many ex-service men are not diagnosed with mental health problems when they are discharged from the armed services, but suffer from such problems later in life. The report also states that mental health problems frequently come to light in assessments. Perhaps a culture persists in the armed forces that views admitting to post-traumatic stress disorder as a sign of weakness or inadequacy.
In any event, answers to my parliamentary questions have shown that, on leaving the armed forces, a soldier is regarded as a civilian. Any medical issue is therefore the responsibility not of the Ministry of Defence but of the national health service. Given the new role of my hon. Friend the Minister, I anticipate that he will be able to communicate with the Department of Health and other Departments when an issue of concern to war veterans is raised. I should be grateful if he clarified that point, and told us to which Department such questions and inquiries should be addressed.
As I have said, the majority of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder are dealt with after the soldier has been discharged. As the Minister will know, there are two main sources from which help can be sought: Combat Stress and the national health service. Such provision might appear adequate, but in practice it seems not to be working and I shall try to explain why. I should begin by putting on the record my full support and admiration for the work undertaken by Combat Stress, which provides a valuable service that has benefited many ex-service men. However, there are a number of ex-service men whose condition is so severe that Combat Stress is unable to provide the necessary treatment.
Combat Stress funds treatment through the War Pensions Agency. Such treatment is available for a maximum of six weeks a year only, which raises a further issue. In order to be treated by Combat Stress, ex-service men must be in receipt of a war pension, but evidence suggests that those in need of help, such as homeless ex-service men, do not receive one. In the first instance, they must therefore apply for a war pension, which can take months.
Another problem is that many patients who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder require specialist treatment, but Combat Stress does not have the required facilities. As a result, I understand that it is necessarily selective about the patients that it accepts. For example, it has a low-alcohol policy and, on occasions, it has had to ask patients to leave. Such practices are in place because treatment is provided in nursing homes that do not have facilities for disruptive patients, who would be better suited to hospital treatment.

27WH
Based on the evidence and examples that I have mentioned, ex-service men who have become homeless, experienced family breakdown or been in prison have a common characteristic —an alcohol problem—which may divert attention from the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Consequently, many of those ex-service men—the ones who people see sleeping rough or read about in newspapers—are unable to get treatment from Combat Stress. In a nutshell, ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who are disruptive or have an alcohol problem have no alternative to NHS treatment, which is where the problem lies.
Given the specialist facilities required to treat patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, the level of services available differs throughout the country. In fact, many hospitals do not have the specialist facilities required. In that case, NHS funding can be provided, so that the patient can be treated by an organisation that offers specialist treatment. That structure of access means that individual health authorities determine each application, which results in an inequality of access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment. However, that was not the reply I was given by the Secretary of State for Health last November. When I asked about waiting times for ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, he told me in a letter that the information was not held centrally. However, he stated that
"in primary care, people with post-traumatic stress disorder have difficulties in accessing specialist mental services through their general practitioners partly because of poor knowledge and awareness of the criteria for assessment and onward referral."
He continued:
"We are aware of concerns about waiting lists within the National Health Service. but that there is no evidence that ex-service personnel are especially disadvantaged; they are equally entitled to receive care and treatment."
The problem is purported to lie at general practitioner level, but when I investigated I found that that is not always the case. I established that it is the health authority that has been refusing to give funding for specialist treatment, despite general practitioners agreeing the need for it.
When my office spoke to a representative from Planning and Healthcare Consultants, an organisation that offers specialist treatment for ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, it was informed that health authorities were refusing to fund applications for treatment. That impasse resulted in endless negotiations with the health authority in seeking funding, a problem that affected my two constituents. If a general practitioner states that specialist treatment is required, why would a health authority refuse to fund it? Is it the case that health authorities do not want to fund the treatment because of its cost? If so, it is unacceptable. The problem is not caused by general practitioners' lack of awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder; it is mainly due to health authorities' refusal to provide the necessary funding.
A possible solution to ensure that ex-service men have access to the necessary treatment would be to authorise a central body—perhaps the War Pensions Agency as it
28WH
already allocates funding for treatment to Combat Stress—to access applications, monitor value for money, ensure a high standard of treatment and allocate funding to specialist treatment centres for sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder. That would ensure uniformity of access throughout the country and ensure that all ex-service men suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder had access to treatment. I would be grateful if the Minister considered that suggestion.
The lack of statistics is a key problem when examining issues that are relevant to war veterans. Over the past few months, I have been trying to gain a picture of the profiles of ex-service personnel who become homeless and are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Not only are there few statistics to examine, but there does not appear to be a plan to collect figures in crucial areas such as ex-set vice personnel who commit criminal offences. Perhaps the Minister would examine the issue of statistics with his colleagues at the Home Office and the DETR. Collating statistics on what happens to ex-service men when they leave the armed forces could help to ensure that their needs are addressed more effectively.
Society has an obligation to recognise and care about the needs of those who have served in the armed forces. I am glad to say that the Government have acknowledged that through the Minister's recently added responsibilities. We pay for our armed forces to train and to serve their country. It is right that we should also ensure the welt are of all our war veterans. They may have left the armed forces, but their experiences will never leave them.
11.24 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of contributing to a debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. It is nearly 25 years since we first encountered one another in the dark recesses of the London borough of Newham, and we may now be in the last few days of the present Parliament.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and compassionate speech. She touched on the serious problem of post-traumatic stress disorder, which afflicts people who are paying the price of their past war service. I want to discuss what happens to those people and their dependants once they have retired. The Officers Pensions Society campaigns not only for the pensions of retired officers, but for those of their widows after they have passed away For many years, the society has drawn attention to several anomalies that affect situations relating to such pensions. I shall refer to three of those anomalies
My first example concerns post-retirement marriages, whereby service men marry after they have retired from the fighting arm in which they served. Widows of service men who retired before 1978, but who married them subsequently, receive no pension whatsoever. If their late husband retired after 1978, but they married him only after that retirement, they receive a service widows pension only for te years since 1978. The service man will be considered to have made the same contribution throughout the period of his service as that of a fellow service man who happened to be married during that time, yet, whereas the widow of the latter will get the benefit of a service pension, the widow of the former will not. That is unjust

29WH
The second concern raised by the society relates to service men who retired before 1973 and who were not given the option to buy in their earlier service for the half-rate widows pensions. That means that their eventual widows—widows who were married to their late husbands during the period of his service—get only the one-third rate. The widow of the man who retired in March 1973 is condemned to a third-rate widows pension for life, whereas the man who retired in April 1973 after making exactly the same contribution is given the option to buy in earlier service for the half rate for his wife for the time she outlives him
Thirdly, there has recently been a surge of publicity relating to the very different pensions that service men receive on an arbitrary basis according to the situation that obtained on the date on which they retired. It seems monumentally unjust that service men should have such differential pension entitlements according to an arbitrary date. To give an example cited by the society, a major who retired in 1977 receives £4,269 per annum less than an exactly comparable major who retired two years earlier in 1975. In fact, he receives less than all those who retired right back to 1964.
When he sums up, I hope that the Minister will make every attempt to deal with my concerns and those of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is about to speak. I hope that the Minister will urge his Department, during the current consultation phase of the pension and compensation reviews, to look closely at the shortcomings in the armed forms pension scheme, which affect everyone who served on pensionable terms. The Minister will be aware of how vigorously in recent months the Officers Pensions Society and many of its members have pressed for the consideration of injustices in the present scheme. The injustices bear most heavily on the widows of our service men —widows who followed the flag and showed as much loyalty as their husbands but now find that the arbitrary date of their husband's retirement may have a permanent and perpetually damaging effect on their own subsequent pension.
The recommendations of the pension and compensation reviews go some way to ensuring that such anomalies do not occur in future but that is of little comfort to those who are disadvantaged by the present scheme. Given the frequent declarations by Ministers that our service personnel are unique in their commitment to the nation, I urge the Minister to keep in mind that those who have served prev ously were unique in their era of service and should be looked after as well as those who are serving now and those who will do so in future.
I turn to the activities of some local authorities in relation to pensions for war veterans and war widows, and the for once beneficial work of the broadcast media—in particular, the BBC programme "Money Box." By chance, I heard that programme on Radio 4 on 7 April, when it reported that war pensioners in the Labour-controlled borough of Harrow were about to lose, on average, almost £1,700 a year each. That was owing to the fact that the council, which like the overwhelming majority of other councils in England and Wales takes no account of war pensions when working out entitlements to help with rent and council tax, was thinking of ceasing to disregard the two types
30WH
of pensions that some of their residents received: the war widows pension and the war disablement pension. The grand total of 53 war widows and pensioners in the borough were affected.
The programme went into some detail on the matter and interviewed, as a typical example, a widow called Dorothy. She said that she felt angry because
"the people sitting behind the desks probably were not even born during the war"
and continued by saying that they had no conception of the struggle that she and her late husband had undergone. She pointed out that, when her husband was transferred from the Somerset Light Infantry to the Black Watch, and sent to Italy to be killed in action in 1944.
"I got just a little bit of paper saying we regret to inform you your husband was killed on 9 July."
She added that she had been on her own ever since. Her daughter had died the previous year and it was being proposed to add almost £1,700 to her personal expenses.
At the time, Harrow council said that it had no choice. The deputy leader, Mr. Keith Toms, was interviewed on the programme. He had twice voted to cut the benefits paid to Dorothy and the other 52 war widows and war disabled pensioners. He said:
"It's not an economy that we look at with a great deal of pleasure, but on the other hand when you come to consider that there are 53 people who are in receipt of £88,000, then, you know, this might mean that we can employ four school teachers or four social workers, so we really have had to look at the budget very hard this time."
As the presenter pointed out, the council was picking on one of the most deserving and poorest groups in the entire community. I am sure that it was as a result of the publicity generated by the programme that the council retreated on the matter a fortnight later. The Sunday Times had reported on 8 April that, although the council was proposing to save less than £90,000 by that dreadful, diabolical step, it had previously approved the spending of £226,000 on laptop computers to enable councillors to work from home and a further £30,000 had been earmarked to pay for a new employee to help to train the councillors in using those computers. That showed a strange sense of priorities. Although Labour-controlled Harrow council was compelled to retreat on the eve of the election, thanks to media exposure and embarrassment, the danger remains that such practices could be reinstated.
For many years, the Royal British Legion has campaigned for war disablement and war widows pensions to be disregarded because they should be seen not as state benefits but as compensation for the loss of amenity or the death of a husband in the service of our country. Under a previous Conservative Government in 1986, the Secretary of State for Social Services decided, wrongly in my view, to maintain local authorities' discretionary powers on whether to disregard war disablement and war widows pensions. Keith Toms, deputy leader of Harrow council, made a strange comment during the "Money Box" programme on 7 April:
"We need to get to the stage where I believe it shouldn't be left at the discretion of local authorities, however small that number"—
the number of beneficiaries—
"is. We need to have a national agreement on this."

31WH
It was strange that Keith Toms argued that he wished that he did not have the power to take the disastrous step that he was about to take and from which he eventually drew back, and it is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that councillors are in a position to inflict suffering on such deserving people. I hope that the Minister will address the matter and consider whether that discretion should not be removed from local authorities so that war disabled people and war widows should not go through the anguish and worry unfairly suffered by those 53 deserving people in Harrow.
Finally, I turn to the distress that is being caused to war veterans by diving to wrecks, which hon. Members in my party, as well as Liberal Democrats and Labour Members, have highlighted in early-day motions throughout this Session. I applaud them for so doing. Friends of War Memorials has pointed out that, since August 1914, just under 300 shipwrecks have been designated as war graves. The Government have powers under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to designate those wrecks as controlled sites or protected places, but they have not done so. Until the Government invest those wrecks with the necessary protection, which they could provide if they undertook the necessary paperwork, the wrecks will continue to be plundered for souvenirs, causing massive offence and distress to those who regard the wrecks as the graves of loved ones who never came back from fighting to preserve this country's freedom in the first and second world wars.
It seems strange that such an issue should have to be raised at all in such a debate, at the turn of the century. It only goes to show the monumental insensitivity of people who, while professing an interest in history, defile that history and distress veterans and survivors of terrible conflicts. Without those conflicts and sacrifices, we would not enjoy our freedoms today, and people who engage in such sports would not enjoy the leisure time in which to amuse themselves. They do so carelessly, rather than respecting the graves of those to whom we owe so much.
11.40 am
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to take part in this timely debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on securing it. During my time in Parliament, I have asked Tory and Labour Governments for an annual House of Commons debate on veterans' affairs. Both have denied it. I do not think that the matter should be left to Back Benchers. There should be an annual day's debate, along the lines of the annual debate on the Metropolitan police, which always falls in the late autumn. I hope that the Minister might take that on board and have a word with the people who work out the parliamentary timetable. It would be not only good politics, but right to have such a debate in Government time.
I am very proud of my associate membership of an ex-service organisation, and I am sure that you, Mr. Amess, are proud of yours. I am an associate member of the Grays, Thurrock branch of the Royal British Legion. Although the views that I utter this morning will be my own, I expect that they will find much support in that quarter and elsewhere.
32WH
Walking in Gibraltar, I once saw painted on a wall:
"God and soldier all men adore,
In time of trouble and no more,
For when war is over and all things righted,
God is neglected and old soldier slighted."
That sums up the collective guilt of the House and the people who have filled it for the past 80-odd years. It does not matter whether Governments are Tory, Labour or, as some used to be, Liberal. On failure and neglect of veterans I would, in general, use the words, "They're all the same and they're all to blame."
Each Government can find things that they have remedied. The Minister will undoubtedly refer to some of the things that this Labour Government have achieved with some pride, and I associate myself with that pride. The person who will speak for the Conservative party will, no doubt, try to claim some credit for what Conservative Governments have done.
By and large, however, we have failed. We cannot be proud of that. It is scandal that it has taken 80 years to designate a Minister as having special responsibility for veterans. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West congratulate the Prime Minister on that, and I also congratulate him—I am very fond of him. However, he has something in common with his predecessor. Both said no to a veterans Minister. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has changed his mind. One lesson that I have learned in this place is that, if one keeps going, eventually one gets somewhere by attrition.
That is especially true when one knows that one is right, when that which is right is sensible, and when that which is sensible becomes inevitable. I have learned that, if one keeps ploughing away, eventually, there is change. I hope that the nest Labour Government, elected in a few weeks' time, wi11 be much more radical on a range of issues, and particularly in the area under discussion. The veterans Minister will need to be much more independent and self-standing. He should not be cluttered with other duties, as the present Minister is. His appointment is a major step forward, but we need to go much further.
I am not making a party point, but the Minister, like me, will take some delight in the fact that, under this Government, there has finally been a very generous ex gratia compensatory payment to people who were prisoners of the Japanese. That is a source of some pride for the Government. Previous Labour and Conservative Governments have considered it, but the present Government have done it, and I give them a bonus mark for that.
The Minister should revisit the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in an Adjournment debate about a month ago concerning compensation for people who were prisoners of the Germans in the second world war, but were not kept in accordance with the Geneva convention. 1 supported the hon. Gentleman in that debate and referred to my constituent, John Stevens. When his ship, HMS Gloucester, was sunk in the battle of Crete, he was one of the few survivors and was marched all the way through Europe. He languished as a prisoner of war in the IG Farben chemical factory, which was essentially a concentration camp close to the Auschwitz campus. He and many others who have written to me since the debate were not afforded their rights.

33WH
When the Minister responded to that debate, he did not hold out much chance of a change of view on the matter, but said that he would reconsider it. I urge him really to scratch the surface, not merely to take the brief that he has received from people in the, historical branch of the Ministry of Defence. Successive Ministers have done no more than agree with those people, who come from a template—they are effectively the same people who were there 80 years ago. I want the Minister to say, "I hear what you're saying and now this is what we're going to do." He would do an enormous amount of good if he revisited the matter and met some of the people who have complained about not having been afforded their rights in their treatment by the Germans. Will he agree to do that?
The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr. Lewis) raised a valid point about the disregard of the war disabled pension, but he over-egged t and fell into the temptation of making a party political point. I have been rehearsing all morning the phrase, "They're both to blame and both the same." The problem does not turn on Labour or Conservative councils, o Labour or Tory Governments, but on the fact that successive Ministers have failed to use legislative opportunities to do away with the discretion. It is absurd that a pensioner in one borough can have his benefits disregarded, while in another area that will not happen. Our next legislative programme should remove the temptation for municipal councils—which face enormous constraints—to do that. It is not fair to them or to other local authorities. I have pursued this matter since 1992 and it is clear that Labour and Conservative and some Liberal Democrat councils are the guilty parties—although that is not the appropriate term, because the temptation should not be there.
Mr. Robert Key: We must not allow this myth to perpetuate itself. It is exclusively Labour councils that are behaving in this manner: no Liberal Democrat or Conservative council is doing so. Why do only Labour councils give in to the temptation?
Mr. Mackinlay: That is not so.
Mr. Key: Yes, it is.
Mr. Mackinlay: The message may have gone out to all Conservative councils that they should now fall into line. If so, full marks to them. However, that is not yet the case. I do not want to labour the point, but it is Governments who have failed to remove the discretion. If the Minister is still in his place after 7 June, I hope that he will reconsider the matter. Will he comment on the injustice involved for widows who married ex-service men after they left the services?
We should not have a debate about veterans issues without referring to the sad story of Gulf war syndrome. Hands up anyone who believes the Ministry of Defence about that. No one does. [Interruption.] I am referring to the Ministry of Defence, not the Minister. It is a fact that the Minister responsible for the armed forces under the Conservative Government was misled by the Ministry of Defence. No one has knocked him for that. In fact, he was the first to rush to the House about it. The Ministry of Defence has misled Ministers about Gulf war syndrome and it is continuing to frustrate some
34WH
particularly unfair cases. For example, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has diligently pursued a particular case of a civilian who was working for the Ministry of Defence. He was literally in uniform, but the Ministry of Defence will not recognise any obligations to him. I hope that the Minister will intervene on such anomalies and break away from that which is being handed down by the bureaucracy.
The issue of Commonwealth war graves is another illustration of when matters come right in the end. I am pleased that Baroness Dean was appointed by the Government to head the inquiry. It has resolved matters concerning the battlefields of north-west Europe to the satisfaction of my fellow members of the Transport and General Workers Union and other trade unions. It would have been better if the unions had been listened to first, but the settlement is welcome and I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for the Armed Forces were able to facilitate a resolution. Both Labour and Conservative Ministers have been sympathetic to the matter, but they have not tackled the Ministry of Defence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): It is not the Ministry of Defence that is responsible.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am well aware that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is independent, but the British Ministry of Defence is very much the leading behind-the-scenes influence in the matter. The Secretary of State appoints some of the commissioners. Furthermore, he appointed Baroness Dean to provide the remedy and the outcome has been extremely helpful.
Recently, I questioned the Minister about the 49th West Riding division and 269 Squadron that held Iceland in the second world war, both of which have been denied the Atlantic star. I asked the Minister to meet them, but he ducked the issue.
Dr. Moonie: The answer is no, lest I be thought to be ducking something.
Mr. Mackinlay: That is disappointing, but it is an example of how I have to use attrition. Eventually, I shall be successful and a Minister will meet both the squadron and the division. Their case is that the committee that decided the award of medals immediately following the second world war was not fully cognisant with the circumstances of their role in Iceland. Surely my hon. Friend should listen to such a well-founded case. It is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East referred to war graves in the sea. There is great scope for the Government to take the initiative on that. They need to pursue the UN cultural convention on the matter. A conference should be initiated by Her Majesty's Government that requires the participation of the principal maritime nations and the former belligerent nations of the first and second world wars and subsequent conflicts to see whether common legislation and enforcement can be achieved. I hope that the Minister will take up that helpful initiative. Moreover, off the shores of the Republic of Ireland are numerous war graves from both world wars.

35WH
I have raised my final point many times. When we were in opposition, there was a free vote in the House of Commons on pardons for soldiers executed in the first world war. Over half the Labour shadow Cabinet was in the Division Lobby with me. When he was Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) went some way towards acknowledging the wrongs of the executions. The men were suffering overwhelmingly from battle stress. They were denied the rules of natural justice. Their trials were flawed, but the Ministry of Defence resisted granting them pardons.
The Labour Government should revisit the matter. It is popular, although that should not be the reason for doing so; we should revisit it because it is right to do so. It would correct a sad part of our history that has only recently been written with clarity and precision having previously all been covered up. Documents were suppressed by the Ministry of Defence for 75 years. When those documents become available, and jurists, families, relatives, journalists and politicians say, "This is unfair", the Ministry of Defence turns around and says that it is too late to remedy the matter. It is not. Some loved ones of the people involved are alive.
We need to write history with clarity and precision—even matters that make us uncomfortable—and we shall do so if we grant the pardons. I want to mention people such as John Hipkin, Janet Booth and the late Tom Stones, who have campaigned for so long on the issue and were instrumental in creating an arboretum that will open in June to the memory of the 300-plus soldiers executed. Will the Ministry of Defence be present and facilitate the ceremonial, bearing in mind the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill and his moving statement to the House on the matter two years ago? It would be entirely consistent if the Ministry were to support the commemoration of the soldiers at the opening of the arboretum.
If we have such an annual debate, many more hon. Members will be able to contribute and raise issues such as those that have been raised this morning and to pursue much more fully matters such as whether there should be a Suez medal or an ex-national service personnel medal. I shall not labour the Chamber with such matters this morning as such measures are sensitive. However, with courage, the next Labour Government should approach them, discuss them more fully with ex-service organisations and meet the people who are campaigning for those medals. It is their right to have their day in court with the Minister and for him to listen to them. It would be generous of the Minister to suggest that that will be the spirit in which he approaches the subject.
Ex-service organisations should become much stronger and more confident. Uniquely among western democracies, ex-service organisations in this country do not have direct access in the way that ex-service organisations do in Germany or the United States of America. It is partly their fault: they are too much "Mr. Nice Guy". Any Prime Minister or Minister with responsibility for defence should have to defer to them much more enthusiastically. I hope that they will be much stronger in future and perhaps follow the example
36WH
of the Officers Pensions Society, which raised the question of the trough, which I raised in the House previously. It is the result of—I am not proud of this—a Labour Government in the 1970s having a pay pause, which aggravated the position unfairly for ex-service men. Some 48,000 people—not only officers but people of all ranks —have been disadvantaged.
It is time to put the matter right. We have priorities because of the resources involved, but we must do what is right. I hope that the Minister responsible for veterans will have a long time in office and will scratch the surface on these issues more deeply than the people who held his portfolio, but not his title.
11.58 am
Mr. Paul Keetch: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on having secured the debate, which has been fascinating and interesting. I congratulate the Minister on his new role and portfolio.
We heard two speeches from the Back Benches—from the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who speak on defence issues with great authority in the House. Although I do not always agree with everything that they say, I always listen with great affection. They understand what they are talking about and are a tribute to the House.
I pay tribute to the members of Her Majesty's armed forces who serve on our behalf and protect the freedoms that the hon. Member for New Forest, East discussed. Anyone who speaks on defence issues, who has been through the parliamentary armed forces scheme and who deals with the armed forces regularly never fails to be astonished at their commitment. Since 1945, there has been only on year in which a member of Her Majesty's armed forces has not been killed on active service. Although the big wars of the past may be over, the sort of wars that we are beginning to witness will continue.
We have discussed a number of veterans' affairs. I wish to discuss a specific matter that affects more and more young men—and, increasingly, young women—who put themselves at risk in the defence of freedom. Veterans' affairs ae not only about people who served in the second world. war or first world war: people who serve today in our armed forces are the veterans of tomorrow.
I pick up on a case of which I have given the Minister notice, and which have previously raised in Parliament. It is the case of the last person to die for Her Majesty's armed forces—Bombardier Brad Tinnion. He was killed in Sierra Leone at the end of last year during a paratrooper and special Air Services attack to free the hostages of the West Side Boys.
Brad Tinnion was 28 when he was killed, and the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) paid tribute to him for his action. Sir Charles Guthrie spoke of him as a brilliant young man. Brad, like many people of his generation—not perhaps people of my or the Minister's generation—was rot married. However, he had a partner with whom he had lived for 10 years, and they

37WH
were on their third home together. Anna Homsi and he were regarded, to quote one sergeant major of the SAS regiment, as "more married than married". Indeed, when he died, Brad was aware that Anna was carrying the child, Georgia, who was later born to her. However, because Anna was not married to Brad and had not been through a form of marriage ceremony, the Ministry of Defence has refused to give her a war widow's pension.
The Ministry of Defence did give Georgia—a beautiful young girl whom I have met— a pension for her father, after getting Treasury dispensation. Georgia was granted a generous £2,000 a year until the age of 17, and Anna was given a one-off payment of £ 20,000. In a letter to me and Anna Homsi, the Secretary of State told Anna that, had she lived with Brad for six months before he joined the armed forces, she would be treated as a widow and receive the full widow's entitlement. Brad was only 16 when he joined the armed forces. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State was suggesting that they should have lived together when he was just 15.
The young lady is being deprived of a war widow's pension of £ 18,000 a year. She will have to return to full-time work and will not be able to look after her daughter in the manner that she would want, simply because the couple had not gone through a form of marriage ceremony, which more and more people today do not believe is necessary.
In the past 10 years, 394 members of the armed forces have been killed in active service. On average, 35 per cent. of such people are married. so we are discussing only a few hundred people. Some will have had longterm partners, such as Anna, and many will not. I wonder how many more partners of dead soldiers—male, female or, possibly in a short time, gay—will not be entitled to the recognition that should be given. How many more children will start to grow up thinking that the Army has let down their mother or father?
Ministers have told me that the matter is a big can of worms and that, if we get into it, we will have to start to give partners' rights to many people It is claimed that sailors in Portsmouth will go into a rub in Portsmouth the night before they go to sea, find somebody, sleep with them, and then that person will claim to be a partner and thus entitled to rights. That is rubbish. The majority of private pension schemes accept that there should be a discretionary element and that one should be able to examine each individual case. If there have been only 394 cases in the past 10 years, that is hardly a massive requirement.
I do not suggest that unmarried partners should automatically have a right to service housing or to other effects that service men have. However, if a service man or woman pays the ultimate price for our country, the state should examine the possibility of giving something to that person's partner. After all, one of the last things that Brad did before he went to Sierra Leone was make a will, in which Anna Homsi was sole beneficiary. I have no doubt that he would have wanted her and his child to be treated properly.
It is ironic that, in this House, married and unmarried partners of hon. Members are entitled to be treated the same. Partners of hon. Members, whether married or unmarried—I am married, as is he Minister—are entitled to free rail tickets and the same access to the
38WH
building, yet the country is not prepared to accept that partners who lay down their lives should be treated in a decent manner.
What is most annoying for Anna, to whom I spoke on the phone this morning, is that, in so many aspects of life, partners are now treated, rightly, as if they were married. The Child Support Agency does not bother to find out, before chasing ex-service men for money, whether they are married. Benefits agencies assess married and unmarried couples equally, as does the tax system. The country is moving forward. Although some hon. Members, who may be of a different generation, may not understand or like that, whoever is the Minister with responsibility for veterans in the next Government needs to address the matter. It simply is not good enough for Ministers to say, "I'm sorry Paul, we'll keep saying no on this." Like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall keep battling on the issue, and I hope that progress will be made.
One of the great aspects of our system is that, almost at this moment, the Prime Minister is seeking a dissolution of Parliament from Her Majesty the Queen. Our armed forces are Her Majesty's armed forces, and I am sorry that Her Majesty's Ministers have not decided, in this instance or in other instances like it, that they could be more generous. If the old adage is true that a dying person sees his life flash before him, I have no doubt that, when Brad Tinnion died, his last thoughts would have been for his partner of 10 years, Anna Homsi, and for the child whom he did not see. The next Government should treat such people with the respect that they deserve and with the respect that the regiment in which Brad served believes he should be accorded.
12.6 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on raising this important issue. I agree with much of what she said. Her remarks about the Ministry of Defence keeping in touch with ex-service men were right. After all, it loses touch with about a third of reservists in the first year, which is not helpful to anybody.
One of the problems is that we do not go to war any more. The Falklands, the Gulf and the Balkans were all conflicts and technically, not, wars. It is also difficult to determine what is the front line and what is not. For all those reasons, it is difficult to know how the Ministry of Defence, when considering veteran's affairs, should treat sponsored reserves, contractors, civil servants who are in the front line, such as my constituents who work at Porton Down and who are in the front line of chemical and biological defence in Kuwait—
Mr. Mackinlay: And private industries.
Mr. Key: And, of course, private industries. We must think afresh and look forward, which is what I intend to do.
There is a large number of war veterans—about 15 million people, of all ages, are eligible to approach the Royal British Legion for support. That includes 291,000 war disability pensioners and war widows. The services provided by the Royal British Legion include resettlement, welfare, pilgrimages, job retraining, counselling and much more. Last year, the legion

39WH
received more than 300,000 calls for help from eligible people. The Officers Pensions Society—which, incidentally, also deals with ranks other than officers— has a huge work load and is to be congratulated. I must, of course, mention the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association. On disregards, I entirely agree with the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). There should be no question of partial disregards. When one considers the roll of honour of which widows are a part, it contrasts with the roll of shame of the only six local authorities in the country that make no disregard for war and war widows pensions—Chester-le-Street district council, Easington district council, Wear Valley district council, Manchester city council, South Tyneside metropolitan borough council and Gateshead metropolitan borough council.
Mr. Mackinlay: I want to ask a simple question. Why did not the hon. Gentleman support my private Member's Bill, which would have ended discretion? His party is as much to blame as the present Administration. However, I do not believe that Conservative or Labour Governments were to blame, except in so far as they permitted discretion to endure—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. That has been a long and passionate intervention.
Mr. Key: There are still a few Members of Parliament who, like me, believe in local government democracy. The hon. Gentleman said that we should dictate to local authorities, but I believe that they should have discretion because they, like us, are elected. Therefore, they must accept their responsibilities.
With regard to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), I wish to add a small word of caution. Many divers are responsible and we should not include them in the condemnation. I have received many representations from divers who are not careless about where and how they dive. Problems often arise in international waters, and the Government are, rightly, addressing that matter.
The issue of where to draw the line presents another problem. Apparently, although it is acceptable to raise the Mary Rose and to put it on display in Portsmouth, a distinction must be drawn after 1914. The issue is fraught with difficulty. but my hon. Friend was right to highlight the need for divers to be sensitive.
I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend on the service pension and the pension trough. That is a serious matter that must not be ignored. Our nation is getting richer—
Mr. Mackinlay: What about before?
Mr. Key: All I can say with regard to what happened in the past, is that that was then and this is now. Our nation is much wealthier. Although progress has been made, we must continue to move forward.
The issue is important and it requires detailed and very careful consideration. When my party is returned to government in a few weeks, it will commission a
40WH
review of the current service pension system, which will place particular emphasis on the concerns that have been raised in the debate. The Select Committee on Social Security is also holding an inquiry on the matter and I suspect that hon. Members from all parties would like progress to be made.
I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has accepted the office of veterans Minister. However, much mythology surrounds the post. The comment of the hon. Member for Bolton. West that it had been considered I only during the past couple of years is incorrect. In 1996, the Select Committee on Defence produced a report that recommended that there should be a veterans Minister. That report was unanimously supported by all parties, and I was one of the members of the Committee who signed it. It was inevitable that such a Minster would be created, irrespective of which party was returned to government following the 1997 general election. The Ministry of Defence was heading in that direction.
However, the decision had to be taken whether to establish a Department of Veterans Affairs, such as the one that exists in he United States of America, or a Minister with co-ordinating responsibility. That is the happy position at which we have arrived. The Minister made the announcement on 14 March 2001, but I quickly realised that something was not quite right about it, because we have had a Minister with responsibility for veterans affairs. The Cabinet Office guide to ministerial responsibilities that was published in January 2001 lists the Minister for the Armed Forces as responsible for service personnel policy, including veterans. Therefore, the role has been downgraded from the Minister of State to the Under-Secretary of State. That is an interesting development.
That point is akin to splitting hairs and I shall not dwell on it. However, a considerable amount of spin was put on the announcement, and when I probed the Department about the organisation and membership of the veterans forum and the veterans taskforce, I received a long answer stating that the final decision on such matters had not ye been taken. In other words, there is still a lot of work to do. Perhaps the Minister will fill us in on the detail today.
I also asked how much new money and manpower had been allocated to allow the Minister to fulfil the role, and I received a predictable answer: no new money and three new people. That will make little impression on the 15 million people who, are entitled to seek the help of the Royal British Legion. Nevertheless, it is progress. I merely want the Minister to assure us that there will be more progress and that it will happen a bit sooner. Although I welcome the appointment of a war veterans Minister, given that the Select Committee reported in 1996 and the strategic defence review finally reported in 1998, why has the Ministry of Defence only now got around to writing the press release on what is happening?
I end on a positive note. One of the problems touched on by the hon. Men fiber for Bolton, West was the serious lack of statistics Kept by the Ministry of Defence, although it keeps a large number of them. In the Gulf war, we experienced problems because no records were kept of whom was inoculated, you will not be surprised to hear. Mr. O'Hara, that as Member of Parliament for Porton Down I probed the matter. I was told that the

41WH
record-keeping in the second world war, especially regarding the inoculation of soldiers in the north African desert, was much better than that achieved by the Ministry of Defence in the Gulf war. We must make progress on that problem.
A measure that was initiated by the previous Government should be accelerated—electronic tagging. That was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) when he was Minister for the Armed Forces in 1996, but progress has been slow, if not non-existent. I have asked parliamentary questions since then and raised the matter in debate as recently as last year. After all, a report in Computer Weekly in October 2000 headed, "US Military Gets Smart Cards", stated that:
"The United States will issue a card to 4 million personnel"
by this year. The cards will cover digital identity and include
"building access and financial access, as well as access to government information"
and personal medical records. We must make progress on such a project, to avoid getting into the mess we experienced in the Gulf war.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I regret only that we did not each have 20 minutes in which to put our points.
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I thank, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kell)) for giving us the opportunity to consider the concerns of our war veterans. Many in our country have no direct experience of military service and it is easy to lose sight of the sacrifices made by those who served in our armed forces and by their families. Some are veterans of the major wars of the previous century who are now facing the wide range of problems that come with time—health, making ends meet or simply the concern that their efforts have not been recognised or that their sacrifices have been forgotten.
Many veterans, however, served in more recent operations and their problems can be different. Some have experienced difficultly in adjusting to civilian life or in finding employment. Some have become homeless and some are incapacitated through illness or injury resulting from their service. Our concern should not end with the individual who served in the services. Military service has cost many dependants a wife, husband, father or mother, and relatives of those who died may experience a range of problems, such as single parenthood, financial hardship and the heavy burden of personal loss.
The risks attached to a service career are high and it is right that we should give particular recognition to the needs of those who have served their country. Whatever their particular contribution, our veterans and their families have played a major part in securing the peace and security of our nation. The Government are determined to deal with their concerns effectively and with a proper focus. It was with that aim in mind that, on 14 March, the Prime Minister announced my appointment as Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs. It is a privilege to be given that
42WH
responsibility and I am conscious of the expectations that come with the appointment. I am determined to succeed and know that I have the Prime Minister's full support.
My task is to ensure that the response to veterans' concerns is co-ordinated throughout government— whether central, regional or local—to deliver a properly integrated service. Individual Departments and local authorities are invariably conscientious in trying to deal with veterans' concerns, but, in the past, they have tended to do that issue by issue. The role of the ministerial taskforce will be to ensure that veterans' concerns are understood and dealt with as a coherent and seamless whole. We plan the first meeting of the taskforce for later this summer. I am sure that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who speaks for the Opposition, would be happy to fill that role in the unlikely event that he is called on to do so. I mean that in no personal sense.
We also wish to work more effectively with many veterans' charities. Those groups undertake excellent work in supporting former members of the armed forces, but we are determined that our efforts and theirs be better co-ordinated. We often work in different areas. There can be gaps or overlaps in the support that we provide. We bring different strengths to our work and our individual understanding of the worries of veterans is often incomplete. There are already close working relationships between individual Departments and particular charities, but we can achieve more by effective co-operation.
The veterans forum will provide the opportunity for representatives of several veterans charities to help us to define our agenda for veterans, identify those issues of the deepest concern and ensure that we concentrate our collective efforts on those areas in which we can make a substantial difference. From the Government's perspective, it will also allow us to tap into the knowledge and skills of veterans organisations more effectively. I am confident that those arrangements will bring a new dynamism to our handling of such issues, and veterans, for their part, can look forward to real improvements in the support that they receive.
That is not to say that much has not already being achieved for veterans through the efforts of the Government and the charitable sector. It is easy, whether looking at the media or listening to debates such as this, to lose sight of the many good things that are happening. The rough sleepers initiative has done much to deal with homelessness among ex-service personnel. We have recently introduced regulations to extend reservists' eligibility for benefits for illness, injury or death resulting from service. In addition, we have a pensions scheme, which, although I accept it is not perfect, is the envy of many throughout the world. We should not forget the considerable support that we already give our veterans. However, clearly, issues need to be addressed, several of which have been raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West referred to homelessness. We recognise the problems and we are working closely with the rough sleepers unit at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and ex-service charities to deal with them. Our approach is focused on the three key points of pre-discharge, the point of discharge and post-discharge. As

43WH
my hon. Friend said, Catterick garrison has been chosen to host a pilot project, funded by the rough sleepers unit and run by the English Churches housing group, to provide accommodation advice to service personnel who are about to be discharged from the armed forces.
The project is known as the single persons accommodation centre for the ex-services—SPACES. It is amazing how acronyms can be concocted; it is just as well that we have them, given the lengthy title of the project. It has no housing of its own, but assists in the search for suitable accommodation for single leavers. The point of discharge group should be successfully targeted by the project, which aims to identify vulnerable service leavers and prevent them from falling into the cycle of homelessness and rough sleeping. After 18 months, we shall review the success of the project and, if it is deemed a success, further projects will be set up.
The MOD has long been committed to ensuring that service personnel make a smooth transition back to civilian life. To that end, it has a comprehensive career transition service that is provided by the career transition partnership: a partnership between the MOD and Coutts Consulting Group. That provides a wide-ranging service for all personnel with five or more years' service who are discharged for medical reasons or who are leaving because of redundancy. The service includes guidance on financial, housing and welfare issues together with practical advice on job finding for up to two years post-discharge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West made a good point about those with more limited service and we shall certainly be willing to consider that during our review. In addition, financial advice briefings are arranged by the CTP at 10 regional resettlement centres and are open to all service personnel. The briefings provide impartial advice on pension schemes, savings and financial management as well as on how best to obtain suitable living accommodation. All service personnel are also eligible to attend briefings on housing options run by the joint service housing advice office, which include the opportunity to discuss individual cases. About 1,500 personnel attend such briefings annually. We are by no means complacent about the current position and keep it under regular review. However, it is important to recognise that some 20,000 people leave the armed forces every year, and that the overwhelming majority make a successful transition to civilian life.
We recognise that post-traumatic stress disorder is both serious and disabling. Preventive measures are in place, including pre-deployment and post-deployment briefing and counselling during deployments. The strategic defence review recommended that community psychiatric services be enhanced. That has resulted in proposals to increase staffing at some existing defence community psychiatric centres, and the formation of two new centres—one in Scotland and one in England. The arrangements have been developed over a number of years and will continue to be reviewed in the light of medical developments in stress management and treatment.
44WH
In terms of the nature of the challenge that we face, the spectrum of psychiatric disorders in the armed forces is broadly similar to that in the community at large. Limited peer review evidence has been published on how to treat such disablements, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder. Evidence exists confirming the usefulness of certain psychological treatments, but many unknown factors remain, including the question of whether treatment should be in-patient or out-patient based, the precise composition of such treatment, and whether it should be based on individual or group therapy. The exact role of therapeutic drugs also remains unresolved.
On treatment of mental illness in respect of those who have left the armed forces, it is Government policy to ensure that the NHS makes proper provision for health services. The Government have identified mental illness as one of their three health priorities and have addressed it in their framework for mental health. The framework includes significant extra investment of more than £300 million in the NHS plan for mental health service development in the next three years. According to that framework, most locally based NHS services should be able to offer effective treatment for psychological injury.
We do not think it necessary to treat psychological injury cases by providing substantial periods of inpatient care; indeed, in general, every effort is made in psychiatry to avoid admitting in-patients. Patients, including those in community psychiatric care, are most likely to be looked after by primary care teams, with a percentage referred to consultant psychiatrists as outpatients. Periods as an in-patient are likely to be brief and, I suspect, will mainly involve those for whom drug and/or alcohol dependence is an issue. Equally, there might well be a need for sporadic acute admissions where symptoms become severe.
War disablement pensioners have been entitled to priority NHS treatment since the former Ministry of Pensions hospitals were transferred to the NHS. Priority is determined by the clinician in charge, and is subject to the needs of emergencies and other urgent cases. Priority treatment is a matter for the Department of Health and the NHS executive, and is the subject of regular circulars to trusts and individual practitioners. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West that I will take a very close look at the matter through the Ministry's taskforce, and see whether anything can be done to improve co-ordination.
Given that I have dealt with the main issues raised by my hon. Friend, and given the limited time remaining, perhaps I should move on to some of the other points to which reference has been made. On the question of war graves at sea, it should not have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) that I announced a major review of the present system and gave a personal promise to ensure that proper respect is paid to war graves. That does not mean, however, that people will not be allowed to dive on them, just as we would not prevent people from walking through a graveyard. We will take careful action, in co-ordination with other countries—I accept the need for that—to ensure that visitors respect sites. That is the key.
I believe that my role in respect of veterans will lead to better co-ordination between Departments and a much sharper focus on important issues. Although that is but one—albeit the major—aspect of what is an increasingly

45WH
large and diverse portfolio, I assure all hon. Members present that I will pay very close attention to it. On the question of to whom to write in respect of individual cases, one may write to me or o the individual Department concerned. General issues will be dealt with by me and more specific ones by the relevant Department.
On pensions—I am sorry to appear to repeat the longstanding policy of Governments—whatever changes might be made, there will be no retrospection.
It is most unlikely that we shall consider revisiting that issue, although I recognise that people feel that they have been badly treated. That I do not see us revisiting it does not mean that I shall not reconsider it on occasion. I shall not consider a change in policy, but I might consider whether anything could be done at its margins.

Best Value (Local Government)
12.30 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In the Ludlow constituency there are two district councils, six town councils and dozens of parish councils. To put that in context, in the area of Bridgnorth district council there is a population of more than 50,000 and in the area of South Shropshire district council there is a population of more than 40,000. However, in terms of best value, both those district councils must work to the same yardstick as the city of Birmingham, which is not far away, where the population is more than 1 million. Leaving aside the principle, which I shall come to presently, the cost of best value to my constituents is wholly disproportionate. On the basis of the figures available, far from saving council tax payers' money, it causes the council tax to be higher than it need otherwise be.
For example, Bridgnorth town council's budgeting expenditure for the current year is £436,468. The town clerk, Mrs. Kathy James, says that the estimated cost of best value to the town council for 2001 is between £10,000 and £15,000, which is between 2 per cent. and 3.5 per cent. of its total budget. The town clerk also says that no overall savings have been identified. The entire process of operating best value has involved only expenditure and a vast amount of time. The town clerk referred me to a magazine entitled Shropshire Review, in which Councillor Ed Shirley, who is chairman of the town council's best value committee, stated:
"The first year's report gained considerable praise from the independent auditor. The conclusion was that the council is run efficiently and no savings could be made that were not already being implemented."
He continued:
"the mandatory Best Value plan is unnecessary and self-defeating as well as being an administrative and financial burden…There is a new cost to residents of over 3 per cent. of the annual precept, which will be reflected in their council bills. This is to cover extra administration, legal and auditors fees etc.—in effect money spent to show we can't save money."
What that means at district council level is illustrated by Councillor Michael Williams, the chairman of South Shropshire district council, who advises me that the cost of implementing best value is £243,560, the equivalent of no less than 5 per cent. of the £4.8 million total annual budget for that authority. The total savings of £97,264 were gained at a cost of close to ££250,000, which is bad business and not cost-effective. However, that is what the Government oblige the local authority to do. Furthermore, local householders pick up the tab in the shape of unnecessarily inflated council tax demands.
Councillor Williams also took the opportunity to point out that another unwarranted and unwanted impost of central Government£I refer to the new political structures—will add a further £60,000 cost to council tax bills for South Shropshire district council, expenditure which will inevitably be at the expense of first-line services.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gill: I gladly give way to another Shropshire Member.
Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend mentioned services. Is he aware that today the Shropshire and Wrekin fire

47WH
authority is putting in a section 19 application to reduce Whitchurch, Market Drayton, Ludlow, Bridgnorth and Newport fire stations from two pumps to one to save £90,000? The chief fire officer told me in February that best value cost £66,000 and that that, plus the cost of a performance and quality manager and best value support office, is almost certainly more than the cost savings of the two fire engines. He said that the best value process has not, as yet, yielded any savings for the fire authority. The document is costing services in Shropshire.
Mr. Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. He has mentioned the point that I want to make to the Minister: as far as small local authorities are concerned—I think that one can generalise and extend that to all those in Shropshire—the savings are far outweighed by the cost of best value. I talked to Bridgnorth district council and received a letter from it that said:
"The net Budget Requirement for Bridgnorth District Council 2001/02 is £4.253M of which, a 2 per cent. anticipated Best Value saving would free just £85,000."
That is a small saving and the cost of best value—£102,000 per year—far outweighs it. The letter went on:
"In addition to the above, it has been necessary for the Council to purchase an additional 100 days of audit time at an annual cost of nearly £20,000 in order to free up the Head of Scrutiny's time to supervise the whole process. Furthermore, the time invested by officers undertaking the reviews and ancillary procedures, not only detracts from the frontline service to the customer, but also adds significantly to the true cost of best value."
The directly attributable additional cost for the previous and current year is £86,000 and £102,000 respectively. It is likely that the marginal costs of officer and member time could at least double those figures. The acting chief executive said in another letter:
"I share the frequently expressed concern of members here that the costs of the Best Value regime for a small, prudent. rural Authority such as ourselves may ultimately outweigh the benefits and savings from the process."
I also talked to an experienced and dedicated councillor, Michael Wood, who, having previously served on county and county borough councils, now sits on the best value steering group at Bridgnorth district council. He told me that there are no savings, no benefit and very little change in practice as a consequence of implementing best value procedures. He also pointed out that the cost to council tax payers is bound to rise when the Government's subsidisation of the district auditor ends and when, in 12 months' time, the real cost of the district auditor are charged in full. Apart from the directly attributable and identifiable costs of implementing best value procedure, there are the additional costs of senior officers' time spent as monitoring officers of best value study teams, and the consequential, but largely unquantifiable, costs of such officers' being taken off the duties that they were appointed to perform.
The story does not end there. I am reliably informed that in the central region—one of five regions in England—the Government are recruiting up to 80 people at a basic salary of %30,000 per annum to staff a best value inspectorate. To supervise a project the cost-
48WH
effectiveness of which is already a proven negative, there will now be a whole hierarchy ranging from internal auditors directly employed by the local authorities, to district auditors employed by Government, and the best value inspectorate, which will cost upwards of —12.5 million per annum in salaries alone, will be superimposed on top.
The nub of the question is, why have the Government imposed the new requirements? Is it because there have previously been no. controls? The answer to that is, most emphatically, no. With internal and external audits and a whole range of performance indicators in place, it would be spurious for Ministers to argue that spending, especially in small local authorities such as the Bridgnorth and South Shropshire district councils, was out of control.
Is it because the Government are determined to clamp down on bureaucracy and public spending? Clearly not, when the consequence of best value, as I have illustrated, is at least 400 additional civil service posts in the best value inspectorate and additional, unwarranted and unnecessary expenditure at national and local level. Have the Government identified some significant, specific on-going abuse in local authority spending that comes anywhere near to rivalling their own crass incompetence over, for example, the dome at Greenwich? I think not.
We have here a deliberate assault on the fundamentals of local democracy. We elect our councillors to cam out certain functions and, through the ballot box, have the ultimate sanction, if we wish to exercise it, of getting rid of them if they fail. If it is thought that our councillors are not achieving best value on our behalf, we can remove them. That is how democracy works.
The imposition of best value regulations on local authorities is only one part of the Government's assault on local democracy and accountability. The Government have decreed that the political structures that have served local government so well for so long must be abandoned in favour of structures that are barely comprehensible to the general public.
As if that were not bad enough, the long-suffering council tax payers, having been required to express their views on the new political structures, are now requested to give their views on the annual best performance plans. They are expected to do that not just once, but three times in the questionnaires sent to them by the town council, district council and county council. If, perchance, the councils do not get the requisite number of returns, they must send out the forms again until they do. What a ridiculous waste of time and money.
Such things are not about improving accountability or strengthening local government, but about negating local democracy and imposing the will of an increasingly bureaucratic and authoritarian Government. I suggest that the commissars in the Government—I use that term advisedly, knowing that several members of the Cabinet had links with coy nmunism—get their tanks off the lawns at Stonehouse, Westgate and the Shirehall and concentrate their fit e on getting best value in Whitehall.
As a minimum, the Government should immediately take local authorities where the population is lower than 250.000 out of the requirements altogether and save us all a huge amount of cash. For the small local authorities

49WH
in my constituency, the requirement are unnecessary, unwanted and totally disproportionate. I trust that the Minister will recognise the strength of that argument and take the necessary action.
Before I sit down, I should like to show the Chamber the collection of papers and publications to do with best value that have accumulated on my desk during the past few weeks, and began to do so before I thought of applying for an Adjournment debate on the topic. Does anyone actually read publications such as the one that I have in my hand—the best value performance plan for Shropshire county council? Is it reasonable to expect councillors to go through such lengthy documents when they know that, at the end of the day. the plans will cost more than the amount that is saved?
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I found it very interesting to listen to the points made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Although I did not agree with a word that he said, I am grateful for the opportunity to put a different perspective on best value and the wider local government reforms that we are trying to achieve. We must see best value as part of that wider reform. We want to make councils more accessible and more demonstrably accountable to local people. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is necessary, I must disagree with him.
Mr. Gill: I hope that the Minister recognises that I speak not just personally, but on behalf of all the people whom 1 represent. If she thinks that the councillors in my constituency are not worried about these measures, she has misunderstood everything that I have said.
Ms Hughes: In the course of my reply, I will tell the hon. Gentleman why I think that he is wrong about that and is not representing the generality of local people's views about their local councils. I make no apology for the fact that the Government are determined to bring the highest standards of excellence and accountability to local government and the services on which local people depend. Best value is at the heart of that. It provides the basis for making local councils more efficient and effective organisations, where performance counts, and they must be accountable for that performance.
Performance plans—which the hon. Gentleman derided—play a central role in delivering best value. They are there to put key performance data and information into the public domain and, partly in that way, to drive up standards. That is why they are so important.
I want to say a little about performance plans. A performance plan is an important feature of any performance-related organisation. In local government, it benefits both the council and local people. First, it enables the council to bring together in one place important corporate information about what has been achieved against the previous year's targets, the future targets that the council is setting itself and the action that it intends to take to try to achieve those targets.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No; I shall just finish this point.
50WH
That information is not bogged down in excessive detail, but it is critical for the effective management of performance in areas that matter.
Secondly, a performance plan is important for local people. They have a stake in all this—they pay for their services with their taxes, so they should know how good or not so good those services are, and should be able to influence the way that the council is going. They can do so only if the information is easily available.
That is what a performance plan does. It is not rocket science. I am stunned that the hon. Gentleman can talk in such a way about the kind of routine practice that any small business with a much smaller turnover than that of either of these two district councils would have to adopt to look to its costs and its quality and to seek continually to drive up its performance standards. That is what best value is about.
Mr. Gill: Does not the Minister recognise that many of the people who sit on local authorities are business people? Is not the arrogance of the Government revealed by their belief that those people, when left to their own devices, cannot get it right? Does not that demonstrate the philosophy of a Labour Government who always believe that the man in Whitehall is right and who always want to override local democracy?
Ms Hughes: I say two things in response to that. First, across the board, local councils have not got it right. If they had, we would not see, before best value, such a huge variability in the standards of service that different councils achieve and in the unit costs of providing those services. There is great variability, which cannot be explained by local circumstances. It is explained by the fact that some councils can provide services well and with good value for money, but others, I am afraid, do not.
Secondly, best value is not about telling councils what they should do, but about requiring them to perform their functions within a framework that ensures that they themselves have continually to look to what they are doing, account for what they are doing, try to drive down costs and try to drive up standards of service. What they choose to do, the priorities that they set and the way that they choose to go about it—
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No. I have given way enough and I need to make these points.
The way in which councils choose to go about it is for them to determine. The only non-negotiable points are that they seek best value, produce a performance plan that sets down their priorities and targets, review their services periodically and demonstrate that they are achieving best value over a period.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No; I will continue because the hon. Gentleman has made his points, and I must make mine.

51WH
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not want to require of district councils, whose turnover greatly exceeds that of most small businesses, practices that small businesses, if they are worth their salt, would regard as routine.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No; I will not give way.
Mr. Gill: It is not a debate, then.
Ms Hughes: I have given way twice, but the hon. Gentleman keeps coming back with the same point. I understand the points that he is making. but I disagree with him and I need the time to explain why.
We are now in the second year of best value. Leaving aside Bridgnorth and South Shropshire, which I shall come to in a minute, what is the record so far? Last year, every authority produced a best value performance plan, of which only 6 per cent. received an adverse audit opinion. That, to my mind, is some achievement. Most local authorities got stuck in and did their plan well, although the plans were all different because one size does not fit all. They adapted the process of producing the plan to their local circumstances; there were some imaginative approaches. Councils also put a great deal of effort into getting the necessary information out. Bridgnorth was part of the 6 per cent. of councils that had an adverse report on their best value performance plan because its plan, which was not good, did not approach the exercise in the right way.
Councils said that focusing on and preparing for the performance plan helped them to look closely at their performance. Some 87 per cent. of chief executives said that they would produce a similar plan again, even if they were not required to do so. They found the plan to be an enabling process, which helped them to think more robustly and rigorously about what they were spending their money on and what their priorities should be.
The issue of costs has been an important feature of the hon. Gentleman's complaints. There are concerns, which I acknowledge, but they must be seen in the context of the benefits of best value. There are costs—in terms of time and money—of producing the plan, of carrying out best value reviews, of introducing performance information systems if local councils do not have them in place already and of consulting the community, which is an essential feature of best value.
First, some of those costs are one-off and, if an authority has not been operating in the way that is now proposed, its one-off costs will be frontloaded as it sets up those systems. If a council did not have a proper performance information system, it should have had one. That is a cost to any effective organisation and most in the private sector will already be familiar with that.
Secondly, some of those early costs were self-imposed. Some of the best performance plans—I have already remarked on the great variety—were the simplest and least expensive. They were more focused and had been designed to fit their purpose, rather than being driven by a fear of audit. For many councils, there
52WH
is great scope for reducing costs. For example, Wiltshire county council, Wiltshire police authority and the associated district councils saved £35,000 by coming together to produce a joint summary of their performance plan in an attractive newspaper format.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No; I shall finish shortly.
Thirdly, there have been costs of audit and inspection. To offset those costs, the Government have provided grant to the Audit Commission and increased the revenue support grant to councils. The year one audit of the performance plan inevitably had to go into more depth to check on the underlying systems; the year two audit will be integrated with the financial audit and I expect costs to reduce significantly.
Similarly, we are examining inspection. Rather than having a "one size fits all" approach, it is possible to move towards a risk -based approach to inspection. If we can do so, it will bring the cost of inspection down for authorities that perform well and it will be an incentive for those that do not.
However, the costs are only one side of the coin. There are benefits, as some small district councils—although perhaps not Bridgnorth and South Shropshire—are demonstrating: working in partnership with others, involving the public through the consultation process, and delivering economies of scale that are producing savings as well as improved standards of service. I wonder to what extent the two district councils to which the hon. Gentleman referred have seriously considered using the potential of best value to demonstrate and deliver new approaches to services. Have they develops d a cost-effective arrangement with Shropshire county council, for example, which is doing very well in terms of best value? Have they been willing to work with it to achieve cost savings and improved services?
Mr. Gill: The short answer to the Minister's question is yes, of course there is co-operation. However, does she accept the central point that it is not good business to allow such savings to be far outweighed by the cost of achieving them? I represent not only councillors but council tax payers and the inevitable result of such measures is that charges will rise. Council tax payers will not be happy to discover that their bills have been needlessly inflated.
Ms Hughes: What is putting up the cost to council tax payers is not investment in best value and a culture that seeks simultaneously to drive down costs and to improve and increase the standard of service, but councils that are running their services inefficiently and ineffectively. Councils must regard best value as an investment and enter into it in that spirit—indeed, many small councils have done so. Tandrige district council and Reigate and Banstead district council, for example, have jointly tendered their audit services. By issuing a joint contract, they will achieve a 15 per cent. cost saving. Hampshire county council has entered into a countywide waste management partnership with Portsmouth unitary council, Southampton unitary council and 11 district councils. That will not only drive

53WH
up rapidly the proportion of recycled waste, but achieve a significant reduction in cost. Small councils such as South Norfolk district council and Burgess Hill town council—I could continue with a long list—have approached best value in the spirit in which it is meant to be approached. They are achieving higher standards of services, and cost savings that outweigh the cost of the best value regime.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we are doing all this. The answer is that we want services to improve, we want council tax payers to have better value for their money, and we certainly want more accountability to local people. The hon. Gentleman talked about local democracy. There is nothing democratic about a council that does not open its doors, or involve local people in decisions on the services that it provides and their cost. Nor is there anything democratic in the turnouts for some of our local elections.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No, I will not.
Some people are so turned off by their local council that they do not even bother to vote
At the heart of the best value process is the principle that local people must be involved. They must be consulted on the priorities that councils set and on the way in which councils achieve their objectives; hence the duty in the best value process to consult local people.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way on that very point?
Ms Hughes: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only two minutes and I intend to use them myself.
We are not talking about an item on a wish list. When a council publishes its performance plan or implements the recommendations of a best value review, it will need to be able to show that it has taken the views of local people and local stakeholders into account. That will give local people the information that they need to vote in elections in the way that the hon. Member for Ludlow wants, and to say what they think. about how their council is performing. Given the matter that the hon. Gentleman was decrying earlier, I was surprised to learn that he regards as a complete waste of money the requirement for councils to produce, and to provide public access to, information. Unless the public have information, they cannot take action, whether in local elections or in other forums.
In conclusion, best value has been accepted within councils right across the country. We are beginning to see significant changes in service delivery. Best value is beginning to make a real difference on the ground. Quite simply, there are better services for local people, more widespread engagement and lower costs.

Motor Cycling
1 pm
Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted to have been able to secure this important debate on motor cycling and I am delighted that the Minister is here to respond. I am chair of the all-party motor cycling group. It is extremely active, with members in both the Commons and the Lords. We have taken up some serious issues relating to motor cycling over the past three years while I have been a member.
There are about 1 million motor cyclists in Britain today, which is a substantial proportion of the population. The size of the national fleet is sometimes debatable, but 1 million is a fair estimate. For many people motor cycling is an easy, affordable, accessible and convenient form of transport. They have chosen to use motor cycles to get to work, to see their friends to go out in the evening and to do all the things that we do in our communities.
For many motor cyclists, myself included, motor cycling is also a passion—it is in their heart. They perhaps love their bikes more than most car drivers love their cars. The issues surrounding motor cycling are therefore extremely important to them. I am pleased that we have parliamentary time today to explore some of those issues. It will inevitably be a canter through the issues as it is a big agenda and I know that the Minister will want to respond in detail on some specific issues.
I am pleased that the Government, for the first time ever, have established an advisory group on motor cycling to represent the motor cycle industry, the British Motorcyclists Federation, the Motorcycle Action Group, the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and a host of road users and people who are concerned about these issues. It is a sign of the Government's commitment: they see the role of motor cycles and powered two-wheelers generally as important in developing transport strategies.
The advisory group on motor cycling has just issued its first interim paper, which is quite detailed. As is par for the course with this Government, they have set up a number of taskforces to examine the issues in greater detail. They are all reporting back and doing excellent work. I want to press the Minister on the development of a motor cycle strategy. We have the advisory group, but we need to move on to a clear set of proposals for putting motor cycles and powered two-wheelers at the heart of transport policy. The report talks about producing a strategy in 2003. I should like the Minister to confirm that timetable.
One of the things for which motor cyclists most often press is the ability to use bus lanes. That would help to free up traffic in cities and towns. As motor cyclists, we feel that we have a major role to play in easing congestion. If motor cycles could use bus lanes we could speed the traffic along, whether for couriers, dispatch workers or people on their way to work. A host of users could get through the traffic much more swiftly. That would not just ease congestion, but would reduce pollution, as there would be fewer idling machines and emissions would be reduced.
There have been a number of experiments on the use of bus lanes in Reading and Bristol, and in Hull, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The local

55WH
authorities there have been progressive and have been prepared to look at the use of bus lanes by motor cycles. I am disappointed that the report of the advisory group says in paragraph 34:
"The Department is keen to see proper monitoring and evaluation of the effect of PTWs in bus lanes. It is a practice that has developed in a number of local authorities…However, to date, no thorough evaluation has been done."
Some of those experiments have been going on for many years. The time is long overdue for proper evaluation and research, to discover what does and does not work and its effect on other road users. It is a substantial policy and I hope that the Government will undertake proper evaluation to ensure that we learn the lessons from previous experiments. If bus lanes help to speed traffic flow and to reduce congestion and pollution, we shall urge local authorities to adopt them.
It is not a matter of the Government's dictating what happens; local authorities have an important role in implementing many of the proposals. However, the Government can endorse those proposals, give them a fair wind and say that they are rooted in research, based on fact and a very good thing to do. I hope that there will be a much more widespread use of bus lanes in future.
I want to discuss the need for secure parking. For years, motor cyclists have not had access to secure parking, especially in towns and cities, and the problem of motor cycle theft is immense, perhaps because motor cycles are easy to steal. It is hard to make a motor cycle theftproof; one has to invest in locks, chains, concrete posts and so on to reduce theft. A simple way of cutting motor cycle theft would be for local authorities to provide simple, cheap roadside or kerbside bars to which bikes could be chained, so that there was less chance of their being stolen.
Approximately 20,000 motor cycles are stolen every year. As I said, for most motor cyclists their bike is their passion. When my motor cycle was stolen I went on a crusade to recover it, and was able to wheel it back to my house. I know how angry motor cyclists are about motor cycle theft.
I am pleased that the Government's local transport plan guidance recommends local authorities to consider the appropriate number of parking spaces needed for motor bikes and the need for good access to them. It also encourages local authorities to introduce secure parking where possible. A helpful amendment to the law last year enabled local authorities to provide secure parking without being accused of obstructing the highway. We must encourage more local authorities to take note of these issues.
I spoke recently to people in my local authority about a range of issues such as bus lanes, secure parking, road maintenance and so on. They said, "We have never thought about these important matters because we do not have a motor cyclist on our local advisory group and there is no one to bring these issues to our attention. No one in our department rides a motor bike. No one in the highways department has highlighted these issues." It would help if the Government suggested that local authorities' consultative committees should make positive attempts to encourage motor cyclists from their local community to bring their perspective and ideas to
56WH
community-based discussions. Local authorities could perhaps place an advertisement in the local paper asking motor cyclists who might be interested in taking part in policy making to come forward.
Mr. Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend agree that one advantage of the involvement of bikers in planning and policy making is that it helps to destroy the unfortunate stereotype, to which even Ministers are not wholly immune, that occasionally casts motor cyclists, as aggressive and antisocial? My hon. Friend and I were present at a meeting of the motor cycle group when we heard the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) claim that he had once ridden from Great Britain to Greece wearing only a baseball cap. He later qualified that by saying that he was referring to head covering—he did not like crash helmets—but by then an awful image had lodged in the mind, which is the stuff of nightmares to this day. Does my hon. Friend accept that most motor cyclists are not antisocial, but responsible adults who recognise that powered two-wheelers represent a fuel-efficient, cheap, accessible, efficient and guaranteed method of transport in urban areas?
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. This is a rather long, although interesting, intervention.
Mr. Pound: I thought that the mention of Greece might distract you. Mr. O'Hara. In conclusion, I say that if, at the weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) had been at the London motor cycle museum in Greenford—that temple to the best of British iron, a gallery of motor cycling excellence—she would have seen exactly what she wanted to see: motor cyclists in the London borough of Ealing setting out their stall and Working with the local authority for the betterment of us all.
Ms Blears: I am delighted to hear that information from my hon. Friend. He is right that motor cycling used to have an aggressive macho image, but nothing could be further from the truth nowadays. I am proud to ride a Yamaha Virago 535S. More women are taking up motor cycling and thoroughly enjoying it, especially on beautiful sunny days like today. Yesterday I took my bike for a spin and it was great fun.
I want to move on to road safety education. A GCSE that concentrates on motor cycling is available. It has practical and theoretical elements. It teaches young people to be safe on the roads and, hopefully, reduces the number of accidents. Unbelievably, it is accredited as a GCSE only in Northern Ireland. It is taught in this country, but not within the school curriculum, and it is difficult to get it accepted in England and Wales. Will the Minister work with Education Ministers to find a way of accrediting that GCSE in this country? It is useful and engaging, especiall3 for young men of 15 or 16 who may not be turned on by the traditional curriculum but would enjoy taking a GCSE in motor cycling and road safety education.
Another issue is disabled motor cycling. It may be a difficult image to picture, but some disabled people thoroughly enjoy motor cycling and, in common with disabled people with motor cars, might need a small change to their machine—a different gear lever, clutch

57WH
or brake. It is disgraceful and discriminatory that the Motability scheme is not extended to motor cycles. The excuse given by the trustees is that it is hard to find engineering firms of sufficient depth and calibre to sustain the necessary amendment to motor cycles. I can say categorically that that is simply not the case. Our group has evidence of engineers who have carried out marvellous adaptations to motor cycles and many disabled motor cyclists can now enjoy their sport and use their machines for transport. Will the Minister examine Motability further? It is un fair that people who choose to travel on two wheels cannot access a scheme that people on four wheels can. That anomaly must be investigated further.
Another issue of unfairness—I am sorry if my speech sounds like a catalogue of complaints, but the motor cycling community wants me to press these problems—is the fact that VAT is payable on compulsory, but not optional, training and safety equipment. People need higher and more competent riding skills and they need the best protective equipment to minimise any injuries. Will the Minister examine the merit of a fiscal regime that does not provide incentives to acquire the safest equipment?
Vehicle excise duty, which I realise is not a matter for the Minister, is another issue. We will press the Chancellor to encourage the use of powered two-wheelers. Vehicle excise duty has proved effective at encouraging people into smaller ca, so it might also be used as an incentive to get people cut of their cars and on to two wheels.
The work done by the advisory group is good news and I am delighted at the progress that has been made. A whole section of the report deals with diesel spillage, in respect of which it would be good to make even faster progress. Motorcycle News recently organised a petition—and secured 50,000 signatures—for amendments to be made to the filling caps of heavy goods vehicles to prevent diesel from spilling out. It is amazing how many road accidents occur not as a result of any faults on the part of motor cyclists or car drivers, but because diesel has spilt out of heavy goods vehicles as they negotiate a roundabout. In those circumstances, motor cycles often skid, which can lead to nasty accidents.
I am aware of a new directive on changing tank caps and firmly closing the seal. The advisory group's report stated:
"At a date to be decided DETR will be consulting on the implementation of similar requirements for HGVs."
Will the Minister ensure that consultation takes place, so that he takes into account the views of people with practical experience of what it has meant to them when they have had a nasty crash and have been injured? It is a simple way to reduce the number of casualties from motor cycles.
Finally, I make a plea to car drivers. Motor cycles are often paraded as a dangerous form of transport that is predominantly used by young men and, sometimes, older men—I think that they are called born-again bikers—who have accidents with huge numbers of casualties. However, many motor cycle accidents are caused by car drivers who did not see the motor cyclist coming. Such drivers may turn right out of a junction without looking or seeing the bike. There will be a crash
58WH
and, usually, the motor cyclist comes off worst in the accident. I plead for much better training for car drivers to make them more aware of the problems, because motor cyclists are blamed too often when it is not their fault. All people who use the roads, using vehicles such as cars, goods vehicles, motor cycles, mopeds and cycles—cyclists are a very important group—have a responsibility to work together when using the roads, and I believe that we can live harmoniously. I am delighted that the Government have taken the matter of motor cycling seriously.
There are a million motor cyclists out there, and I tell the Minister, in encouragement —he has had a tough time in the past couple of weeks, since we were involved in a slip of a tongue in the Chamber—that bikers are voters too and, if it all gets really tough, he can always get on his bike and go.
1.16pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on securing the debate. She is. of course, the chair of the all-party motor cycling group. I also thank her for her courtesy in giving me notice of some of the detailed matters that she wished to raise in debate. I reassure her that I will study the Official Report and that I shall respond in writing, where appropriate, to questions asked in her speech that I am unable to deal with in my ensuing remarks. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) for his important intervention—he is, of course, a vice-chair of the all-party group.
Before I turn to the substance of my reply, I take the opportunity to clear up a deeply unfortunate misunderstanding that arose between my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and myself on 24 April, as a result of which I wrote to her saying:
"I now understand that a remark I made today from the dispatch box at DETR Questions has been open to misinterpretation. My intention had been to describe you as `Blears the Biker' in recognition of your role as a champion of the interests of motorcyclists. I very much regret that the phrase I used, entirely innocently and inadvertently, may have had offensive connotations and, as you know, I have apologised to you directly for my mistake."
I thought it right to place that apology on the public record, so that there should be no stain on the character of my hon. Friend.
The Government decided, at an early stage, to take a positive approach to motor cycling, and to work constructively with the industry to resolve potential difficulties. Our 1998 White Paper on the future of transport set out our position on motor cycling as part of an integrated transport policy. It recognised that powered two-wheelers have an important contribution to make, as did our 10-year transport plan, which was published last year. The White Paper acknowledged that mopeds and motor cycles can provide an alternative means of transport for many trips, and recognised that where public transport is limited and walking is

59WH
unrealistic, motor cycling can provide an affordable alternative to the car that brings benefits to the individual and widens their employment opportunities.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: Very briefly, because I have much to say and little time in which to say it.
Mr. Sheerman: It would be sad if the Minister placed his remarks on the record without acknowledging that motor cycling is a very dangerous form of transport. When I entered the House, 1,000 young men a year riding motor cycles were killed on British roads, and it is an advantage that we have cut down the number of young people riding motor cycles without training. We already see an upward curve in motor cycle deaths, in many cases of men and women in their 30s. Motor cycling is a seriously dangerous mode of transport, and its safety should not be likened to that of the car.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I hope to address the safety issue.
The role of motor cycling raises important and complex issues. For that reason we have established an advisory group on motor cycling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said, to discuss key issues, including safety and the environment. The group involves a broad range of interested parties, including those who ride powered two-wheelers. That has helped the Government to move motor cycling policy forward and to define the role of motor cycles in our transport strategy. Last month, we published an interim report on the group's work and I can confirm that the Government intend to publish a motor cycling strategy in 2003.
One of the first things that we recognised was that successive Governments had failed to take proper account of the needs of motor cyclists. We have already done much to remedy that. In March 2000, we published guidance on local transport plans for local authorities, which said that authorities should take account of the contribution that powered two-wheelers can make in delivering integrated transport policies and consider specific measures to help motor cyclists in making integrated journeys. We asked local authorities to consider specific issues, including the provision of appropriate parking for motor cycles and the provision of good access, suitable facilities and secure parking at public transport interchanges. We asked them to remedy deficiencies in the road surface that affect motor cyclists, and to be aware of the role that powered two-wheelers can play in remote or rural areas.
I note with interest my hon. Friend's proposal that local authorities make efforts to involve motor cyclists in their local transport planning. As she said, we have provided powers and money for local authorities. The Transport Act 2000 gave them specific powers to provide secure parking facilities for motor cycles. In November, we announced £1 billion for local authorities to spend on maintenance over the next two years, which is double the amount of money now
60WH
available. That will help to eliminate the potholes and bad surfacing that cause so many problems for motor cyclists and other road users.
The debate should not simply focus on what local authorities can do. The Highways Agency's safety plan takes motor cyclists into account and the maintenance plan recognises how important a contribution well-designed maintenance can make to road safety. Over the next few years, the United Kingdom will implement new European Union measures aimed at reducing fuel spillage, which represents another danger on the road surface.
The private sector has a role to play, too. We published guidance for businesses highlighting the space-efficient nature of powered two-wheelers and detailing the ways in which employers could help motor cyclists. Those include the provision of safe and secure parking, changing and storage locker facilities and safety training.
We are taking other steps to aid integration and traffic management. Several local authorities are active in increasing the amount of powered two-wheeler parking that they provide, but little technical guidance is available to those IN ho need to take account of motor cycling in the public or private sectors. Therefore, we shall provide advice on various aspects of the planning and provision of parking facilities, including secure parking.
On a previous occasion, my hon. Friend raised the issue of congestion charging. I can now reinforce the reply that I gave her. The Government believe that powered two-wheelers should generally be exempt from road user charging and workplace parking schemes. We intend to leave decisions to local discretion but will publish guidance for consultation in the summer. Some local authorities allow motor cycles into bus lanes, but to date no proper monitoring or evaluation of that practice has taken place. A thorough examination of the traffic and safety implications for motor cyclists and other road users is required to enable us to draw proper conclusions. Therefore. we have approached several highway authorities that are interested in the possibility of allowing powered two-wheelers into bus lanes, with a view to participating in fully monitored trials over the next year or two.
We recognise that mopeds and motor cycles are being used in an effort tc beat congestion, and people have argued that, if more trips were made by powered two-wheelers rather than car, less congestion would result because they take up less road space. A project is under way to consider the impact of powered two-wheeler use on congestion. That will help us to answer questions on the effects that increased motor cycling will produce.
I am confident that all those initiatives will better integrate motor cycling into our transport system but other, perhaps more difficult issues and challenges for motor cycling remain. The safety of motor cyclists is a significant issue for the Government. Motor cyclists represent a large proportion of road casualties in relation to their numbers. Our most recent figures—for 1999—show that there were 10 per cent. more deaths among two-wheeled vehicle users than in the previous year. Although it is true that the casualty rate shows a welcome fall of about 9 per cent., motor cyclists remain our most vulnerable road users.

61WH
We must deal with the problem. In March 2000, we published a road safety strategy for the next 10 years. It sets casualty reduction targets to be achieved by 2010, including a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. Action is required to deliver such targets and we are already taking steps to implement the motor cycling package. Following consultation, we have recently introduced regulations that deliver several of the measures that we wanted and have removed those regulations that have had no helpful effect.
We have ended the unpopular "two years on, one year off" rule. From 1 February 2001, provisional licences will last until the age of 70, but people who do not pass a test within two years must remove their compulsory basic training certificate to continue riding. That is more appropriate than a ban, during which time a rider's skills may decline. In addition, the life of a CBT certificate has been reduced from three to two years. That achieves a sensible balance between providing learners with an incentive not to delay reaching test standard, while giving a reasonable period to accommodate individual circumstances.
Until recently, anyone passing a car test was granted a full moped licence without relevant training or testing. We believe, however, that riding a moped safely involves different skills from those needed to drive a car safely. Car drivers who qualify after 1 February 2001 will be required to complete a CBT course before using their moped entitlement to ride on the road. That will ensure that car drivers receive appropriate training before taking to two wheels.
The content of the car and motor cycle theory tests has changed and diverged. For example, the motor cycle test now better meets the needs of learner drivers than it did when it was introduced in 1996. To ensure that learners are tested properly for their mode of transport, the regulations provide that exemption from the motor cycle theory test for full car licence holders, and vice versa, is ended. We have ended that exemption.
Other measures are in the pipeline. We are developing pre-test rider training for all learner drivers, based on a range of competences to be achieved. It will be supported by training logbooks To complement that, we shall be improving the standards of motor cycle instructors. That improvement will be supported by a voluntary register of accredited motor cycle instructors.
62WH
In the longer term, we want to make that a statutory register. We want motor cycle instructors to be trained and tested to the same high standards that we propose for car instructors.
We are worried about the recent increase in casualties among older riders. We shall therefore develop guidance for full motor cycle licence holders who are turning to motor cycling after a break and for those taking to two wheels for the first time in later life. We want those riders to have a reliable source of training and refresher courses. We shall continue to promote improvements in engineering and technical standards, which could better protect motor cyclists. For example, my Department is leading a European collaborative research project, which we hope will lead to a new helmet standard in about five years.
The Government are also considering how to protect people who ride powered two-wheelers as part of their jobs—a point to which my hon. Friend referred. Initiatives are being pursued in partnership with industry, including the development of agreed codes of practice for motor cycle couriers and for fast food home delivery operators, and improved rider training with national standards for training schemes. The Government understand that motor cycle safety is not only a matter for the rider. Bad or inconsiderate driving by people in cars and other vehicles is a significant factor. Through training and testing, we want to make drivers more aware of the vulnerability of riders.
We shall be introducing hazard perception testing for all test candidates during the autumn of 2002. That will test the ability of a driver or rider to identify at the earliest possible opportunity situations that might require them to take some form of avoiding action, such as a change of speed or direction. We shall certainly have video clips showing motor cyclists.
I hope that my remarks demonstrate that we have taken great strides to move forward motor cycling policy and to take account of the needs of motor cyclists. The Government talk to motor cycling interests regularly and reflect on what is said before developing policy. There is still much to do, but with the help of the advisory group, the Government will see through the initiatives that I have described, and others, to develop good and well thought out policies. We continue to see powered two-wheelers as important in our transport strategy and remain committed to their safe use on our roads.

Thames Waste Management Ltd.
1.29 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the Speaker for selecting this debate. Thames Waste Management Ltd. applied for a permit to run an incinerator plant under the integrated pollution control regime in July 2000. The Environment Agency granted the permit in April 2001.
The application could never have been made if the Government had introduced the new directive on incinerators, the integrated pollution prevention and control regime, by October 1999, the deadline set across the European Union. By delaying the introduction of the new regime until the end of July 2000, the Government—inadvertently, of course—allowed Thames Waste Management Ltd. to sneak in its application under the old rules.
Given that they are the old rules, however, having obtained the permit does not entitle Thames Waste to burn a single tonne of waste in Guildford. Even if it gains planning permission for the plant, it will have to go through the whole procedure again to go ahead. By having the licence granted, Thames Waste has been given a spurious legitimacy for its speculative proposals for an incinerator plant in Guildford.
I come here on rather a busy day for politics. I am sure that incinerators, although important, will not be at the top of the minds of most of the country's people. However, I have come here to represent the entire community of Guildford, which is of one mind on the issue. It is concerned that the Government focus on the matter in the short time available before the Parliament dissolves. I have been in this place for four years, and do not expect contrition from the Minister, but I do hope for his co-operation. That is why I have let him know several of the points that I am about to raise.
We do not believe that an out-of-date permission should be allowed to give a spurious legitimacy to a planning application that still has to be resolved. The county council has indicated that it does not regard it as providing that legitimacy, but the authority provided by the Government's view would help to make it clear to all that the fact that the licence has been granted does not give any edge to the applicant's planning proposal.
We have also learned, through our examination of the matter, not only that the opportunity to apply for a licence should not have arisen, but that the Environment Agency should not have granted the licence. I refer the Minister to paragraph 22 of planning policy guidance note 10 on the Environment Agency, which, clearly states:
"Where a waste management licence is sought…for which planning permission is required. planning approval has to be obtained before the Agency can grant a licence, unless the waste management facility is regulated through the integrated pollution control"
regime.
In the case under discussion, we all knew that, although the applicant could obtain an IPC licence, it would not be regulated at any point through the IPC regime. It is now absolutely clear that it will have to be regulated through a new regime. Surely, therefore, it is a breach of the Government's planning guidelines for the Environment Agency to issue such a licence before the planning issues have been resolved.
64WH
The only alternative explanation is that the Government might have delayed updating planning policy guidance note 10 to take account of the new situation because it is their intention that all planning applications should have the appropriate Environment Agency licence. If that is their position, there will be a knock-on effect for this proposal, which now has the benefit of a licence, albeit an obsolete one. By comparison, the procedure has not yet been fulfilled for other applications, for other sites in Surrey. Under the planning guidance, no licences should be yet offered under the new regime. That goes to the heart of the matter on which we need clarification from the Minister.

In the course of our inquiries, we came up with a third issue—that, according to a written reply that I received from the Department, a new, more stringent regime is to be imposed by the end of next year. What is important about that new regime is that the public will have to be consulted not only on the planning process, but on the permit process on the granting of the environmental licence. One reason why people in Guildford are dismayed by the whole process is that the Environment Agency, despite receiving a record number of objections—more than 10,000 letters to the agency and more than 25,000 letters to both the agency and the county council—has undertaken no public consultation during its consideration of the licence proposal. Under the new regime that is to be brought in by the end of next year—we have a Government commitment on that—such a public consultation would be necessary and would provide an opportunity to deal with the many concerns that people have about such incinerators.
The whole process has been mishandled in three ways—first, in the failure to bring in new directives in time; secondly, in determining an application in contradiction to Government guidelines; and, thirdly, in view of the fact that more stringent rules are around the corner. That reinforces the call for a moratorium on all new incinerators that is being made by my party and my community. Communities throughout the country want a moratorium. We can then sort out the health risks, impose the more stringent requirements and undertake a strategic Government review of the need for such incinerators, given that so many people are now awake to their risks and would rather put more effort into the preferred alternative of recycling.
I received a letter from Burpham community association that pointed me towards the recent report of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which I am sure that the Minister has studied in detail. Paragraph 93 of the report states that
"it is generally accepted that emission standards are still based on what can be measured and what is technologically achievable, rather than what is safe."
It continues:
"The Environment Agency told us, more generally, that our understanding of the health effects of air pollution is 'at an early stage."'
For all those reasons, there is a strong case for allowing communities such as the one that I represent to pursue alternatives such as recycling and to wait for the more stringent requirements of the new regulations to come into force before allowing a single further incinerator to be approved in this country.

65WH
I am grateful to the leader of our local campaign, the Guildford anti-incinerator network the Reverend Colin Matthews, who has pointed out more generally in the context of the Environment Agency's performance over this application:
"The Environment Agency appears to be entirely on the polluters' side. It has never refused a licence even though it knows no incinerator has kept within the pollution limits set for it."
Indeed, in evidence to the Committee's inquiry, the Environment Agency admitted that even the latest generation of post-1996 incinerators has caused nearly 900 fugitive, unlawful emissions from plants in the short period that those incinerators have been in operation. This morning, when I visited the plant operated by Thames Waste Management Ltd. at Thamesmead, its managers had to admit that these emissions are happening and that there is no way in which they can guarantee that such fugitive emissions can be avoided.
We should therefore like a statement in this debate or an undertaking to write as soon as possible—preferably before Parliament dissolves—to the planning authority of Surrey county council. What is the status of the licence that has been granted? Why have the Government delayed implementing the current rules, which would have prevented the application happening in the first place? Why has the Environment Agency approved the licence in contradiction of the current planning guidelines? In view of the new rules that the Government have undertaken to introduce within the next 18 months, how far should the planning authority take into account the new requirements, which include a requirement for public consultation on environmental implications? I notice that the Minister is nodding his head, and I should be grateful for his co-operation on those points.
In the short time left to me, I should like to raise several planning issues that surround the application. It is evident that the application is a departure from both the local plan in Guildford and the structure plan for Surrey. The local plan requires any planning application to take into account its impact on the landscape and character of the town. How can a structure bigger and taller than Guildford cathedral possibly be in tune with the design, layout, history and character of our historic market town? How can it be right that an applicant can ride roughshod over normal planning guidelines because it says that it must deal with waste in that way?
We know that there is a local will. and the means on that site, to assist a massive increase in recycling. I shall be the first to admit that towns such as Guildford can do a great deal more to recycle. Indeed, if there is one benefit of the process, it has been the wake-up call to our community, and to others, that we must do a great deal more to recycle our waste to minimise the requirement for incinerators. An opportunity for recycling would, of course, be generated by a moratorium on incinerators, which would give communities a chance to prove how much more they can do.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the wider issue of the loss of amenity. Section 41 of PPG10 states:
"The effects of waste management facilities"
must be considered in the context of
"proximity to other developments, impacts on amenity".
66WH
In the context of telecommunications masts, it is now accepted that the impact on amenity of a mast and concerns generated in a local community are valid planning considerations. If, for example, a mast is proposed next to a school, the fact that its erection might cause the numbers at the school to fall because parents would withdraw their children, which could mean that the school, nursery or other community facility would have to close, is now, according the Government's latest guidelines, a valid planning consideration. By the same token, is the enormous concern generated by a proposal in a town such as the one that I represent a valid planning consideration? Are the effects on local services, schools and businesses near the proposed plant valid planning considerations?
Only the other day, I visited a major international company, Regus, the office providers, which has built a new suite of offices for businesses in Guildford. Along with other leading companies such as Ericsson and Colgate Palmolive, it is concerned by the impact that the proposal will have on its staff, on their willingness to move to the town and, of course, on other facilities in Guildford. If the impact on amenity applies in the case of a telecommunications mast, surely it should apply in this case.
The announcement that the agency had approved a licence for a giant incinerator in Guildford was a scandal. We would not be in the position that we are in today if the Government had introduced the new rules and the Environment Agency had followed the current planning rules. As I said, the company will have to go through the whole procedure again before it can progress with its proposals.
The affair highlights the need for a moratorium, and the need to give alternatives such as recycling the chance to take root and prove themselves in communities such as the one that I represent. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister rejected my call for a moratorium. The message to the people of Guildford is that the Government do not realise the issue's importance. The Minister has an opportunity to put that right now and to respond constructively to the points that I have made.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on securing a debate on the licensing of a proposed incinerator in Guildford, and thank him for making us aware of some of the questions to which he would like an answer. That is most helpful, and I shall try to answer as many of them as possible. I recognise that the issue is attracting considerable public interest in his constituency.
In July 2000, Thames Waste Management Ltd. submitted a planning application to Surrey county council and a concurrent application to the Environment Agency concerning a proposed integrated waste management centre at Slyfield. Surrey county council will decide whether to grant planning permission for the proposed facility, which includes an energy-from-waste plant.
The plant will require planning permission and authorisation under the new integrated pollution prevention and control—IPPC—regime to be built and

67WH
operated. Planning permission and the granting of IPPC authorisation are two independent processes, which will take different considerations into account.
It would be improper for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of a planning application proposal. Any such comments could prejudice the Secretary of State's position, if the application should ultimately come to him for a decision. However, the hon. Gentleman has set out concerns about the licensing regime for the proposed plant and it will help if I give some background information on the subject.
Until the new IPPC regime comes into effect, large waste incinerators are regulated by the Environment Agency under the integrated pollution control—IPC—regime. Thames Waste Management made its original application to the Environment Agency in July 2000, before the new IPPC regime came into force. In April 2001, the Environment Agency granted authorisation to the proposal under the IPC regime.
The IPC authorisation issued by the Environment Agency does not allow the applicant to operate the incinerator. For the incinerator to operate, the applicant must apply for and obtain an IPPC permit. Should such an application be made, there will be a public consultation.
The IPPC regime 2000 for England and Wales came into force on 1 August 2000. Its basic purpose is to introduce a more integrated approach to controlling pollution. In a recent press release, Surrey county council acknowledged that the IPC does provide information to inform the planning process. Planning permission may be granted without IPPC authorisation if Surrey county council is satisfied with its examination of health and pollution issues surrounding the application. As I said, however, the plant will not be able to operate until it has been granted IPPC authorisation by the Environment Agency.
The Environment Agency considers that, provided that the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the additional requirements imposed under the IPPC regime, the principles of best practicable environmental option, air dispersion assessment and health risk assessment could be transposed into the new IPPC regulatory regime.
It might be useful if I make a few comments on the Government's general approach to waste.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Ainsworth: I should like to make progress because I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious for me to place certain points on the record and answer his questions.
In May 2000 we published the national waste strategy, setting out the Government's policy for sustainable waste management for the next 20 years. The strategy identified the need for a step change in the way in which we think about the management of our waste. That will mean curbing the growth in waste, and learning to recognise waste as a resource. The Government are committed to dramatic increases in recycling and composting rates.
68WH
For the first time, the Government have set statutory targets for household waste recycling and composting, which will require councils, on average, to double recycling and composting by 2003-04 and almost triple it by 2005-06. We have set even higher targets for 2010 and 2015, which we shall keep under review and raise if to do so proves practical.
The key driver behind those goals is the European landfill directive, which will require substantial changes to the way in which we manage our waste. At present, the United Kingdom landfills more than 80 per cent. of its municipal waste. The directive will require substantial reductions in biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill.
The national waste strategy provides a clear framework for decision making. The waste hierarchy, which is a key part of the decision-making process, makes it clear that waste should be eliminated where possible and that the potential for reuse and recycling should be maximised. However, where it does not make sense to recycle or compost waste, consideration should be given to the recovery of energy from waste.
Although the Government have no plans for a specific number of incinerators, they do not rule out their use as part of an integrated waste management plan. Some new incineration capacity might be required if we are to manage all the waste that is to be diverted from landfill in the next 20 years.
The proximity principle, which is another key consideration in taking waste management decisions, advises that in general, waste should be managed as near as possible to its place of production, given that transporting waste has an environmental impact. Dealing with waste in that way is generally preferable to exporting it elsewhere, although the best practicable environmental option for certain wastes—normally those that are especially hazardous or toxic—might be to transport them to facilities that are designed to deal with them. Ultimately, the choice of waste facilities is a matter for local councils, in consultation with local communities.
In determining the application, I am confident that Surrey county council will consider all relevant issues. In particular, it will need to take into account representations from the local community, and the guidance for local planning authorities and others involved in the development process as set out in planning policy guidance note 10, "Planning and Waste Management", and planning policy guidance note 23, "Planning and Pollution Control".
In a plan-led system, consideration of the siting of major waste management facilities begins with waste planning authorities preparing their local waste plans. The plans set out the authorities' policies and proposals for dealing with waste in their areas, and should include the identification of sites for any new or extended facilities that might be required. It is important that the public become involved in this process, so that they can be fully informed about future development and use of land in their areas.
I fully appreciate that local people may have concerns about the proposed development of an energy-from-waste plant in Surrey. Representations from local people will be one factor that Surrey county council must take into account when determining the

69WH
application. However, modern energy-from-waste plants are strictly regulated by the Environment Agency according to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The environmental performance of waste incinerators has improved immensely since the early 1990s.
The hon. Gentleman said that he believes that the application was dealt with in a manner contrary to the guidance in planning policy guidance note 10. Under IPPC, Thames Waste Management Ltd. would have had to apply for planning permission before applying for a permit from the Environment Agency. By applying under IPC, it was deliberately avoiding that requirement. In fact, the situation under IPPC will remain the same as under IPC, in that planning permission will not be needed in order to apply for either permit. To have waited for IPPC to come into force would have made no difference, except that it is likely to involve a lengthier process.
The hon. Gentleman also said that it is not normal to do business by seeking IPC, or IPPC, approval prior to planning permission. However, I am afraid that it is quite common for companies to deal with matters in such a way and it does not detract from the requirements of the planning process that must be undergone subsequently. It also means that the IPPC regime will still have to be taken into consideration before the plant can operate.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Paragraph 22 of PPG10 says that where a licence is sought, planning approval must first be obtained unless the facility is regulated through the IPC regime. Is the Minister saying that that exemption will be extended when the planning guidance is revised to include the IPPC regime and that, therefore, the Government's policy is that companies should apply for the environmental licence and have a decision taken on the licence before the planning process is completed?
Mr. Ainsworth: It will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I will repeat what I have already said. Under the IPPC, the situation will remain the same as it is under the IPC. The company will not need planning permission to apply for either permit and it will make no difference to have waited for the IPPC to come into effect, except that the IPPC is a lengthier process.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The Minister is not answering my point that we are not simply concerned about whether an applicant applies for a licence, but about whether it is granted. Locally, people feel that the grant of an environmental licence in some way prejudges the planning process. The application allows the
70WH
Environment Agency to examine the issues, but it should not issue its final determination of the licence until the planning process is completed. Perhaps the Minister will write to me on that point.
Mr. Ainsworth: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if I can and if subsequent inquiries throw up anything that differs from the comments that I have made. It is normal for companies to apply for licences from the Environment Agency first because that agency is statutorily bound to issue or refuse a permit within four months. A planning process may take much longer. There is an incentive for companies to carry out business that way round, and they often do. That is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman believes to be case. If I subsequently discover that what he says has some relevance, I will contact him.
The Government welcome the recent adoption of the EU waste incineration directive, which reinforces the already tough emission standards under domestic legislation.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I assume that we have a few minutes left. 1 also raised the point about a departure from the local and structure plans. We do not expect the Minister to comment on that individual application, but it will be considered alongside other applications, at least one of which will receive an automatic consideration by the Minister as to whether there should be a public inquiry, because it is in the green belt. It has been said of both the other applications that they are departures from the plan. Will the Minister take an even-handed approach to those applications, which are considered at the same time and all of which are, in various ways, significant departures from the local and structure plans? Does he consider that they should be called in or be the subject of a public inquiry?
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman knows that if there is a departure from the plan, the proposal is flagged up to be potentially called in. If an application is turned down, applicants have an automatic right to appeal against it. Even if a proposal is within the plan, that does not preclude the matter from being called in. Considerations such as whether the application has an impact wider than that on the local area and whether there has been conformity to the plan must be taken into account. Without prejudicing any future decision taken by the Secretary of State, I cannot go much further than that in helping the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160048]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 May 2001, Official Report, column 607W.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how Many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date. [160036]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]In total, two special advisers have worked at any one time in the Foreign Secretary's Department from 1997 to date:

  Andrew Hood: May 1997-December 1999

  David Clark: May 1997 to date

  Michael Williams: February 2000 to date.

  Rio Conference
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist the preparations for the Rio+10 conference; what contributions he intends to make at the conference; and if he will make a statement. [159780]

  Mr. Battle
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has stated in his reply of today (UIN15779), the United Kingdom is taking a leading role in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in South Africa in September 2002. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is actively engaged in these preparations.

  Once the agenda for the summit has been agreed, we shall decide on how best to contribute

  European Court of Human Rights
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average length of time was between a case referred to me European Court of Human Rights and a judgment in a case in the last 12 months; and when he expects a judgment in the cases of(a) Leyla Zana, (b) Selim Sadak, (c) Hatip Dicle and (d) Orhan Dogah. [160383]

  Mr. Battle
  The new European Court of Human Rights came into existence on 1 November 1998. The Court has set itself the objective of reaching a final judgment on the merits of a case within two years of that case being introduced. However, due to the considerable backlog of cases that the new Court inherited from the previous 2W
  European Court and Commission, the Court is not at present in a position to meet that objective. The Government have provided additional assistance to the Court to help in clear that backlog. The majority of cases that do not go for judgment are decided within one year.

  Judgments are expected shortly in the cases of Leyla Zana, Selim Sadak, Hatip Dicle and Orhan Dogah, and probably by the beginning of June.

  Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Colombian Government over the recent threats made by Army and paramilitary personnel against the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado. [160641]

  Mr. Battle
  We are concerned about the recent threats that have been made by armed groups against the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado. Representatives of Peace Brigades international and Christian Aid met officials from the Latin American and Caribbean Department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 5 and 26 April respectively to discuss this problem, and what further steps might be taken to protect the Peace Community and other vulnerable groups in Colombia.

  The British embassy in Bogota has raised our concern about the safety of the San Jose de Apartado Peace Community with the Colombian authorities, most recently with the Head of the Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor-General's Office on 24 April. We have been promised a response soon.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Colombian Government concerning the rights of the peace communities in Colombia not to be intimidated by military and paramilitary units. [160642]

  Mr. Battle
  As I made clear in my statement on 13 February, we are very concerned about the increasing levels of violence in Colombia, and the threats and intimidation that continue to be directed against the civilian population, including the peace communities.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office visited Colombia again in March in order to support the Colombian Government's efforts to advance the peace process and protect human rights. She repeated the concerns that we both raised with the Colombian Government during our joint visit in September 2000 about paramilitarism, and strongly urged the authorities to increase their efforts to tackle paramilitary groups. On 20 April, I wrote to the Colombian Ambassador in London reiterating our concern about the human rights situation in Colombia, especially with regard to the protection of vulnerable groups, paramilitarism, and bringing members of the armed forces linked to paramilitaries to justice.

  China
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Chinese Government following the arrest of Bishop Cosmas Shi Enxiang, together with priests and followers; and if he will make a statement. [160167]
  3W
  Mr. Battle
  We have raised our concerns about the reported detention of Bishop Shi Enxiang on 27 April with the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, and will continue to follow this case closely.

  We regularly raise concerns about the harassment of Christians in our Human Rights Dialogue with China, the latest round of which was held in Beijing on 12–14 February. We made it clear that such harassment was unacceptable and not in keeping with the provisions of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China signed in October 1998.

  Discrimination against Women (UN Convention)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what obstacles remain to his signing the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. [160322]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1986 and is fully committed to its implementation. The Optional Protocol to the Convention was opened for signature on 10 December 1999. In 1999, following a review of our obligations under international human rights treaties, the Government concluded that priority should be given to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government would prefer to give the Act, which has been fully in force only since 2 October 2000, longer to bed down before returning to the question of whether our citizens need an avenue of complaint to the UN human rights committees. The Home Secretary has said in a recent letter to the Law Society that we can return to the issue later in the year, but cannot give a precise timetable just yet.

  Animal Welfare
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had with the Chinese Government concerning animal welfare. [160074]

  Mr. Battle
  We have made clear to the Chinese authorities the British public's opposition to the exploitation and cruel treatment of animals in China.

  The UK is at the forefront of international efforts to protect animals. We are closely involved in the work of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We support the work of non-governmental organisations in the field of animal welfare.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Colin Griffiths
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement concerning the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute any person arising out the death of Colin Griffiths. [160360]

  The Solicitor-General
  A full investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Griffiths' death was undertaken by the Staffordshire police. The findings of that investigation 4W
  have been carefully reviewed by a senior lawyer in the Casework Directorate of the Crown Prosecution Service. In addition, advice has been taken from experienced, independent counsel. Both have come to the firm conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against any person arising out of the tragic death of Mr. Griffiths. Mrs. Griffiths has been informed of the decision and she has also had a meeting with the CPS lawyer during which the basis of the decision was explained to her.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total cost was of employing special advisers in her Department from 1997 to date. [160040]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 May 2001,Official Report, column 607W.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Commonwealth Development Corporation's recently published annual report. [160732]

  Clare Short
  For the year 2000, CDC made a pre-tax operating surplus of £72.3 million. However, after provision on its investment portfolio of £133.4 million it made an overall loss of £61.1 million before tax (£51.5 million after tax).

  With regard to its investment policy in the year 2000, CDC exceeded the target of directing 70 per cent. of investments by value to poorer countries. However, in 2000 it again did not meet the aim of directing 50 per cent. of its investments by value to Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. CDC is focused on meeting this aim in 2001.

  CDC made important progress during last year to establish the basis for a beneficial public-private partnership that will demonstrate that it is possible for private investors to make adequate returns in poor countries in a socially responsible way.

  Copies of CDC's annual report and accounts have been placed in the Library of each House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Appeals
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases since 1 May 1997 in which Dr. Abou-Amer was the examining medical practitioner the decision maker's ruling on entitlement to benefit has been overturned on appeal. [160612]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available. Neither medical services nor the Benefits Agency keep records that identify which examining medical practitioners were
  5W
  involved in individual cases. The appeals service does not record details of the examining medical practitioner involved in cases coming to appeal.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the benefit fraud inspectorate in respect of Kingston upon Hull city council. [160725]

  Mr. Rooker
  The benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) has produced an assessment report in respect of Kingston upon Hull city council. The report was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The inspection coincided with my right hon. Friend's announcement on the setting up of an Expert Help Team to help local authorities improve their benefit administration. The council offered to be the first local authority to work with the expert help team.

  BFI therefore produced a short assessment report to help the council identify the extent of deficiencies in key areas of benefit administration and security, and to help inform the focus of the expert help to teams visit.

  People claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) subject to disallowances or sanctions as at 30 November 2000

  Thousand

  Sanction/disallowance type

  All claimants

  JSA (IB) in payment on hardship grounds

  No JSA in payment

  All cases

  27.5

  6.0

  21.6

  Disallowed—availability for work/not actively seeking employment

  0.6

  10.1

  0.6

  Sanctions for failure to comply with New Deal requirements

  0.5

  —

  0.5

  All other sanctions/disallowance

  26.4

  5.9

  20.5

  1Figure is subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used only as a guide to the current situation

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred

  Sources:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000

  As at 30 November 2000 there were 12,100 people claiming Income Support with a reduction in benefit due to their failure to supply the CSA with the name of the father of their child(ren).

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims submitted(a) prior to 31 December 2000 and (b) since 1 January for the Winter Fuel Payment from men aged between 60 and 64 years are unresolved; and if he will make a statement. [160092]

  Mr. Rooker
  Sixty-six claims prior to 31 December 2000 and 249 claims since 1 January are unresolved. In all these cases, further information has been requested in order to determine the claim.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people missed the March deadline for applying for a Winter Fuel Payment for 2000; and if he will impose a similar deadline for applications for winter fuel payments relating to earlier years. [158714]
  6W
  This report identifies a range of problems that hinder the delivery of an efficient service and notes the council's commitment to improve, demonstrated by some encouraging work including the introduction of the verification framework and a good claim form designed in line with BFI guidance.

  I commend the Council for its openness, good work and on-going effort undertaken in conjunction with the expert help team to improve its standard of administration and counter-fraud activity.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of people affected by(a) disallowance of JSA for failure to comply with actively seeking work, or availability for work tests, (b) JSA sanctions of a discretionary length, (c) JSA sanctions of a fixed length, (d) JSA sanctions arising from failure to comply with New Deal requirements, (e) JSA sanctions arising from failure to co-operate with the Child Support Agency and (f) Income Support sanctions arising from failure to co-operate with the Child Support Agency. [160284]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Mr. Rooker
  Around 1.3 million people have made successful claims for Winter Fuel Payments in respect of winter 2000 out of a possible 1.5 million people that might have been eligible. We have received 252 claims since the deadline.

  There are no immediate intentions to impose deadlines on claims for payments for past winters.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples have weekly incomes below (i) £80, (ii) £85, (iii) £90, (iv) £95, (v) £100, (vi) £105, (vii) £110, (viii) £115, (ix) £120, (x) £125, (xi) £130, (xii) £135, (xiii) £140, (xiv) £145, (xv) £150, (xvi) £155, (xvii) £160, (xviii) £165, (xix) £170, (xx) £175, (xxi) £180, (xxii) £185, (xxiii) £190, (xxiv) £195 and (xxv) £200. [158793]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The information is in the tables. Although the income bands for couples reflect the proposed structure of the pension credit, they should not be used to estimate numbers of

  7W
  pensioners who would be eligible. This is because they refer to total net income from all sources, including certain benefit payments which will not be taken into account when assessing eligibility for the pension credit. Also, the figures relate to a different time period.

  Single pensioners below selected levels of income, 1998–99

  Net weekly income

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage of all single pensioners

  Below £80

  750

  18

  Below £85

  890

  21

  Below £90

  1,000

  24

  Below £95

  1,140

  27

  Below £100

  1,310

  31

  Below £105

  1,510

  36

  Below £110

  1,730

  41

  Below £115

  1,960

  47

  Below £120

  2,160

  52

  Below £125

  2,340

  56

  Below £130

  2,520

  60

  Below £135

  2,640

  63

  Below £140

  2,750

  66

  Below £145

  2,850

  68

  Below £150

  2,950

  71

  Below £155

  3,050

  73

  Below £160

  3,140

  75

  Below £165

  3,220

  77

  Below £170

  3,290

  79

  Below £175

  3,340

  80

  Below £180

  3,400

  81

  Below £185

  3,470

  83

  Below £190

  3,540

  85

  Below £195

  3,590

  86

  Below £200

  3,630

  87

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99

  Pensioner couples below selected levels of income, 1998–99

  Net weekly income

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage of all pensioner couples

  Below £80

  —

  —

  Below £85

  —

  —

  Below £90

  —

  —

  Below £95

  —

  —

  Below £100

  —

  —

  Below £105

  —

  —

  Below £110

  110

  4

  Below £115

  140

  5

  Below £120

  190

  7

  Below £125

  240

  9

  Below £130

  290

  11

  Below £135

  350

  13

  Below £140

  400

  15

  Below £145

  460

  17

  Below £150

  530

  20

  Below £155

  610

  23

  Below £160

  680

  26

  Below £165

  750

  28

  Below £170

  810

  30

  Below £175

  880

  33

  Below £180

  950

  36

  Below £185

  1,020

  38

  Below £190

  1,080

  40

  Below £195

  1,120

  42

  Below £200

  1,180

  44

  Notes:

  1.Single pensioners (non-cohabiting) are defined as men aged 65 and over or women aged 60 and over.

  2. Pensioner couples (married or cohabiting) are defined as couples where the man is aged 65 or over.

  3. Incomes are defined as net weekly income from all sources, before housing costs, expressed in July 1998 prices.
  8W
  4. The numbers of pensioners are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and the percentages are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent though they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  5. Estimates are based on survey data and are subject to sampling error. A dash represents sample sizes that are too small to provide reliable estimates. Extreme caution should be exercised when using these figures to estimate the number of pensioners falling within a given £5 band of income, since the resulting estimate may not be based on a sample size large enough to produce reliable estimates.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his estimate based on the Family Resources Survey 1998–99 of(a) median pensioner incomes, excluding means-tested benefits, by age, sex and marital status, consistent with his answer of 8 February 2000, Official Report, column 128W, on pensions and (b) the size of each group. [160282]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to this question on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 790W.

  Poverty (North-west)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) children, (b) adults and (c) pensioners lived in poverty in the north west in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160084]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is no single measure that can capture the complex problems that need to be overcome.

  However, a number of these aspects have seen significant improvement in the north west since 1997. For instance, the proportion of children achieving at least level 4 at key stage 2 has risen from 63 per cent. in 1997 to 75 per cent. in 2000 in English. In maths the proportion rose from 63 per cent. to 73 per cent. The numbers claiming Unemployment Benefit have fallen by over 35 per cent. since the election to 125,000 in March 2001. Unemployment has not been as low in the north west since May 1975. The percentage of pensioners in 1998–99 in low income households in the north west Government office region was 24 per cent. on the before housing costs measure and 27 per cent. on the after housing costs measure. This is similar to the level for Great Britain as a whole.

  The annual report, "Opportunity for all" (CM4865), available in the Library, sets out and monitors the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  Note:

  Low income figures are based on 60 per cent. median measures (including the self-employed) for 1998–99 which are the latest figures available.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average arrears payment and the average compensation payment made to people who have been victims of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system, broken down into claimants of each of the benefits affected. [160224]
  9W
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The only reason there have been victims of the NIRS2 computer system is because of the terms on which the system was purchased by the previous Administration. We are dealing with the consequences to ensure people do not lose out.

  Benefit

  Average amount of benefit arrears paid (£)

  Average amount of compensation paid (£ p)

  Retirement Pension

  323

  12.20

  Widows Benefit

  1,665

  29.97

  Incapacity Benefit

  305

  19.55

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  381

  31.44

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security broken down on an annual basis, how many claimants of each of the benefits calculated by NIRS2 have received arrears payments related to the problems with the computer system; how many have received compensation; and how many cases are still waiting to be reviewed. [160225]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: As at 31 March 2001, the Department had processed almost 98 per cent. of the 3.2 million referrals from NIRS2 since 19 April 1999. 66,880 cases remain under review, which is 8,000 less than at 28 February 2001.

  Benefit

  Number of people whose benefit has been underpaid

  Number of people who have received compensation

  Tax year 1999–2000

  Retirement Pension

  94,942

  197,933

  Widows Benefit

  9,936

  19,081

  Incapacity Benefit

  3,980

  2,055

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  1,019

  161

  Tax year 2000–01

  Retirement Pension

  75,409

  50,227

  Widows Benefit

  6,160

  4,110

  Incapacity Benefit

  4,937

  2,488

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  1,168

  65

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners(a) received the Minimum Income Guarantee premium for those aged between 75 and 79 years and (b) how many received the premium for those aged 80 years and over broken down into single people and couples, and prior to the changes in April. [160220]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The position on premiums for the earnings related Minimum Income Guarantee prior to this April's changes is given in the table. The two lower rates of the Minimum Income Guarantee were abolished on 9 April and all claimants now receive the highest rate of £92.15 for a single person and £140.55 for couples. The number of pensioners claiming are expected to increase by 140,000 as they become newly entitled to the guarantee because of these increases and increases in the lower and upper capital limits.
  10W

  Income Support claimants aged over 60 with premiums, November 2000

  Thousand

  Premium

  All claimants

  Single claimants

  Couples

  Higher Pensioner Premium

  Claimant/partner aged 80 or over

  635.3

  590.8

  44.5

  Claimant/partner aged 60–79

  494.5

  354.6

  139.8

  Enhanced Pensioner Premium

  Claimant/partner aged 75–79

  142.6

  130.4

  12.3

  Pensioner Premium

  Claimant/partner aged 60–74

  354.9

  286.6

  68.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  3. Pensioner Premiums are paid at three rates depending upon age or disability and are paid in respect of either the claimant and/or their partner.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2001,Official Report, columns 153–54W, for what reason Pension Credit claimants were not included in the estimate of pensioners in receipt of means-tested support in 2003–04. [160230]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: We are still considering the overall design of Pension Credit in light of the consultation exercise. Final decisions have not yet been made on several policy areas which will have an impact on the number of pensioners entitled to the reward for saving. Estimates of the number of pensioners covered by Pension Credit will be published in due course.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons(a) qualified for the higher mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance and (b) participated in the Motability scheme, in each of the last five years. [159741]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The information is in the table.

  Recipients of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance and participants in the Motability scheme

  Thousand

  Year

  DLA higher rate mobility component recipients1

  Current Motability agreements2

  1996

  1,253

  299

  1997

  1,327

  341

  1998

  1,346

  366

  1999

  1,364

  384

  2000

  1,409

  392

  1DSS Information Centre: five per cent. data

  2Motability—includes War Pension recipients and Northern Ireland cases

  Note:

  Figures relate to 30 November

DEFENCE

  Submarine Flotilla
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the repairs to the submarine flotilla. [160686]

  Mr. Spellar
  The repairs to the SSNs recalled last October are progressing well. Although straightforward in engineering terms, the work has involved the development of engineering techniques. This has been given the highest priority and I am able to say that the repairs to HMS Torbay and HMS Tireless have been completed successfully. HMS Torbay remains in refit and HMS Tireless, sailed yesterday from Gibraltar to return to duty.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150558]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a very substantial number of personnel in the Bristol area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled some 15,700 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1997, around 1,230 contracts with a total value of some £1,954 million were placed with prime contractors in the Bristol area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a welfare of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Bristol area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Bristol area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Bristol.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150603]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local
  12W
  economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a large number of personnel in the north-west, a significant proportion of whom are based close to Bolton: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled some 2,700 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1977, around 440 contracts with a total value of some £332 million were placed with prime contractors in the Bolton area1. A contract was placed with Matra BAe Dynamics in February 2000 for the supply of Seawolf Block 2 missiles for the Royal Navy, and this good news for UK industry safeguards about 300 high skill jobs at MBD and its suppliers, including the Lostock MBD plant.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Bolton area may well be done elsewhere, similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Bolton area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Bolton.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152315]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a large number of personnel in the Warrington area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled some 4,150 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1997, around 440 contracts with a total value of nearly £50 million were placed with prime contractors in the 1 Warrington area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Warrington area may well be done elsewhere: similarly contracts placed with contractors outside the Warrington area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Warrington.13W

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153521]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a very substantial number of personnel in the, Don Valley area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled 620 personnel (service and civilian) on average during the period of interest.

  Since 2 May 1997, nearly 160 contracts with a total value of nearly £2 million were placed with prime contractors in the Don Valley area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a welfare of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Don Valley area may well he done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Don Valley area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Don Valley.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the combined cost of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160053]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him on 1 May 2001, Official Report, column 607W.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date. [160054]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: During the period in question a total of four individuals have worked as special advisers in this Department, but no more than two have been employed at any time.

  Richard King
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result of the SIM investigation was into the death of Grenadier Guardsman Richard King during exercises at Sennybridge; what correspondence he has had with the families of the deceased soldier; and what time elapsed between the death of Guardsman King and his family being informed of the results of the inquiry. [159546]
  14W
  Mr. Spellar
  The investigation by the Royal Military Police special investigation branch into the death of Guardsman King concluded on 29 February 2000. As a result, eight senior non-commissioned officers and two junior non-commissioned officers were reported for neglect of duty. The Army Prosecuting Authority, an organisation similar in role to that of the Crown Prosecution Service and wholly independent of the chain of command, subsequently concluded that there was insufficient prospect of securing a conviction at a court martial to warrant trial.

  The Secretary of State has had no direct contact with the family of Guardsman King, although officers from Guardsman King's unit have insisted the family and a number of officials from the Ministry of Defence have also been in correspondence with them. The associated Army Board of Inquiry was convened on 15 January 2001; it is still on-going and the family will continue to be informed of developments.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is routinely collected to monitor the use of plastic baton rounds. [159547]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on plastic baton rounds fired by the Army is collected from a number of sources: the daily incident briefs (DIBs), brigade daily Northern Ireland reports (NIREPs) and plastic baton log reports. The information is held for internal use by Headquarters Northern Ireland, which also relays details of any baton round sage to the RUC as part of normal liaison activities.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 507W, if he will extend the table provided in order to record in each year since 1991, the number of (a) PBRs fired, (b) target hits and (c) injuries and fatalities. [159548]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only record we have of the number of targets hit since 1991 is the same as the number of injuries which appears in the table given in my answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, columns 507–08W.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the muzzle velocity is of the L21 Al baton round. [158506]

  Mr. Spellar
  The muzzle velocity of baton rounds is normally measured 2m from the gun muzzle. At 2m, the average (mean) velocity of a sample of 360 L21A1 baton rounds fired from L104 guns was 71.4 metres per second (m/s).

  DMSO Solvent Experiments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2001,Official Report, columns 94–95W, regarding DMSO solvent experiments, if he will place in the Library copies of the two protocols which were submitted to the ethical sub-group of the defence scientific advisory committee medical committee and the minutes of the committee which relate to the discussion of these two protocols. [159803]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will arrange to have copies of the two protocols relating to the trials involving human volunteers and the solvent DMSO to be placed in the Library of the
  15W
  House. However, the minutes of the ethical sub-group of the medical committee of the defence scientific advisory committee have, in line with Ministry of Defence policy, been sent to MOD defence records. I have arranged for them to be recalled and will then be in a position to consider their placement in the Library.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 20W, on Porton Down, if he will place in the Library copies of each of the internal technical reports related to research involving Oripavine TL2636 identified by the chemical and biological defence sector of DERA at Porton Down. [159802]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will arrange to have copies of those reports on Oripavine TL2636 which have been declassified to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. The remainder of the reports are currently being reviewed for declassification before they can be placed in the Library of the House. The report from the CW applications discussion group of the 17th Quadripartite CBR Conference is classified and I am therefore only releasing the section which refers to Oripavine.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 659W, on Oripavine, if he will place in the Library details of the evidence which suggests that following single acute doses of TL2636 there are no significant long-term effects on health. [159805]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his previous question. In this response I stated that the Oripavine derivative TL 2636 is a member of the same group of drugs as morphine, and although there had been no long term follow-up studies specifically relating to this derivative, these drugs have been used clinically for many years. The evidence to which I referred is widely available in the open literature and I have placed this in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ask the Medical Research Council to consult the Porton Down veterans support group regarding its advice on an independent epidemiological study for service personnel who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down. [160494]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. The Medical Research Council is already in contact with the Porton Down veterans support group and will consult with them as necessary.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates officials from his Department and the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down have held meetings with the Medical Research Council since 5 March regarding its advice on an independent epidemiological study for Porton Down volunteers. [160488]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials met with representatives from the Medical Research Council (MRC) at Porton Down on 5 April 2001.
  16W

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the regional distribution of his Department's spending in the last financial year. [160455]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Ministry of Defence is organised financially into top level budgets reflecting major outputs rather than geographical location. Expenditure records reflect this organisation and commodities purchased only.

  While we do not record the majority of expenditure by region, defence expenditure on equipment by regions is detailed in table 1.9 of "UK Defence Statistics 2000", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rapid Effects System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget is for the future rapid effects system; and if he will make a statement. [160343]

  Dr. Moonie
  At this stage we are considering only whether to adopt the future rapid effect system; no dedicated funding has yet been allocated to it.

  Warrior Upgrade Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Warrior upgrade programme. [160340]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Warrior infantry fighting vehicle upgrade programme is currently in its concept phase. Technology and procurement options are being identified for further investigation during the assessment phase.

  HQ 2 Division Relocation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the post-project evaluation of the relocation of HQ 2 Division from York to Edinburgh. [160339]

  Mr. Spellar
  The final stages of the reorganisation of Headquarters 2 Division have only recently been completed and we wished to see the new organisation established before conducting a post-project evaluation.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armoured battlegroup support vehicles he will buy; and if he will make a statement. [160341]

  Dr. Moonie
  The armoured battlegroup support vehicle programme is still in the concept phase. A decision has yet to be made on the number of vehicles that we will procure.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many multi-role armoured vehicles he will purchase; and what compensation and other costs will be payable to other project partners if the UK buy is reduced. [160342]
  17W
  Dr. Moonie
  A review of the UK combat support vehicle requirement is currently taking place. It will not be possible to finalise the number of multi-role armoured vehicles required until this review has reported in late 2002.

  The memorandum of understanding that governs the collaborative programme does not commit any of the three nations to production and makes no reference to specific production quantities. The issue of compensation payments does not arise.

  Armed Forces Deployment (Ascot)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Armed Forces, and from which units, excluding special forces, will be deployed at the Ascot week races; and if he will make a statement. [160316]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. Security during Ascot week is a matter for the police, who are well trained and well equipped for the task. The Ministry of Defence will, of course, consider any reasonable request for support in those areas for which the police are not trained and equipped.

  Chemical Agent CR
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 April 2001,Official Report, column 415W, on chemical agent CR, what form the aerosol version of CR took; and what authorisation was given for aerosol CR weaponisation as (a) spray, (b) grenade, (c) canister and (d) other. [160288]

  Mr. Spellar
  In both 1968 and 1973, CR was authorised for use in aerosol form as a hand-held squirt device known as a self-protection aid device (SPAD).

  Information on authorisation for the development and subsequent production of differing types of CR weapon is not collated centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, authorisation for CR to be held in readiness for use has always been subject to ministerial approval.

  Unit Histories
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates(a) 22 Squadron SAS, (b) 14 Company and (c) the Force Research Unit were (i) established, (ii) deployed and (iii) discontinued; what specific activities were undertaken by each of these units; and what the normal complement was of each unit. [160324]

  Mr. Hoon
  The designation "22 SAS Regiment" was first used in 1952, for a unit formed in 1950 for operations in Malaya. The regiment remains in being.

  I am withholding the further information requested under exemption 1a of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information,18W
  relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153558]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a presence in the Jarrow area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled around 910 personnel (service and civilian) on average during the period of interest.

  Since 2 May 1997, around 100 contracts with a total value of some £33 million were placed with prime contractors in the Jarrow area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a welfare of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Jarrow area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Jarrow area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Jarrow.

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 14 November 2000. [154499]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a presence in the Manchester, Gorton area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled around 600 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1997, around 1,360 contracts with a total value of some £250 million were placed with prime contractors in the Manchester area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a welfare of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Manchester area may well be

  19W
  done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Manchester area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Manchester.

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154528]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a large number of personnel in the Truro and St. Austell area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled around 3,500 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (Service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1997, around 120 contracts with a total value of nearly £5 million were placed with prime contractors in the Truro area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will he undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Truro and St. Austell area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Truro and St. Austell area could lead to sub-contractors on companies in Truro and St. Austell.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152981]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a large number of personnel in the Lincoln area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled some 6,300 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian), mainly based at RAFs Waddington, Coningsby and Cranwell. The strong RAF support to the local area will be maintained in the future by the basing of the Eurofighter at RAF Coningsby.
  20W
  Since 2 May 1997, around 330 contracts with a total value of nearly £38 million were placed with prime contractors in the Lincoln area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Lincoln area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Lincoln area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Lincoln.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury and West Berkshire)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and West Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154570]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a very large number of personnel in the Newbury and West Berkshire area: within a 25-mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled some 24,500 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian). This represents an increase of just over one-quarter since 1997. The Newbury area is home to many significant defence establishments including RAF Brize Norton and the Tidworth Garrison.

  Since 2 May 1997, around 420 contracts with a total value of some £474 million were placed with prime contractors in the Newbury area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Newbury area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Newbury area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Newbury.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154686]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This

  21W
  presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a presence in the Lancaster and Wyre: within a 25- mile radius distance of the constituency, MOD direct employees totalled some 1,250 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1997, around 20 contracts with a total value of some £1.5 million were placed with prime contractors in the Lancaster area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contains a welfare of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Lancaster area may well he done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Lancaster area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Lancaster.

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Devon constituency, the effects on North Devon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155905]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a presence in the North Devon constituency: within the constituency itself, MOD direct employees totalled around 930 personnel as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian).

  Since 2 May 1997, around 215 contracts with a total value of nearly £38 million were placed with prime contractors in the North Devon and Bideford area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000" that contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will he undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the North Devon and Bideford area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the North Devon and Bideford area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in North Devon and Bideford.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth Unitary Authority)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West
  22W
  Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158028]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has a wide-ranging presence throughout the UK in terms of defence establishments and the service and civilian personnel they employ. This presence brings benefits to many communities, local economies and jobs. Also, 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year that provide support to industry and create and sustain defence-related employment.

  The Ministry of Defence has maintained a very large number of personnel in the area reflecting the strategic importance of Plymouth to the services—especially the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. MOD direct employees as of 1 October 1999 (service and civilian) were around: (a) Plymouth, Sutton—1,150 personnel; (b) Plymouth, Devonport—2,850 personnel; and (c) South-West Devon—850 personnel.

  Since 2 May 1997, around 6,240 contracts with a total value of some £859 million were placed with prime contractors in the Plymouth area1.

  I draw attention to the Defence Analytical Services Agency report "UK Defence Statistics 2000" that contains a wealth of defence statistical information, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  1The decision as to where work under a particular contract will be undertaken rests with the contractor, therefore work on a contract placed with a prime contract in the Plymouth area may well be done elsewhere: similarly, contracts placed with contractors outside the Plymouth area could lead to sub-contracts on companies in Plymouth.

  Helplines
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its agencies. [159505]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence administers a wide variety of telephone helplines to assist the public. Our primary public helplines for all general inquiries are the MOD public inquiry office helpline—telephone number 0870 607 4455; and the Welsh language public inquiry office helpline—telephone number 01154 821 413.

  We also administer a number of helplines to provide advice to the public on specific subjects. The main helplines are:

  Helpline

  Telephone number

  The Low Flying Helpdesk

  020 7218 6020

  The Veterans Advice Unit

  0845 602 0302

  The Gulf Veterans Advice Unit

  0800 169 4495

  The Medical Assessment Programme Helpline

  0800 169 5401

  The Porton Down Volunteers Helpline

  0845 603 9140

  The Meteorological Office Helpline

  0845 300 0300

  The Defence Vetting Agency Helpline

  01904 662644

  The Defence Suppliers Service Helpline

  0117 913 2844

  The Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) Connect Helpline

  0845 600 1221

  Defence Estates Work Services Opportunity Bulletin Helpline

  0121 311 2067

  The table does not include those helplines created

  23W
  specifically for recruiting purposes, nor for serving military and civilian personnel and their dependants. Nor does it include helplines that may from time to time be administered by individual units or establishments to provide advice on local issues.

  Scottish Brigades
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has undertaken into the reduction of Scottish brigades from two to one. [160338]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been no studies undertaken by this Department into a reduction in the number of brigades in Scotland.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158550]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During the period 31 March 2000 to 31 March 2001, special advisers in this Department travelled overseas on seven occasions.

  £ million at cash prices

  Year

  Government grant to London Transport1

  Core investment (including JLE)

  Private finance investment2

  Total investment in Underground (excluding JLE)

  Total investment in Underground

  1990–91

  484

  414

  —

  414

  455

  1991–92

  575

  298

  —

  298

  360

  1992–93

  883

  632

  —

  632

  699

  1993–94

  693

  485

  —

  485

  740

  1994–95

  786

  506

  —

  505

  877

  1995–96

  904

  485

  114

  599

  1,187

  1996–97

  944

  371

  138

  509

  1,166

  1997–98

  629

  324

  161

  485

  961

  1998–99

  411

  415

  53

  468

  751

  1999–2000

  816

  342

  179

  521

  1,176

  2000–013

  404

  395

  150

  545

  545

  1Excludes grant to Docklands Light Railway in years
  1990–91 and 1991–92, and retained scale proceeds from disposal of bus companies in year 1994–95

  2The PFI figures are not actual amounts the private sector is investing in London Transport. Instead they are London Transport's estimates of what investment in PFI projects would have cost had they done the investment themselves

  3The Underground Own Investment figure for year 2000–01 is not directly comparable to earlier years. The figure shown is the forecast outturn of London Underground Ltd.'s projects programme, and reflects their adoption of the accounting standard Financial Reporting Standard 15, which excludes capital renewal works.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) train, (b) signal and (c) track failures in each financial year since 1994–95 for each line of the London Underground and the cumulative figures for all lines. [159435]

  Access to Hastings Study
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make an announcement regarding the outcome of the Access to Hastings study. [159197]

  Mr. Prescott
  Ministers are considering the recommendations made by the South East England Regional Assembly, and an announcement will be made when that consideration is complete.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total Government investment in London Underground was in each of the last 10 years. [157467]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Government provide grant to London Transport. Although the major part of this has been allocated to London Underground, the grant has also been used for investment in non-Underground activities such as bus and river services, and Croydon Tramlink.

  The last Administration's 1996 Budget spending plans covered the period up to 1999–2000, at which time annual grant to London Transport (including non-Underground services such as buses and Tramlink) would have fallen to £161 million. An additional £1 billion of grant has been provided to London Transport by this Government for investment in the Underground.

  Government funding, together with London Transport's own revenues and investment through Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deals, supported the following total levels of investment in the Underground over the 1990s.

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Further to previous questions from the hon. Member on 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 523W, and 12 May 2000, Official Report, columns 483–84W, London Underground have been pursuing the question of standardisation of data

  25W
  on failures. They have now been able to confirm a breakdown on a line by line basis. Any variations from

  Service disruption due to failures in:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Trains

  Non LT

  76

  140

  92

  167

  249

  134

  Bakerloo

  1,028

  1,216

  1,075

  1,144

  1,237

  879

  Central

  2,121

  1,739

  2,605

  2,423

  2,165

  2,304

  District

  1,532

  1,218

  1,160

  1,082

  995

  981

  Jubilee and East LL

  1,135

  1,156

  922

  1,239

  2,376

  1,722

  Metropolitan and Circle (c&h)

  1,741

  609

  1,167

  2,170

  1,380

  1,568

  Metropolitan and Circle—main

  1,685

  1,687

  1,363

  1,238

  1,065

  1,047

  Northern

  3,405

  3,964

  3,505

  4,229

  5,942

  3,727

  Piccadilly

  2,113

  2,376

  2,228

  3,115

  3,886

  2,934

  Victoria

  1,290

  997

  757

  994

  821

  920

  Total

  16,126

  15,102

  14,874

  17,801

  20,116

  16,216

  Signal/Points

  Non LT

  21

  26

  20

  41

  26

  26

  Bakerloo

  343

  263

  264

  292

  249

  355

  Central

  518

  542

  644

  880

  308

  335

  District

  334

  385

  303

  269

  278

  394

  Jubilee and East LL

  140

  79

  79

  110

  197

  338

  Metropolitan and Circle (c&h)

  180

  212

  129

  131

  125

  238

  Metropolitan and Circle—main

  247

  256

  209

  266

  194

  290

  Northern

  245

  324

  298

  323

  216

  317

  Piccadilly

  222

  287

  261

  241

  213

  202

  Victoria

  99

  120

  115

  166

  149

  131

  Total

  2,349

  2,494

  2,322

  2,719

  1,955

  2,626

  Other track

  Non LT

  6

  38

  26

  10

  14

  12

  Bakerloo

  53

  99

  193

  201

  176

  168

  Central

  100

  147

  203

  92

  65

  50

  District

  74

  101

  74

  51

  69

  83

  Jubilee and East LL

  54

  74

  45

  38

  77

  146

  Metropolitan and Circle (c&h)

  61

  78

  75

  61

  57

  62

  Metropolitan and Circle—main

  88

  118

  105

  73

  83

  82

  Northern

  95

  123

  141

  165

  109

  105

  Piccadilly

  86

  125

  92

  110

  109

  135

  Victoria

  42

  56

  54

  80

  66

  66

  Total

  659

  959

  1,008

  881

  825

  909

  Since London Underground was reorganised in 1999, reporting of failures has changed slightly, so 2000–01 figures can be provided in only a slightly different format. Figures for 2000–01 are only available to the end of Quarter 3(6 January 2001). London Underground inform me that the figures for Quarter 4 are currently being processed and will be available shortly.

  2000–01—Quarters 1–31

  Line

  Trains

  Signals/Points

  Other Track

  Bakerloo

  690

  189

  111

  Central

  2,212

  390

  50

  District

  644

  399

  143

  East London line

  78

  32

  3

  Jubilee

  1,214

  304

  96

  Circle and Hammersmith

  1,182

  303

  61

  Metropolitan

  881

  406

  83

  Northern

  1,245

  266

  160

  Piccadilly

  1,957

  256

  46

  Victoria

  831

  136

  46

  Waterloo and City2

  12

  13

  5

  Total

  10,946

  2,694

  866

  12000–01 figures only to end of Quarter 3(6 January 2001).

  2Waterloo and City line figures formerly recorded under Central line data.

  26W
  previously Published figures are a result of this clarification.

  These figures show a continuing reduction in the number of train failures. LUL explain that this is achieved through more reliable rolling stock on the Northern, Jubilee and Piccadilly lines.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the London Underground PPP to be implemented. [160730]

  Mr. Prescott
  I announced on 4 May that I had reached agreement with the Commissioner of Transport for London, Robert R. Kiley, on a way forward which will provide a secure basis for progressing the PPP. This should enable the PPP to be completed by the autumn, with the Underground transferring to the control of Transport for London once the first deep tube competition is concluded.

  Mr. Kiley, who will remain Commissioner of Transport for London, will be appointed Chairman of London Transport. He will lead negotiations with the bidders aimed at finding a way to meet his concerns on unified management within the framework of the PPP and the current procurement. The way forward protects the key objectives of achieving safety and value for money. The details are set out in a Memorandum of Agreement, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of

  27W
  both Houses. Day-to-day management of the London Underground service will remain with Derek Smith, the Chairman and Managing Director of London Underground.

  The current Chairman of London Transport, Sir Malcolm Bates, will step aside, but will remain a valued member of the London Transport Board. Sir Malcolm has played a crucial role in taking forward the PPP since he was appointed Chairman in February 1999, and I am grateful for his help in enabling these changes to take place.

  I understand that Transport for London's application for judicial review will continue, as they believe that it involves an important point of legal principle which should be tested. Mr. Kiley has given an undertaking that he will play no role in the judicial review in his capacity as Chairman of London Transport.

  Rail Incidents (Road Vehicles)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of vehicles leaving the road and encroaching onto railway tracks were recorded(a) each week and (b) each month in the last year for which figures are available; what measures are in place to protect railway passengers and staff; and if he will request the Highways Agency to investigate such incidences and the efficacy of motorway barriers. [158831]

  Mr. Hill
  For the period 1 April 2000–31 March 2001, there were 15 incidents of road vehicles leaving the road and ending up on railway lines. Details of these incidents appear in the table.

  Incidents of Motorists leaving the road and ending up on railway line

  2000–01

  Number

  April

  1

  May

  3

  June

  0

  July

  5

  August

  1

  September

  1

  October

  0

  November

  1

  December

  2

  January

  0

  February

  1

  March

  0

  The figures are based on notifications forwarded by Railtrack to HSE's Railway Inspectorate. Data are not available on a weekly basis.

  I announced on 12 March 2001, Official Report, columns 466–67W, that following the accident at Selby, the Deputy Prime Minister had asked that two working groups be established. Alan Cooksey, the Deputy Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways (HSE), will chair the first group. Its remit is to prepare a report to the Health and Safety Commission on the risks arising to railway traffic from road traffic, in particular incidents where road vehicles have blocked railway lines, and recommend how those risks can best be controlled. The Chief Highway Engineer at the Highways Agency, John Kerman, will chair the second group. Its remit is to review the Standards
  28W
  for provision of nearside safety barriers on major roads in the light of recent accidents and make recommendations to the Highways Agency. The reports of both these groups will be presented to the Deputy Prime Minster in the autumn.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 504W, on housing costs, how many of the responses (a) supporting the exclusion of some or all housing costs in the calculation of households' income, (b) supporting the inclusion of housing costs in the calculation of income, (c) which offered other suggestions and (d) making no comment were submitted on behalf of more than one organisation or individual; and if he will list the total number of organisations or individuals who expressed support for each of the four categories listed above. [159038]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: A total of 252 responses to the consultation document were received. The breakdown of responses is as shown:

  (i) 50 responses supported the exclusion of some or all housing costs in the calculation of household income;

  (ii) 86 responses supported the inclusion of housing costs in the calculation of household income;

  (iii) 15 responses offered other suggestions;

  (iv) 101 responses made no comment.

  A copy of the full analysis of the consultation responses was placed in the Libraries of the House in November 1999.

  Some organisations submitted an individual response as well as appending their names to a response from an umbrella organisation in the area. No separate record is available of how many were submitted on this basis.

  The consultation draft of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy sets out the Government's approach of displaying the number of fuel poor according to the two main definitions:
  on the basis of making no allowance for housing costs in the calculation of household income: and
  by excluding any Housing Benefit or Income Support for Mortgage Interest (ISMI) payments.

  This consultation provides a further opportunity to comment on this aspect of the fuel poverty definition.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what studies have been undertaken by his Department into the driving of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes in weight by drivers under the age of 21 years; [159198]

  (2) what studies have been undertaken by his Department regarding the risk of accidents involving drivers of vehicles in excess of 3.5 tonnes in weight without an HGV licence. [159199]

  Mr. Prescott
  None.
  29W
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents have been recorded by his Department involving drivers of vehicles in excess of 3.5 tonnes in weight in each of the last 10 years. [159200]

  Mr. Prescott
  The table shows the number of road accidents in Great Britain resulting in personal injury, which involved goods vehicles with gross vehicle weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes between 1990 and 1999.

  Number of accidents involving goods vehicles with gross vehicle weight over 3.5 tonnes: Great Britain: 1990–99

  Year

  Number

  1990

  15,063

  1991

  13,622

  1992

  13,020

  1993

  13,174

  1994

  13,184

  1995

  12,618

  1996

  12,433

  1997

  13,132

  1998

  13,278

  1999

  13,951

  US Visit
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the purpose and itinerary of his recent visit to the USA was; which officials accompanied him; what the total cost to public funds was; which members of the United States Administration he met; and if he will make a statement. [159225]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: I visited the United States from 16 to 21 April.

  On 17 April I held bilateral talks on transport issues in Washington with Norman Mineta, the United States Secretary of State of Transport; Jane Garvey, the Administrator at the Federal Aviation Administration, and Congressman James D. Oberstar.

  In New York I attended the United Nations Commissions for Sustainable Development from 18 to 20 April, during which I had meetings with EU and other Ministers on climate change. I attended on 21 April high level consultations on climate change chaired by Jan Pronk, the Dutch Chairman of COP6, in which about 35 key countries participated.

  I was accompanied by three officials from my Department and one Special Adviser. My costs for the visit were approximately £8,800. Total Government expenditure on Ministerial visits in 1999–2000, the latest year for which figures are available was £4.6 million, compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by(a) location, (b) year, (c) tonnage, (d) source and (e) specific end-use the sites which used incinerator ash, waste lime or dust, for the purposes described in Waste Management Licensing Regulations Schedule 3, paragraph 7, referring to the spreading of waste for the
  30W
  benefit of land between 1990 and 2001; what the nature of the ash was; and if he will provide associated test results produced by his Department. [159488]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 provides an exemption from waste management licensing for the spreading of certain types and quantities of waste where the activity results in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement. The list of waste types subject to the exemption includes waste lime but does not include incinerator ash or dust.

  The Environment Agency has a duty, under regulation 18 of the 1994 Regulations, to maintain a public register for each establishment or undertaking carrying on an exempt activity which shows:
  The name and address of the establishment or undertaking;
  The exempt activity; and
  The place where the activity is carried on.

  This information is available for inspection locally by members of the public, but detailed information of the kind requested by the hon. Member on the use of waste lime under the exemption is not held centrally by the Environment Agency. No associated test results have been produced by my Department on incinerator ash, waste lime or dust.

  Energy Efficiency Savings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 499W, if he will place in the Library information on improvements reported by each local authority in England on a population weighted basis. [160115]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested is not available. All details of energy efficiency improvements reported by energy conservation authorities were given in my written answers on 30 November 2000,Official Report, columns 757–58W, 26 January 2001, Official Report, column 731W, and 10 April 2001, Official Report, column 499W.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the overall figure is for savings on energy efficiency for England based on the returns reported by individual local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. [160116]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of reported energy efficiency improvements in England, including an overall figure of just over 6 per cent. for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2000, are included in four summary reports that were placed in the Libraries of the House following my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 26 January 2001,Official Report, column 731W.

  GM Crops
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date, and by whom, licences were issued for the(a) growing and (b) marketing of Chardon-LL or T25 maize. [159994]
  31W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 May 2001]: T25 is the name of a type of genetically modified (GM) maize developed by Aventis. The modification, transformation event 25 (T25) confers resistance to a particular herbicide, in this particular case, Glufosinate Ammonium. Chardon LL is a variety of T25 maize.

  Directive 90–220, on the deliberate release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), recognises two types of release. First, those for research purposes (known as Part B releases) and, second, those for marketing (known as Part C releases). Applications for Part B releases are assessed on an individual basis at Member State level and approved by the competent authorities in that state.

  Applications for approval of GMOs for marketing (Part C approvals) are made initially to one of the 15 Member States. The competent authority in this Member State reviews the application and forms an opinion. If favourable, the opinion and application dossier (which includes the risk assessment for the GMO) are passed to the European Commission and the 14 other Member States. Each Member State then examines the application in detail. If there are no objections to the favourable opinion, formal Part C approval is granted by the Member State in which the application was first made, on behalf of the whole European Union (EU). Once granted the Part C consent is valid across the EU.

  The French competent authority received the initial application for Part C approval of T25 maize in 1995, which was for both commercial cultivation and for importation. Following consideration by other Member States, the French granted formal approval for T25 maize on 3 August 1998. A number of Member States have also given approval to the cultivation of T25 maize for research (Part B releases). The Statement of the French Competent Authority for T25 maize shows that various Part B approvals were given by the French, Italian, German and United Kingdom competent authorities between 1992 and 1997. I have placed a copy of the statement in the library of the house. This contains the exact details of each release.

  Any crop, irrespective of it being GM or not, also requires approval under the National Seed Listing legislation. Varieties may not be marketed until they have been added to the UK National List or EU Common Catalogue. A proposal to add Chardon LL to the UK National List was published in March 2000. A number of affected persons made written representations or asked to make oral representations. A Hearing began on 2 October and was adjourned on 15 November until further notice pending resolution of concerns about the system used in France. Meanwhile, I understand that MAFF has sought the views of the European Commission on the legal status of the French authority's testing procedures. Chardon LL will only be added to the UK National List if all the legal requirements have been met in full.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the original safety assessments were undertaken on Chardon-LL and T25 maize made by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; and what other bodies were responsible for undertaking such safety assessments. [159995]
  32W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 May 2001]: Chardon LL is a variety of T25 maize. The original safety assessments for marketing approval of T25 maize under Directive 90/220 Were made by the French Authorities (refer to PQ 159994 above) in 1995. The application dossier was then referred to the UK and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) considered this on 20 June 1996. English Nature, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Health and Safety Executive and the then Department of the Environment also undertook safety assessments. ACRE was satisfied that the T25 did not pose a risk to human health and the environment. This included consideration of animal feed safety in association with MAFF. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes also considered the safety of T25 and advised that the product was safe for use in food.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with the East Midlands regional development agency regarding reductions in single regeneration budget funding granted in the current year; for what reason and on what basis SRB grants awarded in Northamptonshire have been scaled back in the current year; and which SRB projects are subject to savings clawbacks in the current year. [160104]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 May 2001]: There have been no reductions in the East Midlands Development Agency's SRB allocation for 2001–02. The SRB allocation for the East Midlands Development Agency has been increased to £38.398 million in 2001–02 from £37.700 million in 2000–01. The RDAs have the responsibility to manage their programmes within their allocations, and negotiate individual SRB schemes on an annual basis.

  We regularly meet RDA chairs collectively and have discussed finance issues, including SRB funding, on several occasions.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the review by Oscar Faber of predicted traffic flows after the opening of the Birmingham northern relief road on the M6 and other roads. [160127]

  Mr. Hill
  My hon. Friend's question relates to an operational matter. I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to him.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Tony Wright, dated 8 May 2001:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if the review by Oscar Faber of predicted traffic flows after the opening of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road on the M6 and other roads will be published.
  First of all I should make it clear that, under an agreement with the Secretary of State for Transport, certain responsibilities for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road rests with Midland Expressway

  33W
  Limited, including production of traffic predictions for the new road and the M6 corridor, which are presented at the Public Inquiry into the scheme between June 1994 and October 1995. Little, if anything of substance, has changed since the evidence was presented—although comment in recent press notices might have suggested otherwise.
  The Highways Agency has a wider remit to manage the motorway and trunk road network and, as part of that responsibility, must ensure that information about demands and pressures on the network are continuously updated. In their capacity as advisers to the Highways Agency in the Midlands on development matters, Oscar Faber have been commissioned to carry out some work to assist in the consideration and assessment of development. As such, it is not a general review and is not embodied in a single report.
  Oscar Faber have undertaken other work which considers the existing and predicted 'Stress on the Network'. This has been formally reported and deposited as input to Regional Planning Guidance.
  You are welcome to have sight of all the above Oscar Faber material, which can be viewed at the Agency's Birmingham office at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL. If you would like to take advantage of this opportunity please contact Gwyn Drake, Divisional Director for Network and Customer Services, who will be happy to make the necessary arrangements. Gwyn can be contacted at the Birmingham office or by telephoning 0121 678 8014.

  Home Energy Saving Scheme
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications have been made under the new home energy saving scheme; how many have been accepted; how many have been completed; and what the average wait is between application and completion of the work. [160264]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested is set out in the table. While the average wait is calculated as being 108 days, since the scheme started on 1 June 2000, there have been instances when householders have had to wait much longer, especially for heating measures. We are working with the Home Energy Efficiency scheme managers to reduce the time taken to install measures. Since January the average waiting time has been reduced to 59 days.

  Number

  Applications submitted to date

  323,244

  Applications accepted

  263,359

  Households where work has been completed

  111,985

  Average time taken between application and date of work (days)1

  2108

  1Measured from date of call with respect to telephone applications; from date of receipt in the case of postal applications; or from date of e-mail.

  2This is the average since the start of the scheme on 1 June 2000. Since 1 January the average time taken to completion of works has fallen to 59 days.

  Regeneration (Walsall)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding allocation has been made to Walsall for the purpose of regeneration since 1997; if he will list the schemes and organisations in receipt of funding and the amounts involved; and what component of these awards is made with security, community safety and crime reduction as an objective. [160276]
  34W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  New Deal for Community Funding

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced Round 2 New Deal for Community Funding of £263.5 million for five West Midlands neighbourhoods on 30 April, £52 million has been offered to the New Horizons Partnership in Walsall which covers the Blakenall, Bloxwich East and Leamore neighbourhood. Over 16 per cent. of this funding, £8.5 million over 10 years, will be targeted on community safety and crime reduction measures.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  Walsall has also been awarded £16 million Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF) over three years. The Local Strategic Partnership in Walsall will determine the use of NRF moneys to help with the most pressing needs in the area's deprived neighbourhoods.

  Single Regeneration Budget

  Walsall borough has been awarded over £34 million SRB funding since the beginning of the SRB Programme. This funding is through three SRB schemes;

  Empowering Local Communities—Walsall (£14.6 million)

  A seven year scheme targeting the four most deprived areas of the borough, led by the local authority. The other key partners are the TEC, Chamber of Commerce, voluntary sector, Police and Probation Service. Over 9,000 local people will benefit from community safety initiatives.

  Raising Standards in Education, Learning And Employability Walsall (£6.4 million)

  This seven year scheme aims to improve standards in education, skills and learning. Initiatives include drugs prevention through peer pressure, community safety strategy, health, housing development links to job opportunities.

  Building on Diversity Walsall (£13.8 million)

  Targeted on five of Walsall's most deprived wards, projects will address health inequalities; improve community safety and environment and tackle social exclusion.

  Land and Property Projects

  Site Investigation And Environmental Improvement Schemes.

  A total of £4.4 million has been spent in Walsall since 1997 on 23 projects, including James Adams limestone mine and Walsall Civic Square.

  Building Construction/Redevelopments

  A total of £700,000 has been spent on five projects in Walsall, including residential redevelopment of the former Moxley Hospital Site; construction of community facilities at the Camden Centre, Small street and Willenhall.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason(a) local authorities and (b) the Highways Agency are exempt from section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [160390]

  Mr. Hill
  The powers under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, introduced by the previous Government, provided for regulations to be
  35W
  made allowing charges to be levied on utility companies whose works exceed an agreed deadline. However, the Act did not extend this power to works carried out by highway authorities.

  This Government are determined to reduce the disruption which all works, whether carried out by utility or highway authority, cause to road users. The powers under section 74 have been activated with effect from 1 April this year. At the same time a revised code of practice for the co-ordination of works and best practice guidelines were published, which apply not only to works on behalf of utilities but also to works for local highway authorities and the Highways Agency. We are also considering whether further measures may be required.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the proportion of roadworks carried out by(a) utilities, (b) local authorities and (c) the Highways Agency. [160389]

  Mr. Hill
  Works carried out to the highway include "road" works—carried out by or on behalf of highway authorities—and "street" works—involving statutory utilities. Detailed figures are not available on the proportion of overall works carried out by utilities, local authorities and the Highways Agency. However, the Government have recently commissioned Halcrow UK to undertake a study of the extent of utility street works across England. As part of that work, they will also be looking at works carried out by highway authorities. We expect to make the conclusions of Halcrow's research available to the House.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his assessment is of the impact on prices paid by consumers for utility services arising from the lane rental provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [160391]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government took powers in the Transport Act 2000 to make regulations permitting highway authorities to levy daily charges on utilities from the outset of works (so-called "lane rental"). These powers are being kept in reserve at this stage as regards national implementation. However, we have agreed that the London borough of Camden and Middlesbrough borough council may operate pilot schemes for lane rental in their area, starting later this year.

  The impact of any national lane rental scheme on utility companies and their customers and the extent to which road users will benefit from reduced disruption will obviously depend upon detailed arrangements, for instance the level at which rental charges were set and the type of works which would attract charges. Should we decide to launch the powers nationally, we will want to look very closely at the effects of the pilot schemes in devising the details of the scheme and in carrying out a regulatory impact assessment.

  Buses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to regulate the size of buses. [160142]
  36W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]The size of buses is currently regulated by the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations which in turn incorporate dimensions that have to be accepted by all European Union countries through Directive 96/53/EC. Amendments to this Directive to allow longer buses are currently under discussion. In my response of 10 April to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood),Official Report, columns 497–99W, I explained that the Council had reached a general political agreement on allowing the use of buses up to 15 metres long. But owing to UK concerns over the manoeuvrability of these vehicles the text for a derogation for us would be remitted to COREPER for further consideration. It is unlikely that a final agreement will be reached before the end of this year.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many construction industry inspector posts are vacant in each region of the United Kingdom. [160278]

  Mr. Meacher
  In April 2001, the number of vacant construction industry inspector posts in each Division of the Health and Safety Executive's Field Operations Directorate, were as follows:

  Division

  Number of vacancies

  Scotland

  0

  Yorkshire and North East

  0

  North West

  0

  Midlands

  0

  Wales and West

  0

  London and South East

  8

  Home Counties

  0

  Total

  8

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to recruit suitable people to fill vacancies for construction industry inspectors in London and the South East. [160277]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) usually fills construction industry inspector posts internally from its pool of experienced general inspectors of health and safety. HSE is currently running a major campaign to recruit trainee inspectors nationally, the majority to fill the vacancies in the Field Operations Directorate, and this includes those in its London and the South East Division, In order to help address the resource shortfall more quickly, HSE is also seeking to deploy inspectors from other divisions into London for limited periods and is exploring the contribution that could be made by additional specialist inspectors supporting operational construction inspection.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those shire counties which have had no reported cases of foot and mouth disease and which have opened(a) less

  37W
  than 25 per cent. of the total length of their rights of way and (b) 50 per cent. or more of the total length of their rights of way: and if he will make a statement. [160729]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The county councils which have had no reported cases of foot and mouth disease and which have opened less than 25 per cent of the total length of their rights of way are: Lincolnshire (0 per cent.), Buckinghamshire (5 per cent.), Hampshire (5 per cent.), West Sussex (10 per cent.), Bedfordshire (12 per cent.), East Sussex (12 per cent.), Nottinghamshire (15 per cent.), and Dorset (22 per cent.).

  The county councils which have had no reported cases of foot and mouth disease and which have opened 50 per cent. or more of the total length of their rights of way are: Norfolk (59 per cent.), Surrey (70 per cent.), Suffolk (75 per cent.), and Cambridgeshire (85 per cent.).

  These figures show that many local authorities continue to keep rights of way closed unnecessarily. The Government's veterinary and scientific advisers have confirmed that outside Infected Areas there is no justification for keeping so many paths closed. Councils that ignore this advice are failing in their duty to their residents, their visitors, and their local businesses to open rights of way wherever it is safe to do so.

  Several authorities lag so far behind public opinion and professional advice that they continue to keep closed even paths across woodland and arable land. This cannot be justified. Local authorities quite rightly wish to take account of the views of farmers and land managers, but they need to balance these with the views of the many other businesses in their communities whose livelihood is threatened, as well as the interests of their residents and visitors. Unnecessary closures mean unnecessary inconvenience, unnecessary economic damage, and in some cases unnecessary danger where people are forced on to busy roads because paths are closed.

  In authorities which have taken a more balanced judgment of needs, such as Surrey, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, well over half the path networks have been reopened. There is no reason why the worst performing authorities should not achieve a similar or better performance. I urge all councils, and especially those without infected areas, to make significant progress towards reopening their rights of way wherever it is safe to do so.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost to councils of awarding hardship relief to assist businesses affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth; and if he will provide additional assistance to smaller district councils to help meet this cost. [160266]

  Mr. Meacher
  To date no formal assessment of the costs borne by local authorities in implementing the hardship rate relief scheme has been undertaken. However, we have extended the central Government contribution to the cost of the relief from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. in cases where the business is located in one of the 151 eligible rural districts and has a rateable value of £12,000 or less.

  A number of small rural district councils have made representations that it will be difficult for them to find the 5 per cent. of the cost that the scheme requires. I am
  38W
  looking into that, though it is important that local authorities do retain ownership of the scheme if distribution of relief is to be undertaken rigorously.

  Waste Packaging Regulations
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the new user's guide to the Producer Responsibility Obligation (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 will be published. [160636]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We have almost completed the revised edition and hope to publish it shortly.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what time scale he has established for the preparation and completion of the report of the consultant appointed to advise Ministers on the application for the Sellafield MOX Plant Authorisation; and if he will place a copy of the consultant's report in the Library. [159778]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced on 23 April that the Department had appointed Arthur D. Little Ltd. as independent consultants to evaluate BNFL's economic case for operating the Sellafield MOX plant, and that they would report in around seven weeks from that date. A copy of their report will be offered to the Library, excluding only any commercially sensitive information whose publication we judge could cause significant damage to commercial interests.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to assist the preparations for the Rio+10 conference; what contributions he intends to make at the conference; and if he will make a statement. [159779]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom has been one of the first countries to offer concrete support to South Africa to assist in the preparations for Rio+10—now known as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). This will take place in Johannesburg in September 2002. In his speech at Chatham House on 6 March the Prime Minister reiterated his intention to attend the Summit, the first Head of Government to make such a commitment. The Department for International Development will provide £1.5 million in support of the Summit, most of which will be used to assist the Government of South Africa in their preparations. The Government are also seconding experienced officials to South Africa and to the UN secretariat to strengthen their teams. The Deputy Prime Minister discussed these matters with the South African Environment Minister Mohammed Valli Moosa on 20 April in New York, during the Ninth Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

  The Government, and the devolved Administrations, are or will be supporting a number of preparatory meetings in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has put strong emphasis on the involvement of civil society, especially business and NGOs, in all aspects of the Summit. The agenda for the Summit has yet to be agreed. It will be prepared through regional prepcom meetings in the UN later this year, including a UN Economic

  39W
  Commission for Europe meeting in Geneva on 24–25 September. The Government are working closely with European partners to prepare an EU interim position, and supports the proposals set out in the Commission's Communication of 6 February. As the agenda is developed we shall formulate our views on how best to contribute to the conference itself.

  FV Gaul
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred to date in connection with the loss of the FV Gaul. [160731]

  Mr. Prescott
  The costs incurred to date in connection with the loss of the FV Gaul amount to about £1 million.

  The original formal investigation held in 1974 cost £20,000 and the research conducted last year by Mr. Roger Clarke, acting as a consultant for the Department, which included the search for bodies of the crew in Northern Russia, cost £50,000. The total spent on the Marine Accident Investigation Branch's survey of the wreck conducted in 1998 cost nearly £700,000.

  The discovery of new and important evidence by the MAIB led to the formal investigation being reopened on 16 April 1999. Since then over £300,000 has been paid to the firm of solicitors representing the families of the crew, the Max Gold Partnership, of which nearly £240,000 has been paid as legal fees. The families of the skipper and mate are separately represented by Birnberg Pierce & Partners and a bill for £85,000 has recently been submitted to the Department of which some £57,000 is for legal fees.

  Farm Vehicles (Traffic Calming)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require the Transport Research Laboratory to conduct research into the effect of traffic calming measures on(a) tractors and (b) other farming vehicles and direct local authorities to put schemes affecting roads used by tractors on hold; and if he will update traffic advisory leaflet 7/96 to compel local authorities to consult agricultural interests. [160496]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no proposals at present to carry out research into the effects of traffic calming measures on agricultural machinery using public roads. The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 require local highway authorities to consult with organisations or persons using the highway to which a road hump proposal relates. The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 require the local highway authority to consult, as the highway authority thinks fit, with persons or organisations who use the highway or are likely to be affected by the traffic calming works. My Department has, in relevant Traffic Advisory Leaflets published since 1999, included a reminder of the need to consult with users of agricultural equipment.

  Yellow School Bus Pilots
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list 40W
  those organisations that have applied to set up a yellow school bus pilot scheme; and when he expects each pilot scheme to start. [160295]

  Mr. Hill
  We understand that FirstGroup plc is in discussion with a number of local authorities and other organisations about setting up yellow school bus pilot schemes. It will be for FirstGroup and individual local authorities and organisations to decide when each pilot scheme should start.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in each regional development agency. [160296]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The most recent figures for staff employed in each Regional Development Agency are as follows:

  Name of Agency

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  One North East

  215

  8

  North West Development Agency

  209

  9

  Yorkshire Forward

  194

  21

  East Midlands Development Agency

  127

  8

  Advantage West Midlands

  162

  1

  East of England Development Agency

  89

  1

  South East England Development Agency

  121

  6

  South West Regional Development Agency

  185

  11

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual(a) running cost and (b) forecast running cost is for each regional development agency. [160298]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Regional Development Agencies' running cost budgets for 2001–02 were announced in my answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on 9 March 2001,Official Report, columns 366–67W. My answer included a table setting out the total budget for 2001–02, of which the following is an extract:

  £000

  Programme

  Administration

  One North East

  10,103

  North West DA

  14,044

  Yorkshire Forward

  9,989

  East Midlands DA

  7,488

  Advantage West Midlands

  8,793

  East of England DA

  5,836

  South East of England DA

  6,643

  South West RDA

  9,099

  London DA

  9,470

  Total

  81,465

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to carry out a new study to update the Aircraft Noise Index Study of 1985. [160726]
  41W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department is to carry out a major study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This new study underlines the Government's commitment to underpin our policy on aircraft noise by substantial research that commands the widest possible confidence.

  Our current understanding of the relationship between annoyance and aircraft noise over 24 hours is based primarily on research that was carried out in the 1980s, in particular the Aircraft Noise Index Study published in 1985. That was based on the largest survey yet carried out of public attitudes to aircraft noise and eventually led the Government of the day to adopt the Leq (equivalent continuous noise) index for daytime noise contours.

  The conclusions have been broadly confirmed by other studies here and abroad, and we have no reason to doubt their validity. But in the light of our commitment to develop a new air transport policy, of changes to traffic patterns since then, and the general reduction in noise levels of individual aircraft, it is now timely to commission a fresh study.

  We want the aviation industry to meet the external costs it imposes. This new study will give us more information on the value people give to relief from noise, and to focus our policies from a broader range of evidence.

  In deciding to commission this further research, I have considered the findings of three recent Government-sponsored studies on sleep disturbance, and the advice of independent experts. I am grateful to those who sat on the steering and technical working groups for their help in shaping those studies. I have concluded that a new full-scale objective sleep study would be unlikely to add significantly to our understanding; and that the way forward is through concentrating instead on further research into subjective responses to annoyance by night and by day.

  I am placing copies of the three reports (Adverse Effects of Night-Time Aircraft Noise. Aircraft Noise and Sleep-UK Trial Methodology Study, and Perceptions of Aircraft Noise Sleep and Health) in the House Library. These have been published by the former Department of Operational Research and Analysis (DORA) of National Air Traffic Services Ltd., and by the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research Consultancy Services and Department of Social Statistics at the University of Southampton, respectively. Further information on Government sponsored research into aircraft noise and sleep will shortly be available on the Aviation section of my Department's website.

  Invitations to tender for the new study will be issued shortly. We shall ensure that both environmental and aviation interests can contribute to the oversight of the project. It will last three years, with pilot results planned to be available next year to feed into our White Paper on air transport.

  Flood Drainage
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to Ofwat on the responsibility of the water industry for funding drainage improvements following the recent floods. [160247]
  42W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The responsibilities of the sewerage undertaker are prescribed in the Water Industry Act 1991. At the periodic review the Director General of Water Services, sets companies' price limits and within this framework it is for each sewerage undertaker to determine its priorities. Ofwat and my officials are currently discussing the causes of sewer flooding and possible remedies.

  Rail Franchises (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in restructuring the railway franchise system in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [160613]

  Mr. Hill
  Arriva plc in conjunction with Connex Transport UK Ltd., FirstGroup plc, National Express Group plc and Serco Rail have been shortlisted by the Strategic Rail Authority to prepare Best and Final Offers for the new Wales and the Borders franchise. The Authority has announced the conclusion of negotiations to restructure and reorganise some of the existing franchises which will be affected. Further announcements will be made in due course.

  Highways (Flood Damage)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give local authorities assistance to help them with the damage to highways caused by the recent floods. [160721]

  Mr. Hill
  We have decided to give extra assistance this year to those English authorities where the cost of dealing with flood damage to their highways would absorb a high proportion of their available resources for highway maintenance. Officials are writing to authorities seeking up to date information on the cost of flood damage before the final level of support is determined, but on the basis of the information we have received to date it is likely that the total payments nationally will be in the region of £12 million.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes to meet the Government's aims of achieving sustainable development and maintaining biodiversity in the marine environment. [160727]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is leading a review of marine nature conservation looking specifically at how to address this matter. The interim report of the review, which has recently been presented to Ministers, sets out a number of recommendations aimed at meeting these aims. I have today agreed to the publication of the interim report on my Department's website and placed copies in the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Baton Round (Alternative)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to consult victims' organisations over the acceptability of alternatives to the plastic baton round.[158792]
  43W
  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear that he would welcome representations from any group or organisation on this issue. Naturally, when it is appropriate to do so, we will consult widely on the question of acceptability.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means he advertised for the post of project manager for the Project Board of the Steering Group set up to examine alternatives to the plastic baton round; and what the(a) job description, (b) personal specification for the appointment and (c) remuneration for the post is.[158791]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has approved the appointment of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Michael Messinger as programme co-ordinator, on a part-time basis. The position was not advertised. I will publish a copy of the terms of reference for the post when they have been finalised.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has participated in with the objective of incorporating an independent element in his research into a less potentially lethal

  Applications/acceptances to RUC from 1995–98 by gender and community background

  Regulars—Applications

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  Total

  Comp C 1995

  838

  611

  1,449

  296

  171

  467

  113

  29

  142

  2,058

  Comp D 1995

  1,113

  661

  1,774

  269

  169

  438

  158

  30

  188

  2,400

  Comp E 1996

  983

  588

  1,571

  236

  133

  369

  129

  26

  155

  2,095

  Comp F 1996

  1,312

  741

  2,054

  261

  145

  406

  242

  27

  269

  2,729

  Comp G 1997

  1,368

  804

  2,172

  253

  159

  412

  188

  25

  213

  2,797

  Comp H 1998

  1,332

  802

  2,134

  270

  161

  431

  228

  32

  260

  2,825

  Comp I 1998

  1,414

  898

  2,312

  470

  280

  750

  246

  51

  297

  3,359

  Regulars—Acceptances

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  Total

  Percentage of total applications

  Comp C 1995

  84

  14

  98

  18

  2

  20

  8

  1

  9

  127

  6.2

  Comp D 1995

  124

  14

  138

  20

  4

  24

  15

  0

  15

  177

  7.4

  Comp E 1996

  103

  22

  125

  10

  3

  13

  5

  0

  5

  143

  6.8

  Comp F 1996

  75

  19

  94

  13

  1

  14

  14

  0

  14

  122

  4.5

  Comp G 1997

  79

  17

  96

  13

  2

  15

  9

  0

  9

  120

  4.3

  Comp H 1998

  80

  45

  125

  9

  3

  12

  7

  0

  7

  144

  5.1

  Comp I 1998

  72

  38

  110

  9

  9

  18

  4

  1

  5

  133

  4.0

  Full-time reserves—Applications

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  Total

  Comp B 1995

  635

  407

  1,042

  167

  115

  282

  105

  25

  130

  1,454

  Comp C 1996

  654

  421

  1,075

  154

  101

  255

  90

  11

  101

  1,431

  Comp D 1997

  753

  402

  1,155

  109

  75

  184

  113

  22

  135

  1,474

  Comp E 1997

  376

  236

  612

  60

  46

  106

  43

  12

  55

  773

  Comp F 1997

  709

  423

  1,132

  119

  78

  197

  104

  24

  128

  1,457

  44W
  alternative to the plastic baton round and commissioning a social impact assessment of alternatives to the plastic baton round. [158790]

  Mr. Ingram
  In line with the Patten Commission report, full account will be taken of public acceptability and all other relevant issues in our continuing efforts to identify alternatives to the baton round. The project board established to lead the research project will continue to consult widely and I will be meeting various interest groups concerned with this issue over the coming months.

  RUC (Recruitment)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, in respect of each of the recruitment competitions to the RUC from 1995 to date the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) applicants and (ii) candidates offered appointment, broken down by perceived community background, who took up appointments in the (1) RUC and (2) full-time RUC Reserve. [157607]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables show the breakdown of applications for recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary from 1995 to the last recruitment campaign in December 1998 and the corresponding number of successful applicants in percentage terms.
  45W

  Full-time—Acceptances

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  Total

  Percentage of total applications

  Comp B 1996

  12

  7

  19

  4

  0

  4

  2

  1

  3

  26

  1.8

  Comp C 1996

  66

  63

  129

  14

  10

  24

  7

  1

  8

  161

  11.3

  Comp D 1997

  19

  5

  24

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  5

  29

  2.0

  Comp E 1997

  25

  4

  29

  2

  1

  3

  3

  0

  3

  35

  4.5

  Comp F 1997

  31

  19

  50

  3

  2

  5

  3

  0

  3

  58

  4.0

  Notes:

  CB1—Perceived Protestant

  CB2—Perceived Roman Catholic

  CB3—Others/Undetermined

  Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the programme of actions for the Commissioner appointed under section 67 of the Police Northern Ireland Act 2000 and his timetable for completing his task. [159472]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Oversight Commissioner's first report, which was placed in the Library of the House on 10 January 2001, laid out the Commissioner's programme of action.

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the(a) Provisional IRA, (b) Real IRA, (c) Continuity IRA, (d) INLA, (e) UDA/UFF, (f) LVF, (g) Orange volunteer Force and (h) Red Hand Defenders have been (i) charged with a terrorist-related offence and (ii) convicted of a terrorist-related offence in relation to crimes committed after 10 April 1998. [155469]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table details the number of persons charged with "terrorist-type" or serious public order offences since 10 April 1998. The following points should be noted about this information:

  (a) Where a person has been charged with a number of different offences only the most serious is shown. It is not possible to attribute responsibility to specific groups as to do so would incur a disproportionate cost.

  (b) Charges brought during this period may relate to offences committed prior to 10 April 1998.

  (c) The "other" category includes a range of public order offences including, for example riotous behaviour, possession or throwing of petrol bombs, assaulting police, hijacking and obstructing the highway. The offences of membership and withholding information are also included.

  I regret that information concerning convictions is not available. The processing of court statistics on the court proceedings database was suspended in April 1998. Court data are therefore not available for 1998, 1999 and 2000.
  I understand that work to capture this missing data is at an advanced stage, but will be some time before this missing data is at an advanced stage, but will be some time before this information becomes available.
  46W

  Persons charged with terrorist-type and serious public order offences

  Loyalist

  Republican

  10 April 1998–31 March 1999

  Murder

  4

  1

  Attempted Murder

  4

  3

  Firearms

  34

  19

  Explosives

  10

  3

  Armed Robbery

  17

  10

  Other

  263

  67

  Total

  332

  103

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  Murder

  4

  1

  Attempted Murder

  6

  0

  Firearms

  43

  23

  Explosives

  9

  7

  Armed Robbery

  7

  14

  Other

  106

  68

  Total

  175

  113

  1 April 2000–21 March 2001

  Murder

  5

  1

  Attempted Murder

  13

  2

  Firearms

  29

  12

  Explosives

  2

  9

  Armed Robbery

  8

  7

  Other

  142

  34

  Total

  199

  65

  Public Order (Lurgan)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals were charged with public order offences arising from events in and around Lurgan on(a) 10 July, (b) 11 July, (c) 12 July, (d) 13 July, (e) 14 July and (f) 15 July 2000; what the result of those prosecutions was; and what the breakdown by perceived community origin of those charged and convicted is. [158737]

  Mr. Ingram
  Charges relating to public order offences in Lurgan sub-division during July 2000 are set out in the table.

  Charges relating to public order offences in Lurgan sub-division during July 2000

  Date

  Number charged

  Convicted

  Pending

  Withdrawn

  Loyalist

  10 July

  1

  —

  —

  1

  11 July

  6

  13

  22

  1

  12 July

  1

  —

  —

  1

  47W

  Charges relating to public order offences in Lurgan sub-division during July 2000

  Date

  Number charged

  Convicted

  Pending

  Withdrawn

  13 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Republican

  10 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12 July

  —

  —

  33

  —

  13 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15 July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13 X Convictions:

  (a) Sentenced in absence and bench warrant issued.

  (b) Adjourned for pre-sentence reports.

  (c) Convicted of riotous behaviour—fined £250 Convicted of resisting police —fined £100

  2 Awaiting trial

  3 Cases with Director of Public Prosecutions awaiting direction.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how may complaints have been

  Table 2: Current status of cases received by the Police Ombudsman

  Month received

  Case closed1

  Withdrawn

  Resolved

  Awaiting resolution

  Other status

  Under investigation

  Total

  November 2000

  174

  25

  16

  23

  12

  150

  400

  December 2000

  120

  14

  15

  19

  17

  80

  265

  January 2001

  117

  18

  13

  39

  5

  134

  332

  February 2001

  67

  16

  1

  28

  35

  136

  283

  March 2001

  22

  8

  0

  58

  46

  109

  243

  April 2001

  3

  2

  0

  9

  121

  85

  220

  1For various reasons

  Procedures for discipline and the sending of files to the Director of Public Prosecutions are currently being developed. Consequently, as at 21 April, no cases have resulted in disciplinary proceedings and no cases have resulted in files being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  However, the Police Ombudsman assumed responsibility for 2,396 cases under transitional arrangements from the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. Of these, five cases have resulted in disciplinary proceedings being taken and a total of 250 cases have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Global Health
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on global health will be published. [160722]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU report "Tackling the Diseases of Poverty: A package to meet the Okinawa/ Millennium Targets for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria" is published today. The report sets out a range 48W
  received by the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in each month from his appointment up to the latest available date; how many in each month were (a) rejected, (b) withdrawn, (c) under investigation, (d) had investigations completed, (e) resulted in disciplinary proceedings being taken, and by whom and (f) resulted in files being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. [159156]

  Mr. Ingram
  The make up and disposition of the complaints received by the Police Ombudsman from 6 November 2000 to 21 April 2001 are not available in the exact form requested. However, the figures that are available are listed in tabular form in the two charts.

  Table 1: Cases and complaints received by the Police Ombudsman

  Number

  Month received

  Cases1

  Complaints

  November 2000

  400

  518

  December 2000

  265

  362

  January 2001

  332

  449

  February 2001

  283

  360

  March 2001

  243

  294

  April 2001

  220

  252

  1Cases may involve more than one complaint

  of options for tackling these three devastating diseases in developing countries as a contribution, both to the UK Government's thinking and to the international debate.

  The report calls for a comprehensive global strategy to: improve and expand coverage of health systems and health promotion; make affordable for those that need them vaccines, drugs, and other products to prevent and treat the diseases; and provide incentives for research into new, more effective health products.

  The PIU report proposes a series of measures including: a new Global Fund for Health to finance the purchase of existing health products to tackle the three diseases, substantially scaling up the provision of these products to those most in need but least able to afford them; binding advance purchase commitment to purchase new, more effective products as they become available, strengthening incentives to step up investment in R&D; a framework for tiered pricing and greater local production of patented products under voluntary licences to improve affordability; and clarification of the flexibilities in intellectual property protection under the WTO TRIPS agreement; targeted support including tax credits and public-private partnerships for R&D, and a new platform for clinical trials of new drugs and vaccines; and a scaled-up and better co-ordinated global partnership to halt and reverse the spread of disease.
  49W
  The report estimates that 50 million lives could be saved over the next 20 years if the global effort to tackle these diseases was better resourced and co-ordinated.

  The UK is already fully committed to playing its part in a greater and better co-ordinated international effort to tackle communicable diseases in the developing world. The ideas in the PIU report will help the UK pursue this agenda internationally at the highest level.

  Copies have been placed in the House Library.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Football Association for Government funding for the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium. [160274]

  The Prime Minister
  The Football Association informed the Government that it was unable to secure the necessary private-sector investment to proceed with the Wembley project, and sought discussions on future options. This work is now under way.

  Entertainment Budgets
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what the entertainment budget was for Number 10 Downing street in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160097]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 268W.

  The total cost to my office of official entertainment at 10 Downing street and Chequers was

  £

  Year

  Cost

  1999–2000

  60,652

  2000–011

  72,790

  1This figure is given on a cash accounting basis

  Costs vary depending on the nature of events as they did under previous Administrations.

  The programme of events at No. 10 is designed to give access to as many people as possible and includes regular children's tea parties and receptions for a wide cross section of the community. In the past year these have included events for teachers, doctors, members of the emergency services and victims of the floods.

  Over the past year, to discuss developments in the business world, I have hosted more working breakfasts than in the previous year. I also jointly, hosted a reception for 800 people to mark the outstanding performance of British athletes at the 2000 Olympics.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how he applied the rules governing disclosure of ministerial correspondence to requests for disclosure of the letter he received from the Countess of Wessex. [160639]
  50W
  The Prime Minister
  Under section 3 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not our practice to comment on whether there has been or has not been correspondence between the Royal Household and Ministers.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 22 March. [160335]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council replied on my behalf on 4 May.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has been contacted by President Bush on missile defence systems; and what response he gave. [160536]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular contact with President Bush on a range of issues including policy on missile defence. We have not discussed specific systems.

TREASURY

  Cancer Survival Rates
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of patients who, having been diagnosed with(a) lung cancer, (b) bowel cancer, (c) breast cancer, (d) cervical cancer and (e) prostate cancer survive for five years; and what the comparable figures are for (i) France, (ii) Germany, (iii) Sweden and (iv) the USA. [160240]

  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. Quentin Davies, dated 8 May 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the five year survival rates are for (a) lung, (b) bowel, (c) breast, (d) cervical, and (d) prostate cancer, and what the comparable figures are for (i) France, (ii) Germany, (iii) Sweden, and (iv) the USA. (160240)
  The latest available five-year survival rates for England are for cases diagnosed in the three year period 1992–94 and followed up to 31st December 1999. Data for eight common cancers including (a) lung, (b) colon, (c) female breast, (d) cervical, and (e) prostate cancer are available on the National Statistics website, www.statistics.co.uk, under "Health and Care". (Figures for (a) and (b) are presented for males and females separately).
  Survival from cancers of the colon and rectum, which together form the large bowel, are similar. Hence figures for colon alone are included in the presentation of survival in eight common cancers on the National Statistics website for patients diagnosed in 1992–94. Survival from cancer of the rectum for patients diagnosed in 1991–93 in England and Wales was published in the summer 2000 edition of Health Statistics Quarterly (number 6).
  Five-year survival data for the USA can also be found on the National Statistics website, at the address shown above, for patients diagnosed during 1986–90 and followed up to 31st December 1995 for equivalent sites.

  51W
  Comparable data for France, Germany and Sweden are published in Berrino F, Sant M, Verdecchia A, Capocaccia R (eds). Survival of cancer patients in Europe-the EUROCARE study II. IARC Scientific Publications No.151. Lyons: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1999. a copy of which is in the House of Commons library.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Diesel
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to promote the use of(a) LPG, (b) ultra-low sulphur petrol and (c) ultra-low sulphur diesel in rural areas. [160347]

  Mr. Timms
  The Budget day reductions in excise duty on all these fuels were designed to encourage the widespread use of more environmentally friendly road fuels throughout the UK.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product central Government spent on(a) education, (b) health, (c) housing and (d) social housing (A) in each year since 1979 and (B) as projected to the end of the current spending review period. [159690]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The information requested is available in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2001–02 (Cm5101), tables 3.4 and 3.5. Some series are only published in cash terms, a long run series for money GDP is available from the ONS.

  Expenditure is planned on a departmental basis, not a functional basis, and spending plans for expenditure on health, housing, and on social housing are not available on a consistent basis. Forward projections for education spending in cash terms are published in PESA 2001–02 table 1.2.

  A consistent long run functional series for central Government expenditure is not currently available—the references are based on total expenditure.

  Retirement Flats (VAT)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average cost to residents of retirement flats of the imposition of VAT on service charges. [158954]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Service charges to residents of retirement flats are exempt from VAT.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further action he is taking to establish a central support organisation for credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [160279]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 654W.

  Beer Duty
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written representations he has received from the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) asking for the introduction of progressive beer duty. [160199]
  52W
  Mr. Timms
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was a signatory to an early-day motion on progressive beer duty in 1998, but I have received no more recent representations from him on this subject.

  Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to provide continuing access to compensation under the Insurance Brokers Registration Council "Grants and Indemnity Scheme" for genera1 insurance losses incurred by the clients of registered insurance brokers, following the repeal of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 on 30 April. [R] [160599]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The grants scheme was entirely discretionary. But the IBRC had a public law duty to consider reasonably claims that it received under the scheme. The general public law duty does not form a liability that has now transferred to the Treasury under the Insurance Brokers Registration Council Dissolution Order (SI/2001/1283). Nevertheless, the Treasury will consider reasonably claims relating to activities prior to the IBRC' s dissolution.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Trial Costs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans he has to place a maximum ceiling on the costs to public funds of trial proceedings. [159324]

  Mr. Lock
  This Government have taken considerable steps to ensure that trial costs, including lawyers' fees, are held at a reasonable level. It would not be right to place an arbitrary cap on the amount to be spent on any individual trial.

  Prosecution Witnesses
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many magistrates court trials over the last 12 months for which data are available were(a) delayed and (b) discontinued as a result of the non-arrival of witnesses for the prosecution. [159325]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellors Department does not currently collect the information requested.

  However, results from twice-yearly witness attendance monitoring exercises, conducted in all magistrates courts for a two-week period in June and November each year, indicates that the number of prosecution witnesses who were expected but did not attend court was 12 per cent. for June 2000 and 7 per cent. for November 2000.

  Lay Magistracy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on the future of the lay magistracy. [159326]

  Jane Kennedy
  Government Ministers have repeatedly assured Opposition Members of our support for the lay magistracy. Had it not been for opposition from those
  53W
  Members to the proposed reform to mode of trial procedures, magistrates would by now have been given more work—and a greater variety of work—than they routinely do. Their attitude undermines confidence in the magistracy. I am dismayed to find that there are those who do not believe in their hearts that magistrates can be in charge of a fair trial.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her plans for the lay magistracy. [159330]

  Jane Kennedy
  The report by Rod Morgan and Neil Russell, "The Judiciary in the Magistrates' Courts", published on 14 December last year, concluded that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the country, and the Government agree with that view.

  Lord Justice Auld is currently conducting his independent review of the criminal courts. It would be premature to comment on that until he submits his report.

  Auld Report
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Auld report to be published. [159327]

  Mr. Lock
  Sir Robin Auld expects to complete his review shortly.

  Courthouses (PFI)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many new courthouses have been(a) planned and (b) built under the private finance initiative. [159328]

  Jane Kennedy
  No new Crown or county court centres have yet been built under the private finance initiative, although the Court Service has plans to provide four new court buildings under this procurement method. In addition, the Lord Chancellor's Department is providing financial support to a total of 13 magistrates courts committees projects. Eight of those will provide a total of 18 new or refurbished courthouses, six of which are currently under construction and will be in use later this year. The scope of the remaining five projects remains to be determined.

  Parallel Juries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment she has made of the case for parallel juries to facilitate research into the reasons behind juries' verdicts. [159329]

  Jane Kennedy
  There has been no recent assessment of the case for parallel juries. Research into the reasons behind jury verdicts is restricted by section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will provide a breakdown of the number of family visitor 54W
  appeals (a) determined, (b) allowed and (c) dismissed by the Immigration Appellate Authority (i) at an oral hearing and (ii) on the papers only, in April. [160467]

  Jane Kennedy
  The breakdown of family visit appeals determined, allowed and dismissed by the Immigration Appellate Authority in April 2001 is:

  Determined

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Oral Cases

  66

  45

  21

  Paper Cases

  131

  57

  74

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will provide a breakdown of the number of(a) oral and (b) paper-only family visitor appeals received by the Immigration Appellate Authority in April. [160460]

  Jane Kennedy
  In April 2001, the Immigration Appellate Authority received 87 cases for oral hearing and 136 cases for paper-only hearing.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of family visitor appeals determined(a) at an oral hearing and (b) on the papers only, since 2 October 2000, have been allowed. [160468]

  Jane Kennedy
  The proportion of family visit appeals determined that have been allowed between 2 October 2000 to 30 April 2001 are:

  Percentage

  Oral Cases

  66.24

  Paper Cases

  35.60

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) oral and (b) paper only family visitor appeals have been received by the Immigration Appellate Authority since (i) 2 October 2000 and (ii) 1 February in which the Immigration Advisory Service has been identified as representing the applicant. [160471]

  Jane Kennedy
  The amount of family visitor appeals received by the Immigration Appellate Authority since (i) 2 October 2000 and 1 February 2001 in which the Immigration Advisory Service were identified as representing the applicant are as follows:

  (iii) Between 2 October 2000 and 31 January 2001 the Immigration Advisory Service represented applicants in (a) nine oral family visit appeals (b) four paper-only family visitor appeals

  (iv) Between 1 February and 30 April 2001 the Immigration Advisory Service represented applicants in (a) 31 oral family visit appeals (b) six paper-only family visitor appeals.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average time currently taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority is to determine(a) oral family visitor appeals, (b) paper-only family visitor appeals, (c) asylum appeals and (d) other immigration appeals. [160472]
  55W
  Jane Kennedy
  The current average time for this business year (April only), by the Immigration Appellate Authority to process cases from receipt to determination, are:

  (a) 6.43 weeks for oral family visitor appeals

  (b) 3.33 weeks for paper only family visitor appeals

  (c) 22.27 weeks for asylum appeals

  (d) 20.65 weeks for other immigration appeals.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what the total amount of funding provided by the Legal Services Commission is in respect of family visitor appeals since(a) 2 October 2000 and (b) 1 February; [160469]

  (2) in how many cases the Legal Services Commission has funded legal representation at the oral hearing of a family visitor appeal since (a) 2 October 2000 and (b) 1 February. [160470]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Entertainment Budgets
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the entertainment budget was for the Lord Chancellor's Department in each year from 1997 to date.[160095]

  Jane Kennedy
  Expenditure on entertainment in the financial year 1998–99 was £56,327, in 1999–2000 was £88,907 and in 2000–01 was £75,917. The expenditure represented by these figures was incurred by both Ministers and officials. The information for 1997–98 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  56W

  Entertainment Budgets

    Civil Justice System
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on reviewing the remedy of distress for rent as part of the on-going reform of the civil justice system and review of civil enforcement. [160696]

    Mr. Lock
    As part of the on-going reform of the civil justice system and the review of civil enforcement, we have been reviewing the remedy of distress for rent. We recognise that there are concerns about the current procedure, whereby landlords of (mainly commercial) property can seize their tenants' goods for non-payment of rent, without a court order or any prior notice. The Government accept that some change is necessary and desirable, and the Lord Chancellor has today issued a consultation paper on options for reform of distress for rent. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The aim of this consultation is to:establish the extent to. and way in which, distress for rent is currently used in both residential and commercial tenancies;
    consider the potential effect if it were completely abolished;
    consider the potential effect of its abolition in the residential sector; and
    seek views on proposals for a modified procedure.

    Enforcement Review
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on the second phase of the enforcement review following the widening of its remit, announced by the Lord Chancellor on 6 March. [160695]

    Mr. Lock
    A wider remit for phase two of the enforcement review was announced on 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 212W. The review has identified the need for independent expert advice from the private, independent and public sectors actively involved in enforcement and a market evaluation of the delivery of enforcement services. An advisory group will therefore be established on the delivery of enforcement services to guarantee openness and transparency.

    The broader remit of the enforcement review enables us to set better, more wide-ranging public service agreement targets, ensuring that enforcement is carried out to a consistent standard. the current target (to achieve a 10 per cent. increase in the amount recovered per pound under executed warrants issued in the county courts in 2001–04) was due to be reviewed in July 2001. The new target will need to take account of the findings of the enforcement review, to be more closely linked to service delivery and to measure return to the customer. We will now set new targets for civil enforcement by December 2001 and implement them in 2002.

  SCOTLAND

    Disability Rights Commission
    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next plans to meet the Disability Rights Commission to discuss the promotion of the commission's remit in Scotland.[159293]

    Mr. Foulkes
    My officials met the Disability Rights Commission on 9 April. I hope to meet the Commission shortly.

    Fuel Duties
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the impact on rural and cross-border transport of fuel duties in Scotland. [159294]

    Mr. Foulkes
    In his Budget 2001 report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of measures to encourage cleaner road transport, to improve access to cheaper motoring for people who need to use their cars and to enhance the efficiency and environmental sustainability of the UK haulage industry.

    This package of measures represents a balance between economic, environmental and social concerns and should help mitigate the impact of fuel costs on rural and cross border transport. All motorists will benefit by an equivalent of four pence per litre cut on fuel duty and hauliers by an equivalent seven pence per litre. The proposed reforms to the lorry vehicle excise duty regime will bring typical duty rates for the cleanest vehicles down to among the lowest in Europe.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the First Minister, what discussions she had in relation to reform of the Barnett formula. [159295]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I meet regularly with my colleague the First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues. This Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent proposals she has put forward about reform of the Barnett formula; and if she will make a statement. [159299]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Government have no plans to scrap or to review the Barnett formula. It has provided stable settlements under successive Governments for over 20 years. The Barnett formula is also flexible. It leaves detailed decisions on the allocation of resources for devolved programmes to the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Finally, the Barnett formula is fair, because it gives the same overall increases for devolved programmes per head of population in all four parts of the UK.

    The Economy
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the First Minister to discuss the Scottish economy. [159296]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues including the commitment of this Government to maintaining in Scotland, as in the whole of the UK, a stable and successful economy, which allows everyone to share in the nation's rising prosperity.

    East Ayrshire (Rail Links)
    Mr. Browne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with(a) Railtrack and (b) the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive about financial support for the improvement of rail links to East Ayrshire. [159298]

    Mr. Foulkes
    The Government are determined to deliver a safe, modern and high quality railway system. Investment in the railway industry in Scotland, and indeed elsewhere in the UK, is principally a matter for the industry itself. As part of Railtrack's national regeneration scheme, £1.85 million has already been invested in the refurbishment of Kilmarnock Station. Furthermore, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive has committed funds to extend car parking at Kilmarnock station to 111 spaces, effectively doubling capacity.

    The Strategic Rail Authority, under the guidance of the Scottish Executive, has asked Railtrack to cost a number of enhancement options. One option being considered is the creation of a two mile dynamic loop between Stewarton and Dunlop, which would effectively double the single track. This option would have the potential to increase service frequency between Kilmarnock and Glasgow.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    John Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to meet pensioner organisations in Scotland to discuss pension levels and the take-up of the Minimum Income Guarantee. [159300]

    Mr. Foulkes
    We are happy to meet pensioner organisations at any time. The Minimum Income Guarantee has been a great success, taken up by 172,000 claimants in Scotland with some 3,700 in Glasgow Anniesland.

    Highlands (Economic Development)
    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the impact of his Department's policies and programmes on the economic development of the highlands. [159301]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I have regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on a range of issues. On the basis of the most recent figures available, defence expenditure in Scotland is estimated at approximately £1.8 billion and supports, directly and indirectly, approximately 60,000 jobs. My right hon. Friend is very aware of the importance of defence related contracts to the economy of the Highlands and Islands.

    Northern Ireland (Transport Links)
    Mr. Eric Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had regarding the future ferry services and improved road links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [159302]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Government are aware of the potential economic benefits of improving transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. My Department, in close consultation with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives, has been examining the case for a Public Service Obligation to establish a ferry link between Campbeltown and Ballycastle. I am pleased to announce that, in accordance with European Union rules, my Department will now invite potential operators for such a service to come forward with costed proposals. Subject to further evaluation of the costs and benefits of such a service, this will enable the Government to make progress this summer.

    Children's Tax Credit
    Miss Begg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she is taking to encourage the take-up of the Children's Tax Credit in Scotland.[159303]

    Mr. Foulkes
    My right hon. Friend launched the Children's Tax Credit in Scotland at the Inland Revenue's centre in East Kilbride as part of a successful UK campaign to remind people to claim the credit. She also promoted its up-take while visiting Lloyds TSB Scotland in Aberdeen. It can benefit up to 400,000 families in Scotland.

    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about methods of publicising the Children's Tax Credit in Scotland.[159306]
    59W
    Mr. Foulkes
    We are in regular contact with colleagues in the Scottish Executive on a wide range of matters. My right hon. Friend launched the Children's Tax Credit in Scotland at the Inland Revenue's centre in East Kilbride as part of a successful UK campaign to remind people to claim the credit. She also promoted its up-take while visiting Lloyds TSB Scotland in Aberdeen. It can benefit up to 400,000 families in Scotland.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the number of children living in poverty in Scotland in each year since 1997.[159304]

    Mr. Foulkes
    This Government have taken major steps to tackle child poverty since 1997. Measures taken include record increases in universal child benefit, which for the first child has risen in real terms by 26 per cent. since 1997; the Children's Tax Credit, which could benefit up to 400,000 families in Scotland; the Working Families Tax Credit which benefits around 110,000 Scottish families; and the National Minimum Wage which benefits around 120,000 workers in Scotland. The Government have also just published a consultation on two new proposals, the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway, which will take further steps to tackle child poverty.

    Tourism
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the First Minister regarding the tourism industry in Scotland. [159305]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I have regular contact with the First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues. The Government and the Scottish Executive have already committed additional support for Dumfries and Galloway and I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Government and with the Scottish Executive to promote the message that "Scotland is open for business".

    Textile Industry
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the textile industry in Scotland. [159307]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I have met with a wide range of people to discuss the Scottish textiles industry. While I am enthusiastic about the extremely high quality of much of Scotland's textiles industry, we have to understand that we cannot compete on costs alone, particularly against low-waged economies. I shall continue to support efforts to promote our excellent textiles industry and to develop new and existing markets which will help to ensure a prosperous and secure future for the industry.

    New Deal 50-plus
    Mr. Roy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the New Deal 50-plus in Scotland. [159308]

    Mr. Foulkes
    The New Deal 50-plus has proved a very effective way of helping people aged 50 and over return to work. 4,103 people in Scotland have entered work and 60W
    benefited from the programme in the form of employment credits worth up to £60 per week which guarantees a minimum full-time wage of £9,000 per annum.

    Gaelic Language
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the implementation of the European charter for regional or minority languages regarding the Gaelic language; and if she will make a statement. [159309]

    Mr. Foulkes
    The Government have made our commitment to the promotion and development of the Gaelic language clear by ratifying the Charter; and we are working with the Scottish Executive to take forward its implementation.

    Defence-related Employment
    Ms Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Defence Secretary concerning defence-related employment in Scotland. [159310]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I have regular contact with the Ministry of Defence on a range of issues. Scotland continues to benefit, directly and indirectly, from Ministry of Defence employment and spending. On the basis of the most recent figures available, defence expenditure in Scotland is estimated at approximately £1.8 billion and supports, directly and indirectly, approximately 60,000 jobs. Clearly defence expenditure is both substantial and important to the Scottish economy.

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the responsibilities of her Department in relation to the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland. [159311]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive in conjunction with the State Veterinary Service and the armed forces. My Department stand ready to assist in any way including the representation of Scottish interests in Whitehall.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the effect of the national minimum wage on wage rates in Scotland. [159312]

    Mr. Foulkes
    The Office for National Statistics' latest estimate of low pay (combining New Earning Survey and Labour Force Survey statistics) show that the National Minimum Wage is having a direct and beneficial impact on the pay of the lowest paid workers in Scotland. The latest data also show that it has helped close the gap between the highest and lowest earners and helped reduce the differential between men's and women's pay. This has been achieved without any discernible adverse impact on the economy. The minimum wage has benefited at least 120,000 workers in Scotland.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    International Criminal Court
    Mr. Browne
    To ask the Advocate-General what discussions she had with the Scottish Executive about the ratification of the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court.[159315]

    The Advocate-General for Scotland
    I have had no such discussions with the Scottish Executive.

    Devolution
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Advocate-General in what proportion of the devolution issue cases referred to her she has intervened since 3 April. [159316]

    The Advocate-General for Scotland
    From 3 April to 30 April, 31 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. Twenty two of these related to delay in criminal proceedings. I have considered each one and judged that no intervention was appropriate.

    John Robertson
    To ask the Advocate-General what criteria she applies in reaching her decisions on which devolution issue cases to intervene in. [159317]

    The Advocate-General for Scotland
    I examine every devolution issue intimated to me before determining whether or not to intervene. The criteria I apply are not rigid, and generally I intervene, at appeal or Privy Council level, where the case raises important issues of principle for the UK as a whole. Many cases involving devolution issues raise similar points and are dealt with satisfactorily by the lower courts and therefore I intervene less frequently at first instance.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    People's Peers
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council what recent discussions she has had with the chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission on giving rejected applicants for a people's peerage the reasons for their rejection if the applicant so requests. [159334]

    Mr. Tipping
    None. The Appointments Commission is an independent body and Ministers do not interfere in the way it conducts its business within its terms of reference.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council what the length of tenure of the Chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission is; and what plans she has to change the way his successor is selected. [160313]

    Mrs. Beckett
    Three years. There are no plans to change the way a chairman of the present Appointments Commission might be selected in the future, since the procedure followed the requirements of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council if the House of Lords Appointments Commission intends to interview persons recommended for peerages by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. [160326]
    62W
    Mrs. Beckett
    No. The Commission has no remit to interview those recommended by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council what criteria will be used by the House of Lords Appointments Commission in deciding whether to accept persons recommended for peerages by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. [160325]

    Mrs. Beckett
    The Commission carries out the role hitherto exercised by the political Honours Scrutiny Committee. It will look at all persons put forward by the political parties to ensure that they meet the highest standards of propriety. I understand that the Commission has said that it will seek assurances that someone is not and never has been a threat to national security, that he or she has complied in a straightforward way with obligations in relation to taxation and the receipt of benefits and the Commission will take into account any serious criminal offences. Information will also be sought as to any donations made to the party concerned by the individual recommended. The commission has set its approach in a published information pack and on its website.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council on what dates in the current year the House of Lords Appointments Commission plans to undertake regional road shows to encourage potential people's peers to apply. [160314]

    Mrs. Beckett
    I understand that the Commission has yet to consider detailed plans for its future programme of regional roadshows.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council by what method the Chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission was selected; what qualities were sought from applicants; who was involved in the preliminary sift of applications and in the final selection; and if he will make a statement. [160312]

    Mrs. Beckett
    The Chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission was selected by an open selection process conducted in accordance with the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (the "Nolan principles"). The advertisement for the Chairman specified that the Government were looking for someone who:Was committed to making the House of Lords a body that is fully representative of all aspects of UK society and culture;
    Had a track record of significant achievement in public, private, or voluntary sector organisations;
    Had undisputed integrity and the ability to think clearly and exercise sound judgment, and had no positions and interests that might cast doubt on their ability to act impartially;
    Could provide a breadth of experience to the Commission;
    Had the ability to provide firm leadership, ensuring that the Commission's procedures reflected best public appointments practice;
    Could demonstrate excellent communication skills, including managing the media, and the ability to act as a spokesman for the Commission; and
    Had a personal style that demonstrated authority, commitment, consistency and fairness in all dealings.
    63W
    The selection of the name to be recommended to the Prime Minister was made by a panel chaired by the Secretary of the Cabinet, assisted by Lord Fellowes and Ms Ann Abraham, the Legal Services Ombudsman and a member of the Wicks Committee, together with two independent assessors who were Sir Herman Ouseley and Ms Paula Grayson, an independent consultant. The process was assisted by recruitment consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which made a preliminary assessment of applicants suitability against the criteria, but the panel saw and considered all applications.

    PDVN Network
    Mr. David Taylor
    To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the level of investment in the PDVN network. [159337]

    Mr. Tipping
    The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is looking at IT provision for Members, but matters such as investment are not within its remit.

    Modernisation Proposals
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, (Mr. Kirkwood) representing the House of Commons Commission, which staffing reports concerning overloading in Departments of the House have not been acted on in the past two years. [159339]

    Mr. Kirkwood
    There have been no staffing reports concerning overloading in Departments of the House in the last two years, but the internal review service has scrutinised Departments' manpower forecasts in the context of the annual resource planning exercise.

    Helen Jackson
    To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has further to modernise proceedings in the House. [159340]

    Mrs. Beckett
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

    Voting Procedures
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to speed up voting procedures in the House. [159341]

    Mr. Tipping
    The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is keeping voting methods under review.

    Health Strategy Sub-committee
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the role of the ministerial sub-committee on Health Strategy. [159342]

    Mrs. Beckett
    The terms of reference of the sub-committee are"to oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

    IT Facilities
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the President of the Council when she expects to implement the Senior Salaries Review Body proposals on information technology facilities for hon. Members. [159343]

    Mr. Tipping
    The House will first have to decide whether it accepts those recommendations, which I expect to be debated in due course.

    Swearing In
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the President of the Council if she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on measures to speed up the swearing in of hon. Members following a general election. [160315]

    Mrs. Beckett
    The procedure for swearing in is set out in the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 and I am afraid that radical change would require primary legislation. Those aspects within the House's control were examined by the Procedure Committee in Session 1995–96, and changes were made as a result of their recommendations.

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY

      Paid Paternity Leave
      Ms Kelly
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government plan to take forward paid paternity leave as announced in the Budget. [160588]

      Mrs. Humble
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government plan to take forward the paid adoption leave announced in the Budget. [160587]

      Mr. Byers
      The Budget announced that paid paternity leave and adoption leave would be introduced in 2003. These were based on options put forward in the Green Paper "Work and Parents, Competitiveness and Choice". The introduction of systems for paid paternity leave and paid adoption leave will be a step forward in meeting the Government's aim to improve choice for parents and enhance competitiveness for business.

      Paid paternity leave will give working fathers the choice to support their partner around the birth of their child and help adapt to the responsibilities raising a new-born child brings. Paid adoption leave will recognise the commitment given by adoptive families by providing an adoptive parent with the opportunity of 26 weeks leave paid at the flat rate of statutory maternity pay. In addition the Government are to provide a further 26 weeks additional unpaid adoption leave bringing parity with the extension of unpaid maternity leave announced in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) on 1 May 2001, Official Report, column 548W.

      Both paternity leave and adoption leave received strong support from parents, employers and their representatives in responses to the consultation and during discussions with ministers and officials. Employers and parents asked that wherever appropriate the systems should seek to mirror mothers maternity provisions to aid consistency and simplicity. They also stressed that the systems should adopt a light-touch approach and be as simple as possible to administer.

      I have responded to these calls by today publishing frameworks for paid paternity leave and adoption leave based on suggestions put forward. Both frameworks include an assessment of their likely benefits and costs.

      The paternity leave framework particularly adopts a number of approaches asked for by employers. To be eligible for paid paternity leave fathers will have to have served a qualifying period. To ease the administration, paternity leave will have to be taken in a single block and taken within the first two months of the child's birth. And the payment mechanism will be similar to that used for SMP.

      The adoption leave framework builds on the existing support for adoptive parents. It will be available to those parents adopting children of up to 18 years of age and where couples adopt jointly it will be for them to choose who takes the paid adoption leave.

      I welcome comments on these frameworks and have placed copies of the documents in the Library of the House today.

      Post Office Network
      Mr. Quinn
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent developments in the post office network. [160589]

      Mr. Byers
      I am pleased to announce that the Government have reached agreement for the introduction of Universal Banking Services with 11 major institutions. The terms of a Memorandum of Understanding have been agreed and copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

      The banks will make their basic bank accounts accessible through the 18,000 post offices in the network, contribute £180 million to the costs of the Post Office card account, and commit to simple and straightforward account opening for those without bank accounts.

      This is a major step forward both in ensuring the future of the post office network and in tackling financial exclusion. Universal Banking Services will provide a range of banking services which will enable a new income stream to come into the network and bring those people currently without bank accounts into the financial mainstream.

      It is the latest in a number of measures the Government have announced recently to help strengthen the post office network.

      In February I announced a new Government fund to help with the costs of relocating and refurbishing rural post offices. Grants to this fund now being considered include proposals to reopen rural offices near Dover and Cardiff. The Government hope to make several more similar grants shortly and this fund could provide the impetus for reopening up to 200 offices nationwide.

      In March, we launched the latest phase in order to pilot post offices in Leicestershire and Rutland as "Government General Practitioners"—a new service that will offer a wide range of information and access to Government services aimed at the general public.

      Last month I announced the appointment of Allan Leighton to the Board of the new Post Office company, Consignia, as one of five non-executive directors.

      The appointment will add to the skills and experience available to Consignia. He will take special interest in the future development of the post office network.

      I am informed by the Post Office that, subject to final verification, a net total of 112 urban offices and 435 rural offices closed in the year ending 26 March 20011. Of the closures in the year, only four are permanent.

      The primary reason for temporary closures is the retirement of sub-postmasters.

      In addition, 123 rural and 46 urban offices reopened in the year. Also, subject to final verification, net closures in the final quarter of the year ending 26 March 2001 were 113.

      This indicates a significant downward trend in post office closures compared with the third quarter when net closures were 135 and the first half of the year when closures were running at a rate of 150 per quarter.
      67W
      This means that during the period April 2000 to March 2001, in the first half of the year net closures were running at 300, whereas in the final half of the year closures were 17 per cent. lower at 248.

      This would appear to indicate that the positive and practical steps taken following the performance and innovation unit report in June are having a beneficial effect.
      1based on the Post Office's traditional definition of rural offices as those serving communities with under 6,300 residents.

      Astra
      Mr. Bradshaw
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Department of Trade and Industry took in relation to an application for discovery in the Astra case at the High Court on 28 November 1997; what the costs of the application were to the Department's funds; and if he will make a statement. [160140]

      Dr. Howells
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The Department complied with all orders made by the court in the disqualification proceedings in the case of Astra Holdings Plc heard on 28 November 1997.

      It is not possible to determine the cost of individual applications in the proceedings without disproportionate cost.

      Mr. Moulsdale
      Mr. Bradshaw
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received a request for a copy of the letter relating to Mr. Moulsdale; and what was his response. [160139]

      Dr. Howells
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: I am not aware of "the letter relating to Mr. Moulsdale" to which my hon. Friend refers.

      Cosmetic Testing
      Mr. Cawsey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on(a) his policy on a EU ban on cosmetics tested on animals and (b) the impact of this policy on the UK-wide ban on cosmetics tested on animals; and if he will make a statement. [160361]

      Dr. Howells
      The Government are seriously committed to ensuring the protection of animal welfare. Currently the UK has a voluntary ban on animal tests for cosmetic products and ingredients. However, we believe that securing an EU ban on testing cosmetic products and ingredients on animals, as proposed in the Council's draft 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, is an important step to achieving real improvements in animal welfare across the whole of the European Community.

      Supermarkets
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of prohibitions in below-cost selling, with special reference to the recent report of the Competition Commission on the trading restrictions of supermarkets. [160099]
      68W
      Dr. Howells
      The Competition Commission made an adverse finding in relation to persistent selling below cost of certain frequently purchased goods. However, they concluded that a prohibition of the practice would itself have adverse effects, for example consumers might pay more for their shopping basket overall, and that the degree of intervention and monitoring required by a prohibition would be disproportionate to the problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted the recommendation made by the Competition Commission not to prohibit below-cost selling of certain frequently purchased goods.

      Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
      Mr. Gill
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason hauliers are excluded from access to the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. [160405]

      Ms Hewitt
      The Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme operates under the European Commission Block Exemption Regulations on de minimis aid to small and medium-sized enterprises. This specifically excludes the transport sector.

      UK/US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
      Mrs. Gilroy
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent developments concerning the UK/US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. [160610]

      Dr. Howells
      A side letter to the treaty formerly excluded competition cases from its provisions. As part of this Government's policy of improving international co-operation in the fight against international cartels, we have decided that this exclusion is no longer justified. We have therefore agreed with the US Administration that the side letter should be amended in order to bring such cases within the scope of the treaty; an exchange of Notes Verbals dated 30 April and 1 May brings this amendment into effect. The text of this exchange has been laid in the Library of the House.

      This action underlines the Government's commitment to improving co-operation in the competition area. In addition, any disclosure of competition-related information to the US will now be subject to the same safeguards as apply in other cases.

      Habitats and Birds Directives
      Mrs. Humble
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce regulations to apply the Habitats and Birds Directives to the UK Continental Shelf; and when he will be in a position to make licence awards in the Nineteenth Round of offshore petroleum licensing. [160586]

      Mr. Hain
      I have today laid Regulations which apply the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to offshore petroleum licensing, and activities carried out under those licences. The Regulations introduce, for the first time, a requirement that seismic surveys must be granted consent by the Secretary of State before they can take place. They also cover the granting of authorisations for pipelines and approval of decommissioning plans. They serve to emphasise the importance of marine habitat and species protection.
      69W
      The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations (No 2001/1754), which will come into force on 31 May, take account of a number of helpful comments received by my Department following a wide-ranging public consultation on earlier draft proposals.

      These Regulations mark a substantial improvement in the transparency of our environmental and licensing regimes. In particular, the Regulations require that the objectives of the Directives are met not just for habitats that are already identified as needing conservation or protection, but also those that the Government are likely to nominate in the future.

      I am also pleased to announce that the DTI has completed the assessment of the applications made in the Nineteenth Round of offshore petroleum licensing against financial, environmental and technical criteria. Environmental factors have been considered in the light of an independent comprehensive strategic environmental assessment of that part of the UK Continental Shelf between the Shetland and Faroes Islands that is the subject of the round (the 'White Zone'), and as though these Regulations were already in force and fully in accordance with the Habitats and Birds Directives. I intend to make licence awards to the following companies, once the Regulations come into force.

      Block/Operator

      Partners

      176/20

      Amerada Hess Ltd.

      BG International (NSW) Ltd.

      Dong Efterforskning OG Produktion

      176/25

      Phillips Petroleum Company UK Ltd.

      Statoil UK Ltd.

      Veba Oil & Gas UK Ltd.

      104/9 + 204/10

      Amerada Hess Ltd.

      Texaco North Sea UK Company

      Dong Efterforskning OG Produktion

      OMV (UK) Ltd.

      204/16

      Amerada

      BG International (NSW) Ltd.

      Dong Efterforskning OG Produktion

      204/17

      Texaco North Sea UK Company

      Conoco UK Ltd.

      EDC (Europe) Ltd.

      204/18

      BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd.

      Shell UK Ltd.

      204/21

      Amerada Hess Ltd.

      BG International (NSW) Ltd.

      Dong Efterforskning OG Produktion

      213/5 + 214/1

      Texaco North Sea UK Company

      Intrepid Energy North Sea Ltd.

      213/26 + 213/27

      Texaco North Sea UK Company

      As a result of the licence awards, at least seven exploration wells will be drilled in the White Zone—an area which has world class potential for significant petroleum discoveries. Developments here would provide a significant boost for jobs in Scotland and north-east England as well as boosting the UK economy generally.

      Research Spending
      Mr. Llwyd
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown of the regional distribution of(a) spending by the Research Councils and (b)Government research spending. [160457]
      70W
      Mr. Alan Johnson
      (a) Of the £1.449 billion spent by the Research Councils during 1999–2000, £1.271 billion (around 88 per cent.) was spent on research in the UK. The remainder was spent mainly on international subscriptions (7 per cent.) and central expenditure (5 per cent.).

      The expenditure in each of the home countries is given in the table.

      £million

      Percentage

      England

      1,098

      75.8

      Scotland

      141

      9.7

      Wales

      28

      1.9

      Northern Ireland

      5

      0.3

      Using Research Council expenditure in universities only, a distribution of spend in the English Government Office regions and the other home countries can be obtained as follows:

      Region

      £million

      Percentage

      East

      57.7

      10.5

      East Midlands

      28.6

      5.2

      London

      110.5

      20.1

      North East

      16.6

      3.0

      North West

      56.9

      10.4

      South East

      82.9

      15.1

      South West

      27.3

      5.0

      West Midlands

      32.2

      5.9

      Yorkshire and the Humber

      47.7

      8.7

      England total

      460.5

      83.8

      Scotland

      66.1

      12.0

      Wales

      18.2

      3.3

      Northern Ireland

      4.7

      0.9

      Grand total

      549.5

      100.0

      (b) The following figures for the intramural expenditure for Government Departments, excluding Research Councils, are calculated by the Office for National Statistics on a "pro rata" basis from the regional employment splits.

      £million

      Percentage

      East

      22.9

      3.1

      East Midlands

      4.4

      0.6

      London

      76.7

      10.4

      North East

      0.3

      0.04

      North West

      2.9

      0.4

      South East

      271.3

      36.7

      South West

      115.3

      15.6

      West Midlands

      110.2

      14.9

      Yorkshire and the Humber

      27.7

      3.8

      England total

      631.7

      85.8

      71W

      £million

      Percentage

      Scotland

      70.6

      9.6

      Wales

      20.6

      2.8

      Northern Ireland

      8.0

      1.1

      Grand total

      730.9

      100.0

      Research Spending

        Post Offices (VED)
        Mr. Salmond
        To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many VED licences were issued through post offices in each of the last five years. [160397]

        Mr. Alan Johnson
        I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of motor vehicle licences issued through post offices in each of the last five years for which verified figures are available was as follows:

        Year

        Million

        March 1996

        34

        March 1997

        35

        March 1998

        35

        March 1999

        36

        March 2000

        38

        Mr. Salmond
        To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals to allow all post office and sub-post office outlets to issue VED licences; and if he will make a statement. [160399]

        Mr. Alan Johnson
        We are giving active consideration to increasing the number of post offices and sub-post offices that can issue VED licences.

        Mr. Salmond
        To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post office outlets there are in Scotland; and how many of these are authorised to issue VED licences. [160398]

        Mr. Alan Johnson
        I understand from the Post Office that at the end of December 2000 there were 1,948 post offices operating in Scotland, of which 519 were authorised to issue motor vehicle licences.

        Textile and Apparel Manufacturing
        Mr. Nicholas Winterton
        To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what proportion of national industrial capacity is made up of textile and apparel manufacturing; [160253]

        (2) what recent representations he has received regarding the future of the United Kingdom textile manufacturing and apparel industry; and if he will make a statement; [160252]

        (3) what assessment he has made of the reasons for the declining capacity of the UK textile manufacturing and apparel industry; [160254]

        (4) what recent steps his Department has taken in the domestic and international markets to promote the interests of the UK textile manufacturing and apparel industry; [160351]

        (5) what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage expansion in the capacity of the UK textile manufacturing and apparel industry. [160255]
        72W
        Mr. Alan Johnson
        The Government are committed to retaining a viable textile and clothing industry and are keen to ensure that it remains as competitive as possible. With this aim in mind, my Department has worked closely with the industry-led Textile and Clothing Strategy Group (TCSG), which was established in 1999 in response to concerns from the industry about its future. We have extensive contact with the industry but it is through this forum that we receive the most comprehensive representation. The TCSG report, "A National Strategy for the UK Textile and Clothing Industry", was published on 6 June 2000, and includes a series of recommendations for action, directed both at Government and industry.

        My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities made an immediate and positive response to these recommendations at the launch of the Strategy with an initial 12 Point Plan for the Industry. This package of measures is designed to enable the industry to develop and to adapt to the challenges of the knowledge economy.

        The plan includes measures to support design talent, to promote and support the development and exploitation of technical textile materials as well as additional help to exporters. The extended support for exporters includes the temporary relaxation of the rules for trade fair support to enable more textiles and clothing companies to receive assistance at certain events. Trade Partners UK spent £2.8 million on SESA supported events for the financial year 2000–01 in the textiles and clothing sectors. This compares with £1.5 million in 1999–2000.

        The package also provides programmes to help retrain workers who might be affected by decisions that have been taken on closures. Details of the 12-point plan and its implementation and other support available can be found on http://www.dti.gov.uk/support/textile.htm

        The Government fully recognise that for a variety of reasons, including globalisation, new technology and restructuring, the textile industry in particular is under significant pressure. Government assistance in total to the textile and clothing industry since coming into office in May 1997 amounts to more than £75 million, including more than £40 million granted to textile and clothing companies by way of regional selective assistance (RSA). This RSA support has been spread across a large number of companies and has led to investment by the companies concerned of a further £250 million, safeguarding or creating 10,000 jobs in the sector.

        The DTI's Consumer Goods and Services Directorate is also currently helping to fund around 30 projects aimed at supporting innovation and boosting competitiveness, and these will also encourage growth in the sector and contribute to safeguarding employment.

        Value added of the UK textile and clothing industry represented 4.3 per cent. of manufacturing Gross Value Added (0.8 per cent. of total Gross Value Added) in 1999, the latest whole year for which data are available.
        73W
        Note:

        Comprises Standard Industrial Classification Subsection DB—Manufacture of textiles and wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur.

        Source:

        Office for National Statistics—derived from United Kingdom National Accounts 2000 ("The Blue Book", Table 2.3

        Helplines
        Mr. Levitt
        To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its agencies. [159502]

        Dr. Howells
        [pursuant to the reply, 2 May 2001, c. 686–87W]: The Chief Executives of the Insolvency Service and the Patent Office have now replied.

        Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Tom Levitt, dated 8 May 2001:
        The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about telephone helplines administered by The Insolvency Service Executive Agency.
        While The Service cannot give advice on specific insolvency problems, it operates the following telephone helplines;
        The Insolvency Service Central Enquiry Line for general enquiries on insolvency procedures. The telephone number is 020 7291 6895 and is manned between 9 am and 5 pm. General enquiries can also be e-mailed to the Central Enquiry Line at Central.Enquiryline@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk
        The Service publishes a range of information leaflets. All its publications appear in full on its website at www.insolvency.gov.uk; and can be downloaded or ordered in hard copy from the site or by e-mailing Records.management@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk or from The Insolvency Service Publications Order Line on 0121 698 4241: the order line is manned between 9 am and 5 pm with an answer machine outside those hours on which an order can be left.
        The disqualified directors 'hotline' answer machine is open 24 hours a day on 0845 601 3546 for members of the public to provide information about disqualified directors and bankrupts who may be contravening the law. The hotline questionnaire can also be completed and submitted online via the website.
        Telephone numbers and e-mail addresses are advertised in The Service's publications and on its website. If a member of the public requires more information or has a query about a particular service or case he/she can contact the relevant Official Receiver Office or Headquarters Section direct: the postal and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers are given on The Service's website at www.insolvency.gov.uk or are available from the Central Enquiry Line.

        Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Tom Levitt, dated 8 May 2001:
        I am replying to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 26 April 2001 which asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its Agencies.
        The Patent Office, an Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, operates a Central Enquiry Unit (CEU) to deal with a wide range of intellectual property (IP) enquiries made by telephone, Email, letter and in person. The CEU operators provide advice on general IP issues; detailed advice on particular scenarios; and, handle requests for our entire range of advisory publications.

        The telephone helpline can be reached via a single "lo-call rate" number (0845 9 500 505). A "lo-call rate" Minicom service is also available (0845 9 222250). These numbers are advertised on our publications and are also signposted on our website (www.patent.gov.uk) and the intellectual property Portal (www.intellectual-property.gov.uk).

      HOME DEPARTMENT

        Passport Service
        Mr. Hope
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the United Kingdom Passport Service will publish its Corporate and Business Plan. [160123]

        Mr. Straw
        The United Kingdom Passport Service Corporate and Business Plan for 2001–06 will be published today and a copy of the plan will be placed in the Library.

        HM Chief Inspector of Probation
        Maria Eagle
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed as the next HM Chief Inspector of Probation; and if he will make a statement. [160597]

        Mr. Straw
        Recruitment for the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation has been run under Commissioner for Public Appointments guidelines following advertisements in the national press. The choice of candidates has been guided by an advisory panel including two independent assessors. As we announced on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 357W, these were Baroness Stern, former Director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and now Senior Research Fellow at the International Centre for Prison Studies, and Lord Laming, former Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate.

        From the candidates selected by the advisory panel, I have decided to appoint Professor Rodney Morgan as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation. Professor Morgan is Director of the Centre of Criminology, Criminal Justice Faculty of Law at Bristol University and a member of the Parole Board.

        I am delighted that Professor Morgan has accepted this appointment, which will take effect from 1 August 2001. Through their expertise and rigour of approach the probation inspectorate has provided a major contribution to building a National Probation Service capable of providing the highest standards of service. I am confident that Professor Morgan will continue that tradition.

        Senator Pinochet
        Ms Perham
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to public funds was of the extradition case of Senator Pinochet. [160723]

        Mr. Straw
        Four countries (Spain, France, Belgium and Switzerland) sought Senator Pinochet's extradition under the European Convention on Extradition. The final and total cost to public funds of handling these requests was £3,857,108.58. The breakdown of this is as follows:

        Costs Incurred by the Home Office: £670,588.82

        Treasury Solicitor's fees: £63,150.0001

        Disbursements (mainly Counsel's fees): £292,385.931

        Costs of the Kingdom of Belgium and Amnesty International: £155,081.68

        Costs of Medical Examination on 5 January 2000: £11,751.25
        Responding to public correspondence (this covers staff costs where letters were handled in house and Central Office of Information fees where letters were contracted out): £10,941.05 75W
        Staff Costs (estimated): £165,778.91

        1Of these two amounts £28,500.00 was recovered from Senator Pinochet under costs orders made against Senator Pinochet by the High Court.

        Costs Incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service: £676,691.00

        Counsel's fees: £425,077.00

        Staff Costs (estimated): £137,055.00

        Other Costs (interpreters, travel and subsistence and photocopying): £114,559.00

        Costs Incurred by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers: £60,000.00

        Staff Costs (estimated): £60,000.00

        Costs Incurred by the Lord Chancellor's Department: £1,209,775.05
        The Law Lords ordered that Senator Pincohet's costs should be met from Central Funds for the first two hearings before the House of Lords in the unusual circumstances of the case. The costs paid from Central Funds were as follows:for the first hearing in the House of Lords: £270,935.89; and for the application to set aside the judgment following the first hearing in the House of Lords: £151,361.30 The costs of those Divisional court hearings in which Senator Pinochet was successful or which did not proceed, and the costs of the committal proceedings in Bow Street Magistrates court from 27 September to 1 October 1999, were also order to be paid from Central Funds. The costs of these hearings were £787,477.86.All these costs were ordered to be paid under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and they fall to he paid out of the Lord Chancellor's Department's portion of central funds.Senator Pinochet received no legal aid funding in any of the proceedings against him.
        Treasury Solicitor's Fees: £100,053.76

        Amicus Curiae (costs and disbursements including Counsel's fees): £71,029.00

        Other costs and disbursements: £29,024.76

        Security Costs: £1,200,000.00
        Responsibility for Senator Pinochet's protection and detention were the responsibility of the Metropolitan police. For security reasons, it has long been the practice of successive Governments not to provide information about police operations relating to protection.The costs incurred by Surrey police relating to general policing and public order matters in relation to Senator Pinochet's residence in Wentworth were £1,200,000.00.All these figures include Value Added Tax where appropriate.

        Criminal Records Bureau
        Mr. Hepburn
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau will publish its Corporate and Business Plan. [160689]

        Mr. Straw
        The Criminal Records Bureau Corporate and Business Plan has been published today and a copy of the plan has been placed in the Library.

        Prison Service
        Mr. Hepburn
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the use of the private sector in the Prison Service. [160691]

        Mr. Straw
        I have asked Pat Carter, a non-executive member of the Strategy Board for Correctional Services, to carry out a review on the future role of the private sector in the prison system.

        I will publish his review and the Government's response to it in due course.

        European Refugee Fund
        Mr. Hepburn
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations which successfully bid for 20OO and 2001 reception and integration funding under the European Refugee Fund. [160687]

        Mr. Mike O'Brien
        The successful bidders are:

        Reception

        Agroforep

        Provides skills training to 15 people, supporting 10 children with homework, 20 children/youth in language of country of origin, and providing education and health advice to a minimum of 50 refugees.

        Day-Mer Turkish and Kurdish Day Centre

        Provides a range of information technology (IT) resources for an estimated 205 Turkish and Kurdish refugees, including an after school club of 8 to 16-year-olds.

        Derby City Council

        Provides advice work, policy development and individual/group work to build community capacity initiatives for the reception of approximately 520 asylum seekers.

        Housing Association Charitable Trust (HACT)

        Aims to support 38 refugee community organisations in delivering housing and related services to in excess of 6,780 clients.

        Leicester City Council

        Provides a casework service for 900 refugees in order that they are able to access housing, education, employment and health services.

        Refugee Council

        Assists clients with particularly complex needs; also unaccompanied minors.

        Save the Children (Heathrow)

        Provides child-friendly facilities at Heathrow Airport for 192 unaccompanied minors, and recruits, trains and manages a dedicated adviser to work with them.

        Somali Advisory Bureau

        Assists long-term unemployed Somali refugees and their families by providing counselling, advocacy and advice on employment. training and welfare issues.

        Society of Voluntary Associates (SOVA)

        Provides health, accommodation and immigration advice to unaccompanied minors and also provides for the recruitment and training of volunteers.

        Tamil Relief Centre (TRC)

        Provides support and guidance to bridge cultural and language barriers of children, and also English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and basic skill classes for adult refugees. They will also access accommodation, health and welfare advice through existing TRC benefits. Sixty people will benefit from this project.

        Integration

        Anyadwe Families Association

        Provides extra educational support to 250 children of refugees and asylum seekers.

        Asphaleia Project

        Provides 10 unaccompanied minors with English language support, cultural guidance and work experience in order to better equip them for employment.

        Bolton Ethnic Minority Achievement Service

        Provides a co-ordinated multi-agency approach to ease the induction of 230 asylum seekers and refugees into Bolton by way of awareness and skill development according to need.
        77W
        Bournemouth Churches Housing Association

        A rent deposit loan scheme, to enable 230 properties to be accessed by refugees/those granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR).

        Child Psychotherapy Trust

        Provides a therapy service to 20 refugee children and support to their families.

        Civic Trust

        Produces a handbook on good practice for mental health professionals and refugee community organisations in delivering culturally appropriate mental health service to refugees.

        East Lancashire Asylum and Refugee Support

        Provides for the training and managing of 20 volunteers to provide a one-stop service for those granted refugee status/ELR.

        East London Somali Association

        Provides an advocacy/outreach service to enable between 3,000 and 4,000 Somali nationals annually to access services such as education, health and welfare support.

        Ethnic Minority Achievement Team, Lambeth

        Provides an induction programme to deliver key skills in literacy, numeracy and IT to 30 students in the 14–16 age category, and also funds two refugee support teachers and two bilingual assistants to deliver the programme.

        Employability Forum

        Addresses the needs of refugees with professional qualifications and experience who seek employment in the United Kingdom.

        Ethiopian Association in Haringey

        Provides ESOL and IT training to in excess of 100 Ethiopian refugees.

        Glasgow North Ltd.

        Assists in widening employment opportunities for 300 refugees.

        Glasgow Young Men's Christian Association

        Provides accommodation after National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support ends; arranges, where appropriate, English training and cultural life skills.

        Hackney and Islington Refugee Training Partnership

        Provides customised vocational training in ESOL for 144 refugees, job-search and careers advice for 250 refugees and general advice and advocacy for 500 refugees.

        Hammersmith and Fulham Community Law Centre

        Establishes a local Refugee Forum, providing 30 annual projects in areas such as employment, health, education, training and benefits advice, to hundreds of refugees.

        London Action Trust

        Aims to improve access to benefits, education, training, employment and overall support to refugees who have offended and are on probation within the Probation Service.

        Middle East Christian Minorities Advice Centre

        Provides information and advice to between 400 and 500 refugees in areas such as eduction, training, employment, health, social and cultural needs. The project also offers help in domestic violence situations and advises on how women can access the police, legal advice and social workers/welfare officers.

        North East Consortium for Asylum Support Services (NECASS)

        Assists, supports and enables refugees towards long-term settlement in the north east via the use of Innovative Inter Co-ordination Team (ICT).

        Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM)

        Provides ESOL training to unemployed refugees, and fast track IT training to highly skilled refugees. There will be an estimated 300 participants.

        Nottingham City Council Housing

        Improves access to benefits, accommodation, training and employment, in order to encourage resettlement locally, for approximately 400 refugees.
        78W
        PECAN Ltd.

        Provides ESOL training to unemployed refugees in general and fast-track IT training for highly skilled refugees in particular. An estimated 300 participants.

        Portsmouth City Council

        Provides mental health support for between 250 and 350 refugees and asylum seekers in a community based day-care facility.

        Refugee Council

        Promotes better access to key services—health, education, employment, benefits, housing for at least 15,500 refugees in the regions.

        Refugees into Jobs

        Provides a grant scheme for 100 refugees covering child care, travel costs, materials and books, employment or work placement materials, tuition and examination fees, business start-up costs.

        Refugee Women's Association

        Creates a network of mental health and social care support services to enable 1,200 refugee women to integrate into United Kingdom society.

        Save the Children (Scotland)

        Develops educational initiatives to promote the integration of 160 school-aged refugees/asylum seekers, 80 per cent. of whom have refugee status.

        Slough Borough Council

        Provides for two outreach workers to help refugees or those with ELR to integrate into host community. Encouraging self-reliance, concentrating on skills assessment and employment opportunities.

        Somali Cultural Centre

        Consolidates and expands the advice service, ensures appropriate service provision.

        TLC College

        Provides an employment and settlement project to increase the access of 500–600 refugees to education, training and employment.

        Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

        Provides staff and services in the areas of employment, accommodation and education.

        Waltham Forest Youth Service

        Provides a youth project for groups of 150 unaccompanied minors and young refugees to meet each other and break down cultural barriers.

        Arson Control Forum
        Mr. Hepburn
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Arson Control Forum new projects bidding exercise. [160690]

        Mr. Mike O'Brien
        I am very pleased to announce today the award of £1 million of grants by the Arson Control Forum to fire brigades in England and Wales for arson reduction initiatives.

        The Arson Control Forum was established last year with the aim of reducing the incidence of deliberate fires by 30 per cent. of the 1998–99 baseline by 31 March 2009; the desired outcome is to cut maliciously set fires from the current figure of 77,900 to 54,500 during this period. To achieve this aim, the Forum has been allocated a budget of £3.5 million over the three year period from April 2001. Some of this money will be used to fund research into the causes and prevention of arson, but most will be used to fund local fire brigade anti-arson initiatives. The size of the budget available to fund local projects this year is £1 million.
        79W
        The Chair of the Forum, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services, Graham Meldrum, wrote to all Chief Fire Officers inviting bids to be submitted to the Home Office by 31 March 2001. By the closing date for the exercise, we had received a total of 44 bids from 40 brigades, totalling £1,609,320.

        The bids were evaluated in accordance with Home Office procurement guidelines. All bids were carefully considered and we have agreed to wholly or part fund 25 of the 44 received, amounting to £996,664. Those bids that were successful met the following criteria:

        They had to show they had a good understanding of the scale of the arson problem in their area;

        They had to propose a solution which was geared to addressing the problem they had described;

        They had to say how the project would be managed;

        They had to say how they would measure success; and

        They had to show how the project would provide value for money.

        Projects supported by the Arson Control Forum

        Brigade

        £000

        Description of project

        Avon

        40,000

        Vehicle arson reduction scheme

        Bucks

        8,000

        Vehicle arson reduction scheme

        Cheshire

        40,000

        Support to police involvement in arson reduction

        Cornwall/Devon

        58,000

        Arson Task Force

        Cumbria

        36,000

        Arson audit scheme

        Derbyshire

        34,000

        Arson Reduction Co-ordinator

        Dorset

        62,000

        Vehicle arson reduction scheme

        East Sussex

        10,000

        Young offenders project

        Hampshire

        30,000

        Collaborative data sharing project

        Kent

        80,000

        Vehicle arson reduction scheme

        Lancashire

        50,000

        Arson Task Force

        Leicestershire

        38,000

        Arson Task Force

        Lincolnshire

        20,000

        Provision of IT system to support arson reduction

        London

        59,000

        Arson Task Force

        Luton and Beds

        60,000

        Arson Task Force

        Merseyside

        35,000

        Arson counselling scheme

        Mid and West Wales

        108,000

        Arson Task Force

        North Yorks

        30,000

        Arson Task Force

        Northumberland

        21,000

        Arson Reduction Co-ordinator

        Shropshire

        50,000

        Arson Task Force

        Suffolk

        1,000

        Provision of IT system to support arson reduction

        Tyne and Wear

        60,000

        Arson Task Force

        West Midlands

        15,000

        Hydrocarbon detector dog

        West Yorks

        38,000

        Schools arson audit

        Wilshire

        13,000

        Rural arson awareness scheme

        Total

        996,000

        Coroners (Review)
        Mr. Goggins
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will appoint the chairman for the fundamental review of the coroner system. [160780]

        Mr. Boateng
        I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

        Asylum Seekers
        Mr. Mitchell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and refugees have been allocated for dispersal to(a) the Grimsby cluster, (b) North Lincolnshire, (c) Lincolnshire and (d) East Riding; and on what basis the numbers going to each was decided. [158916]
        80W
        The projects we will be supporting range from those that have been successful elsewhere, such as the establishment of an arson task force comprising the fire, police and social services. Other projects are concentrating upon particular issues, such as arson in schools, vehicle arson or the development of community based solutions. The focus of all these projects has been partnership, either with the police, social services, the local authorities, schools and a range of others.

        There has also been a wide geographical spread. There are projects from Wales to Kent, and from the South West and the Midlands to the North West and East of England. The projects also range widely in terms of their target areas, from the inner-cities to rural areas, where the arson problem is often greater than people realise.

        The following projects have been supported.

        Mrs. Roche
        As at the end of April 2001, 201 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated accommodation in Grimsby by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). No asylum seekers were allocated NASS accommodation in north Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire or East Riding.

        There are a number of factors that decide allocation including availability of accommodation, the individual merits of the case and local circumstances.
        1Figure rounded to the nearest 10
        Mr. Coleman
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications(a) are awaiting a decision by his Department and (b) have been appealed against a refusal of asylum on non-compliance

        81W
        grounds, which were made by nationals of (a) Somalia, (b) Sierra Leone, (c) Afghanistan, (d) Iraq, (e) Sri Lanka and (f) Congo. [159579]

        Mrs. Roche
        Information on the total number of applications awaiting an initial decision is published monthly on the web page:

        http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

        The latest information on the number of applications outstanding at the end of 1999 by nationality is published in table 4.2 of the Asylum Bulletin.

        Information on the number of appeals against refusals on non-compliance grounds is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of the individual case files.

        Mr. Mitchell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been dispersed under the voluntary scheme from(a) North East Lincolnshire, (b) North Lincolnshire, (c) Lincolnshire, (d) North Yorkshire and (e) Cumbria. [159734]

        Mrs. Roche
        The information requested is not available. Statistics are not held centrally on the location of asylum seekers dispersed by local authorities under the voluntary dispersal scheme, as this scheme was the responsibility of local government.

      Crime (North-west)
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) robberies and (b) violent crimes in the north-west there were in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160081]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The table shows robbery and violent crime recorded crime statistics in the north-west, (the police force areas of Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside) for the calendar year 1997, subsequent fiscal years and the year ending September 2000.

      Recorded crime for North West Government Office Region

      Robbery

      Violent crime

      1997

      9,702

      46,224

      1997–98

      10,116

      50,503

      1998–99

      11,614

      87,039

      1999–2000

      12,911

      93,029

      1999–20001

      13,795

      92,804

      1Year ending September

      Note:

      It should be noted that, owing to the change in the Home Office's rule counting and classifying crime on 1 April 1998, figures for recorded crime before and after that date are not directly comparable.

      Haase Case
      Mr. Kilfoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the Haase case; and if he will review the criteria for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. [160375]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to remit a prison sentence is a very rare occurrence and it is used only in exceptional circumstances. Partially as a result of its use in the case 82W
      of John Haase, I commissioned a review of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. This was completed recently and I am carefully considering the findings and recommendations of the review report.

      Detective Sergeant Peter Williams
      Mr. Kilfoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a review of the case of former Detective Sergeant Peter Williams, of the south-east regional crime squad. [160374]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that former Detective Sergeant Peter Williams, of the south-east regional crime squad, was dismissed from the Metropolitan Police service on 15 September 1999, having been found guilty of a number of disciplinary offences.

      The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Williams was under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985. Under these regulations, a police officer found guilty of disciplinary offences has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Mr. Williams has not chosen to appeal against the offences for which he has been found guilty.

      The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that there is no intention to review the case of former Detective Sergeant Peter Williams.

      Circuit Judges
      Mr. Denzil Davies
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the reduction in the total number of circuit judges which will result from the anticipated reduction of cases held at Crown court following the implementation of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. [160404]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      Any savings in Crown court resources, which would result from the proposals in the Bill, would be dedicated to cases which genuinely need to be tried in the Crown court. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor therefore has no plans to reduce the number of circuit judges.

      Illegal Entrants
      Mr. Howard
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal entrants to the United Kingdom were apprehended at the Eurotunnel terminal at Cheriton(a) in March, (b) in April and (c) since 1 January. [159681]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 30 April 2001]: In March this year 528 stowaways were apprehended at Cheriton, having gained unauthorised access to the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles and then boarding the company's freight shuttles. Up to midnight on 25 April, 508 stowaways were apprehended. From 1 January to midnight on 25 April, the figure is 1,703.

      Eurotunnel, who are responsible for security of the terminal and the trains at Coquelles, have commenced construction of an inner cordon of fencing around the platform and allocation areas where lorries wait to board the shuttles. This is scheduled to be completed by 31 May, however, the Immigration Service have asked for this to be accelerated.

      Entry Clearance
      Ms Oona King
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the numbers who would benefit from the introduction of a concession to all those children who were wrongly refused entry clearance to join their families in the United Kingdom as a result of the ECO deciding that they were not related as claimed; and if he will explain how this figure has been arrived at. [159833]

      Mrs. Roche
      There is no reliable way of estimating the numbers who have been refused entry clearance on the basis that they were not related as claimed and where subsequent information proves that relationship. Neither can we reliably estimate the numbers who would benefit from the introduction of a concession to allow entry clearance in such cases.

      What we do know is that, in those cases where applicants were refused entry clearance on the basis that they were not related to the sponsor, the decisions of entry clearance officers were taken in good faith on the best evidence available at the time. We also know that, if such a concession were introduced, the pool of potential reapplicants, refused entry clearance over many years, would be very large.

      Family Visitor Appeals
      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net income has been from fees for family visitor appeals since 1 April; and how much of this net income relates to appeals which are still outstanding. [160464]

      Mrs. Roche
      The figures are not available in the form the hon. Member seeks, because of the number of appeals outstanding from the end of the last period. We calculate that the net income from fees for family visitor appeals in the period 2 October to 3 May 2001 is about £65,000. Of this, 48 per cent. relates to appeals which are currently outstanding and which may result in further refunds.

      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total net income was from fees for family visitor appeals between 2 October 2000 and 31 March; and how much of that net income relates to appeals which are still outstanding. [160465]

      Mrs. Roche
      We calculate that the net income from fees for family visitor appeals in the period 2 October to 31 March 2001 is about £60,000. Of this, 48 per cent. relates to appeals which were outstanding on 31 March and which may result in further refunds.

      Immigration
      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations giving immigration advice for profit are registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner; and how many such organisations are in the process of registering with the OISC. [160466]
      84W
      Mrs. Roche
      I understand that as of 4 May 2001, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) had received 89 registration applications from individuals providing immigration advice for profit and 49 such applications from organisations comprising two or more practitioners. Of these applications, 31 individuals and 16 organisations are now registered with the OISC; the remaining applications are under consideration.

      Youth Offending Teams
      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 255W, when he intends to publish the inspection reports of the (a) Bournemouth and Poole and (b) Caernarfon youth offending teams; when inspection will commence on the other youth offending teams in the pilot; and if he will make a statement. [160458]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      Two youth offending team inspections have been carried out by multi-disciplinary inspection teams who are considering their reports. They cover Bournemouth and Poole and Carmarthen, to which I assume the hon. Member is referring. The Carmarthen report will be published by the National Assembly for Wales in the summer. Publication arrangements are being made for the Bournemouth and Poole report, but the timing has yet to be decided. Decisions on which further areas to cover will be taken once the Youth Justice Board has completed its consideration of the future conduct of inspection and its own range of independent evaluation and monitoring of youth offending teams.

      Chief Probation Officer for London
      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants have transferred to the office of the Chief Probation Officer for London; what their functions are; what the total cost to the Probation Service is; and if he will make a statement. [160473]

      Mr. Boateng
      This is a matter for the Board and the Chief Officer of the London Probation Area who arranged for the secondment of two Home Office civil servants to assist the Area through a period of considerable change. Their role and cost to the London Probation Area are matters for the Board and Chief Officer.

      Parliamentary Questions
      Mr. Kaufman
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of answering parliamentary question (Ref 159969) from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). [160501]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      Answering this parliamentary question is estimated to have cost the Home Office less than £25. Exact records of the time taken were not kept.

      Stop and Search
      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stops and searches were conducted(a) in total and (b) per 1,000 population, and

      85W
      what percentage resulted in an arrest, in each police force area in England and Wales in 2000–01 broken down by ethnic origin of those stopped and searched. [160459]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      Such information for 2000–01 is not yet available centrally. The latest information available on the ethnic appearance of persons stopped and searched relates to 1999–2000 and was published by the Home Office in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System", a copy of which is in the Library.

      Departmental Policies (Vale of Clwyd)
      Mr. Ruane
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information, the effects of his Department's policies and actions in relation to animal welfare since 2 May 1997, for the Vale of Clwyd. [160615]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      The Home Office has put in place a number of measures affecting animal welfare throughout Great Britain since 1997. I do not have separate information on the Vale of Clwyd, but I am able to provide details of what the Home Office has achieved at a national level since 1997.

      We are continuing to work to ensure that the highest possible standards of welfare are applied to animals used in scientific procedures and that they are used only where it is fully justified—where the benefits outweigh the costs and where there are no suitable alternatives. To this end, we are promoting the fullest application of the 3Rs—the replacement of procedures with others which do not use animals, the reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of procedures to minimise pain and suffering.

      In addition to our commitment to the 3Rs, the other main individual measures this Government have introduced since the election to ensure that animals are used only where fully justified are as follows. We have:
      secured a voluntary ban on testing cosmetic finished products on animals;
      increased the budget made available to the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research on alternatives by 45 per cent. to £265,000 for 2000–01;
      banned the use of animals to test alcohol and tobacco products;
      increased the size of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate from 18 to 21, and recruited seven new inspectors to fill these and other vacancies and recently announced plans to further increase numbers to 33 over the next three years;
      introduced a requirement that all establishments licensed under the 1986 Act have local ethical review processes as a complement to the existing controls under the Act. We are now reviewing those processes to ensure dissemination of best practice;
      announced our intention never to allow the use of Great Apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and orang-utans);
      announced that licenses for monoclonal antibody production by the ascites method will not be granted other than in exceptional circumstances; and
      ended the licensing of the LD50 test and of tests for skin corrosivity and phototoxic potential where valid alternatives exist.

      The number of scientific procedures in Great Britain in 1999 was nearly 2.66 million—very slightly down on 1998. The number of animals used was 2.57 million, about 24,000 fewer than in 1998. With the exception of 1997 this is the lowest number since 1955.
      86W
      The overall reduction in the use of animals reflects the Government's commitment to applying the principles of the 3Rs to all animal testing in the United Kingdom. However, it is very difficult to project the number of animals to be used in future years. Numbers depend on the type of project licence applications that will be made and progress on current project licences, as well as global trends in scientific endeavour.

      Other support given to animal welfare includes:
      backing a private Member's Bill which became the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, a measure aimed at tightening regulation of commercial dog breeding establishments, and issue to local authorities of related detailed guidance;
      preparation, with the Association of Circus Proprietors, of a code of practice on the care and welfare of animals in travelling circuses; and
      making an Order that allows for an indefinite prohibition of the culling of seals on the east coast of England, which has assisted in the recovery of common seals to pre-1988 numbers when a virus decimated their population—by 1999 their number had risen to 3,600 just 400 down on 1988 numbers.

      Detention Centres
      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in which financial year he expects the Oakington Reception Centre first to deliver savings in asylum support costs; [159401]

      (2) in which financial year the Oakington Reception Centre will deliver the annual saving in asylum support costs referred to on page 65 of his Department's Annual report. [159399]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The potential savings identified in the annual report were based on operating at full capacity for a full financial year. Oakington has been capable of operating at full capacity since 28 January 2001. We expect some savings in support costs to have resulted from the first year of operation.

      Special Secure Units
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are detained in each special secure unit, indicating(a) the crimes for which each prisoner was convicted, (b) the national origin and citizenship of the prisoner, (c) the ethnic group of the prisoners, (d) the aggregate length of time the prisoner was in SSU accommodation, (e) the month and year in which the prisoner's last two formal three-monthly medical reviews took place and (f) the representations he has received following observations made by medical examiners. [159553]

      Mr. Boateng
      On 30 April 2001, eight prisoners were being held in special secure units (SSUs), six at Whitemoor prison and two at Belmarsh prison. Only prisoners categorised as category A exceptional escape risk are held in SSUs. We are not aware of any representations being submitted following observations made by medical examiners. The table gives the other information requested.
      87W

      Offence

      Origin

      Ethnic Group

      Aggregate time spent in SSU

      Dates of last two 3-monthly medical reviews

      Conspiracy to supply drugs

      British

      Asian

      22 months

      September 2000-January 2001

      Supply drugs

      Turkish

      Asian

      20 months

      September 2000-January 2001

      Importation of drugs

      Colombian

      White

      46 months

      September 2000-January 2001

      Importation of drugs

      Turkish

      White

      13 months

      September 2000-January 2001

      Attempted murder

      British

      Black

      9 months

      September 2000-January 2001

      Supplying drugs

      British

      White

      7 months

      September 2000-January 2001

      Supplying drugs

      British

      White

      9 months

      December 2000-April 2001

      Murder

      British

      White

      11 months

      January 2001-April 2001

      Animal Welfare
      Mr. Goggins
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the code of practice for the care and welfare of circus animals on tour. [160782]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      The code of practice for the care and welfare of circus animals has now been written by the Association of Circus Proprietors and it will be distributed to local authorities soon. It is not a Home Office document, contrary to a press report.

      Mr. Goggins
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give better protection to animals; and if he will make a statement. [160781]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

      Sex Offenders Act
      Mr. Hepburn
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report of the review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. [160692]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

      Emergency Planning Legislation
      Ms Perham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the emergency planning legislation; and if he will make a statement. [160724]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 100W.

      I will make a further announcement as soon as possible.

      Plastic Baton Rounds
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, what the average kinetic energy on impact is at (a) one metre, (b) five metres, (c) 10 metres, (d) 20 metres, (e) 30 metres, (f) 50 metres, (g) 75 metres and (h) 100 metres of the (i) L5A7 baton round and (ii) L21A1 baton round fired from the L104 anti-riot gun; and what his assessment is of the probability of lethality following impact to the (A) head, (B) thorax and (C) abdomen for each of these KE measures. [158040]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.
      88W
      The table shows the average (mean) kinetic energy in Joules (J) of the L21A1 baton round from a clamped L104 gun, and for the L5A7 baton round.

      Range

      Kinetic energy of L21A1

      Kinetic energy of L5A7

      2 m

      257J

      274J

      20 m

      244J

      246J

      35 m

      230J

      216J

      50 m

      215J

      200J

      There are no experimental data for kinetic energy at 1 m, 5 m, 10 m, 75 m, or 100 m; kinetic energy at these ranges could be estimated from the table.

      The probability of impacts to the head and upper thorax by the L21A1 will be significantly less than the incidence of impact to these areas by the L5A7. This is due to the improved accuracy and consistency achieved by the L21A1 weapon system. The probability of lethality to the head, thorax and abdomen, given an impact to these regions, cannot be calculated accurately. The assessment of the injury potential of the L21A1 batons round was undertaken as a comparative study between the two projectiles using computer and physical models of the biomechanical response of these regions, and the severity of specific injuries. The conclusions of the studies are described in the DSAC report placed in the Library of the House.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, if he will list the companies involved in the manufacture of the (a) L21A1 plastic baton round, (b) L104 anti-riot gun and (c) XL18E3; where each company is based; and what the cost of Government contracts was with each of these companies in each of the past 10 years. [158039]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.

      I am withholding this information in accordance with exemptions 1 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, what assessment he has made of the consequences of ricochet of an L21A1 plastic baton round (a) under, (b) within and (c) beyond the normal operating range. [158046]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.

      The normal operational range of the L21A1 baton round is 20–40 m. The L21A1 baton round is more accurate than the L5A7 baton round, particularly at longer

      89W
      range, and the incidence of baton rounds missing the target and subsequently ricocheting behind the target will be significantly reduced.

      The new optical gun-sight is set to direct the L21A1 baton towards the lower part of the body, away from the potentially vulnerable areas of the upper thorax and head. At the furthest normal operating ranges, a small proportion of the L21A1 batons may strike the ground just before they hit the lower part of the body. The guidance to firers allows for compensatory action (ie to aim off) at these distances to reduce the risk of ricochet. In the event that a ricochet were still to occur, we would expect baton rounds to ricochet below the vulnerable areas of the head and upper thorax.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, what the cost was of each of the four DSAC studies. [158044]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.

      L21A1

      L5A7

      Mass

      96.8–99.2g

      132–135g

      Minimum and maximum velocity (at 2 m)

      69–76 m/s

      55–70 m/s

      Mean velocity range (at 2 m)

      70–74 m/s

      60.5–65.0 m/s

      Shape

      37 mm calibre with a 9 mm nose edge radius and a boat-tail on the base

      37 mm calibre with a 3 mm nose and base edge radius

      Aerodynamic properties (estimated drag coefficient, Cd)

      0.24

      0.64

      Composition

      Polyurethane polymer

      Polyurethane polymer with an additive to increase density

      Hardness (oIRHD)

      92–95

      85–90

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W on baton rounds, if he will place in the Library (a) the outline plan of the technical assessment drawn up by DERA, Porton Down and endorsed by the DSAC, (b) the results of firing trials and impact modelling used to compare the performance of the L5A7 and L21A1 baton rounds and (c) studies conducted on post ricochet trajectories and energy of L21A2 baton rounds, indicating what the probability of impact to the (i) upper torso and (ii) head is, and what the cause of inaccuracy in the L21A1 delivery system was at the 40 metre range. [158538]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.

      As my hon. Friend will be aware, a copy of an independent medical assessment of the new baton round was placed in the Library on 2 April. The key conclusions of the documents requested can be found in this report. I am withholding the documents themselves in accordance with exemptions 2 and 11 of the code of practice on access to Government information which relate respectively to internal discussion and advice and to incomplete analysis. The problem of inaccuracy at 40m was discovered during tests and addressed by a change to the gun zeroing policy.
      90W
      The Defence Scientific Advisory Council sub-committee members engaged on the independent medical assessment placed in the Library of the House on 2 April and on the three preceding statements mentioned in the assessment, incurred the following costs, made up of fees and travelling expenses:

      (a) Statement dated 18 October 1999—£3,552

      (b) Statement dated 18 January 2000—£3,308

      (c) Statement dated 18 April 2000—£1,394

      (d) Statement dated 21 August 2000—£1,223

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, what the (a) mass, (b) velocity, (c) shape, (d) aerodynamic properties, (e) composition and (f) stiffness is of the (i) L21A1 and (ii) L5A7; and if he will make a statement. [158038]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.

      The data in the table for the mass, velocity and hardness are taken from the respective schedule of proof for the two batons.

      Defence Scientific Advisory Council
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, if he will list the (a) individuals that sit on the Defence Scientific Advisory Council, (b) qualifications and employment profile of each member, (c) remuneration paid to each member and (d) terms of reference of the Council. [158041]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply.

      The Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) is an advisory body offering independent advice to Ministers and senior officials. Currently it has over 170 members drawn from industry and academia. It reports annually to the Secretary of State. It also sets up working parties comprising some of its members, to draw up advisory reports, or assessments, on particular scientific topics from time to time. One such assessment was referred to in the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 2 April 2001, Official Report, column 68W. I am withholding details of individuals undertaking this work in accordance with Exemptions 2 and 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

      Current remuneration of DSAC members is according to the table.
      91W

      £ per day

      DSAC Chairman

      315

      Sub-committee Chairman

      265

      Members

      210

      DSAC members are also paid travel and subsistence. The terms of reference of the DSAC are as follows:

      a. To review the scientific and technological aspects1 of research and development programmes being undertaken in, and on behalf of, the MOD to meet the needs of the armed forces cost effectively.

      b. To advise on the most effective uses of scientific resources within the defence research programme.

      c. To advise on changes to the scope and balance of the defence research programme in MOD.

      d. To advise on the quality and value for money of research carried out for the MOD.

      e. To advise on scientific and technological developments from outside the MOD, including emerging new threats and opportunities for beneficial international collaboration.

      f. To advise on problems referred to it.

      1Includes medical science and technology.

      In performing these tasks it will take account of relevant advances in the civil field including opportunities for technology transfer in both directions between MoD and the civil sector.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, if he will place in the Library (a) the three unpublished statements of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and (b) the Ministry of Defence and ACPO terms of reference of each. [158043]

      Mr. Spellar
      I have been asked to reply. I am withholding the information requested in accordance with exemptions 2 and 11 of the code of practice on access to Government information which relate respectively to internal discussion and advice and to incomplete analysis. The key conclusions of the statements requested can be found in the report of the DSAC sub-committee placed in the Library on 2 April.

      Benefit Fraud
      Mr. Willetts
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were successfully prosecuted for(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit fraud in each local authority in the latest year for which records are available. [158687]

      Angela Eagle
      I have been asked to reply.

      The information has been placed in the Library.

      Strip Searches (Prison)
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recommendations of the Prison Service "Searches on the Person" Review indicating the progress made in the implementation of each proposal. [159551]

      Mr. Boateng
      Six recommendations have been implemented in full, and the security manual has been updated accordingly. On another seven recommendations,92W
      work has commenced towards full implementation. There are still three recommendations on which work has yet to start.

      The review recommendations will be considered when the security manual chapters on searching are reviewed by the security manual project team. Given the importance of searching, it has been decided to review the searching chapter first.

      Progress on the recommendations is as follows. The six recommendations implemented are:

      1. For strip searches of menstruating women, issue further guidance that women should be allowed to remove and dispose of external sanitary towels themselves and that a fresh towel should be provided.

      2. Issue guidance to staff to allow pregnant, disabled, or elderly prisoners to sit down for as much of the search as possible providing that this does not reduce the thoroughness and effectiveness of the search.

      3. Post operative and bedridden prisoners and those who are in severe pain or have recently given birth should be strip searched only in exceptional circumstances. When it is necessary to carry out such a strip search, the procedure should be modified on an ad hoc basis to allow the least discomfort or intrusion. Searches should not be carried out if the healthcare professionals advise that it is clinically unacceptable.

      4. Issue guidance making it clear that gender is not a Genuine Occupational Qualification for cell searching, and explaining how to involve opposite sex searchers.

      5. Ensure managers set and communicate realistic targets for rub down searches, as part of the local searching strategy. particularly during periods of high movement.

      6. Guidance should be issued on when a prisoner may be in the "sight" of a person of the opposite sex, for the purposes of Prison Rule 41(3) by way of amendment to the Security Manual.

      Implementation has begun on the following recommendations:
      1. Commission research to identify whether, and if so what, changes can be made in procedures for strip searching to improve its effectiveness. The research should consider: the views of staff; their approach and demeanour while conducting strip searches; prisoners' perceptions; and the gender, age and culture background of those searched.

      A draft Business Case has been prepared which is awaiting approval.
      2. Introduce procedures to ensure that new receptions understand they will be strip searched, and what is involved in the search.
      The Prison Service Order on reception arrangements is being revised. When it is published, it will include further guidance on searching arrangements.
      3. Set aside resources within the research programme to evaluate existing and emerging technology to replace routine strip searching when reliable and affordable equipment is available.
      The Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) undertake this type of research for Security Group. This work forms part of the research programme.
      4. Ensure that statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches will be provided for in the future information and communication technologies introduced throughout the Service.
      This will be considered when the Prison Service prisoner database is upgraded.
      93W 5. When Prison Officer Initial Training (POINT) course is revised, include in the module for those working with under 18s material that will ensure they are aware of ways in which searching, and the way they conduct searches, may affect young people.
      POINT is being revised, and will be trialled. The additional considerations for searching under 18s will be included in the revised training.
      6. Young offender institutions (YOIs) that will continue to hold juveniles must revisit their searching strategies and make specific provision for their under 18 units. Governors of prisons that are being re-roled to take only under 18s need to consider their whole searching strategy de novo to ensure that it is suitable for the establishment's new role.
      Searching strategies are agreed between governors and their Area Manager, and will be amended to comply with this requirement. The appropriate section of the Security Manual and the security standard now need to be amended, so that governors will be audited against this requirement.
      7. Issue central guidance for prisons on how to react when a dog indicates the possible presence of drugs on a visitor.
      A research project conducted by Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) reported recently. One of its recommendations was that further guidance was needed in the light of its findings, and this work will be taken forward.

      The three recommendations on which progress has yet to commence are:

      1. Consider introducing the sideways stance for rub down searching of violent prisoners.

      2. Cease the practice of randomly rub down searching official and professional visitors to category C and D prisons and to most women's prisons and YOIs.

      3. For legal representatives, draw a distinction between, on the one hand, barristers and those counted as solicitors for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and on the other hand, those practising as legal advisers but not counted as solicitors for the purposes of PACE. The latter should continue to be rub down searched as though they were domestic visitors.

      These recommendations will he picked up shortly as the Security Manual chapters on searching are reviewed.

    EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

      National Training Organisations
      Mr. Robert Jackson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 125W, for what reason the list of 1,140 organisations and 570 postcodes placed in the Library differs from the total of 2,330 organisations to which the consultation paper was sent: and if he will place the full list of the 2,330 organisations in the Library. [160060]

      Mr. Wicks
      The discrepancies in the list placed in the Library on 3 April were due to a clerical error. I apologise for the inconvenience caused by this. A full list has now been placed in the Library. I have asked officials to ensure that a full list is also sent to the hon. Member.

      Departmental Advertising
      Mr. Ian Bruce
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what major advertising campaigns his Department is carrying out; and what the cost and duration of each is. [154263]

      Mr. Wills
      [holding answer 19 March 2001]: No advertising campaigns are currently being run by the Department. The Teacher Training Agency is continuing its campaign to recruit teachers.

      Medical Students
      Dr. Gibson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what changes in recruitment policy to medical schools there have been in the last five years, with particular reference to(a) gender, (b) ethnicity and (c) social class; [158442]

      (2) what his policy is for medical student recruitment in the new medical schools in relation to (a) gender, (b) ethnicity and (c) social class. [158443]

      Mr. Wicks
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]The number of places at medical schools is set by the Government. However, higher education institutions are responsible for their own recruitment and admissions procedures, which should be transparent and based on published criteria so that selection is on the basis of an applicant's ability and potential.

      The number of medical school places was increased by 1,100 in 2000 and by a further 1,000 earlier this year. In both cases, when medical schools bid for extra places they were asked to demonstrate an active commitment to the recruitment of students from a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds, to reflect the patterns of the population that they serve.

      Curriculum 2000
      Mr. Boswell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra full-time equivalent teachers are required to deliver Curriculum 2000. [158876]

      Mr. Wicks
      There is no evidence at this stage to suggest we need more teachers to deliver Curriculum 2000.

      Departmental Report
      Mrs. May
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown on the components of expenditure accounted for under the heading, 'Giving everyone the chance, through education, training and work, to realise their full potential and thus build an inclusive and fair society', referred to on page 146 of his Departmental Report 2001–02 to 2003–04 (Cm 5102) on(a) administration £277,086,000, (b) other current £783,836,000, (c) grants £17,732,205,000 and (d) capital £2,066,284,000. [159004]

      Mr. Wills
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: A breakdown of the amounts under 'administration', 'other current', 'grants' and 'capital' in Request for Resource 1 (RfR1) of the Main Estimate on page 146 of the Departmental Report is given in the table. It is based on Note 9 to the Estimates on page 160 of the Departmental Report.
      95W

      Function breakdown of expenditure in RfR 1

      £million

      Estimate section

      Admin

      Other current

      Grants

      Capital

      A

      Voluntary aided school loans

      —

      —

      —

      1

      Assisted Places Scheme

      —

      —

      70

      —

      Music and Ballet Scheme

      —

      —

      12

      —

      City Technology Colleges

      —

      —

      67

      —

      IT in schools, National Grid for Learning, etc.

      —

      10

      16

      —

      Qualifications (other than through the QCA)

      —

      —

      35

      —

      Under Fives

      —

      —

      31

      —

      Modernising the teaching profession (other than through the TTA)

      —

      —

      583

      —

      International Services

      —

      —

      20

      —

      Child care Initiatives

      —

      162

      —

      —

      Education Action Zones

      —

      —

      60

      —

      Fresh Start

      —

      —

      20

      —

      Key Stage 1 and 2 central costs

      —

      —

      13

      —

      Other miscellaneous programmes

      —

      —

      60

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      172

      987

      1

      B

      Higher education initiatives (other than through HEFCE)

      —

      —

      12

      —

      Adult Education

      —

      10

      111

      —

      Access Funds

      —

      —

      96

      —

      Further Education initiatives (including payments to the Home Office for prison education)

      —

      —

      76

      —

      British Academy

      —

      —

      36

      —

      Careers advice (other than through Connexions)

      —

      11

      —

      —

      Connexions (current expenditure)

      —

      321

      —

      —

      ILO subscription

      —

      —

      7

      —

      Learning Partnership Fund

      —

      —

      10

      —

      Career Development Initiatives (including ILAs)

      —

      47

      34

      —

      Neighbourhood Support

      —

      —

      20

      —

      University for Industry

      —

      60

      —

      —

      Millennium Volunteers

      —

      —

      15

      —

      Other miscellaneous programmes

      —

      41

      18

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      489

      436

      —

      C

      Student Loans

      —

      —

      818

      —

      Mandatory awards (through the SLC)

      —

      —

      560

      —

      Other miscellaneous programmes

      —

      —

      1

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      —

      1,379

      —

      D

      ESF payments

      —

      —

      258

      —

      ESF receipts

      —

      —

      –258

      —

      E

      ESF payments

      —

      —

      80

      —

      F

      Work-based Learning for adults

      —

      19

      —

      —

      Employment Zones

      —

      54

      —

      —

      Other miscellaneous programmes

      —

      11

      —

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      84

      —

      —

      G

      Salary costs

      157

      1

      —

      —

      Other administration costs

      110

      5

      —

      —

      Capital Charges and depreciation on the civil estate

      4

      —

      —

      10

      Publicity and research

      —

      27

      —

      —

      Other miscellaneous programmes

      —

      —

      1

      —

      Subtotal

      270

      33

      1

      —

      H

      Compensation to former college of education staff

      —

      —

      11

      —

      I

      Payments to local authorities for schools programmes

      —

      —

      2,267

      —

      96W 97W

      Function breakdown of expenditure in RfR 1

      £million

      Estimate section

      Admin

      Other current

      Grants

      Capital

      J

      Mandatory Awards (through LAs)

      —

      —

      122

      —

      K

      ESF payments to local authorities

      —

      —

      30

      —

      ESF receipts

      —

      —

      –30

      —

      L

      ESF payments to local authorities

      —

      —

      20

      —

      M

      EMAs and student support (through LAs)

      —

      —

      163

      —

      N

      New Deal: salaries

      1—

      —

      —

      —

      New Deal: other Expenditure

      —

      6

      —

      —

      Subtotal

      1—

      6

      —

      —

      O

      Capital charges and depreciation on non-civil estate assets

      7

      —

      —

      —

      P

      Interest repayments on loans to VA schools

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Q

      Capital grants:

      VA and former GM schools

      —

      —

      212

      —

      Class size reductions

      —

      —

      70

      —

      Specialist schools

      —

      —

      13

      —

      New Deal for Schools

      —

      —

      293

      —

      Other schools capital (inc. that paid through the Standards Fund)

      —

      —

      821

      —

      Grants in aid:

      Education Transfer Council

      —

      —

      7

      —

      BECTA

      —

      —

      5

      —

      QCA

      —

      —

      54

      —

      Teacher Training Agency

      —

      —

      392

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      —

      1,867

      —

      R

      Student loans payments

      —

      —

      —

      2,056

      Capital grants:

      Connexions

      —

      —

      15

      —

      Grants in aid:

      HEFCE

      —

      —

      4,677

      —

      Student Loans Company

      —

      —

      31

      —

      IiP UK Ltd.

      —

      —

      2

      —

      Learning and Skills Council

      —

      —

      5,476

      —

      General Teaching Council

      —

      —

      7

      —

      Adult Learning Inspectorate

      —

      —

      20

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      —

      10,228

      2,056

      S

      Grants in aid:

      Equal Opportunities Commission

      —

      —

      9

      —

      Disability Rights Commission

      —

      —

      11

      —

      Subtotal

      —

      —

      20

      —

      T

      Capital Modernisation Fund grants (not paid through the Standards Fund)

      —

      —

      153

      —

      U

      ESF appropriations in aid

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Request for Resources Total

      277

      784

      17,732

      2,066

      1Amounts below £500,000

      Note:

      Figures in the table have been rounded and do not therefore sum to the totals in all cases

      Helplines
      Mr. Levitt
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its agencies. [159509]

      Mr. Wills
      The Department administers the following helplines which provide advice and information to the public:

      Helpline number

      Career Development Loans

      0800 585 505

      Childcare Link

      0800 096 0296

      Computers for Teachers

      0870 241 4679

      Individual Learning Accounts

      0800 072 5678

      Millennium Volunteers

      0800 917 8185

      New Deal Helpline

      0845 606 2626

      Work-Life Balance

      020 7273 5626

      In addition to these directly administered helplines, the Department regularly works with outside partners during the year to set up, or provide temporary support for, helplines on specific topics. Those planned in the near future are:
      Travel Essentials (8–11 May): helpline supporting Radio 1 offering information and advice on finding work, training or education at home or abroad;
      Adult Learners Week (14–18 May): annual helpline, linked to Learn Direct (administered by UfI) for those wishing to take up or return to learning;
      Student Essentials Exams (21–23 May): helpline supporting Radio 1 offering information and advice to students with last minute worries regarding their GCSE\A Level exams.

      The Department's Public Enquiry Line (0870 000 2288) is the official contact point for members of the general public on all areas of DfEE activities.

      The Department does not centrally hold information about helplines run by its agencies.

      Departmental Policies (Mitcham and Morden)
      Siobhain McDonagh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Mitcham and Morden constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [159511]

      Mr. Wills
      Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on Mitcham and Morden constituency and Merton LEA.

      Beacon Schools

      Wimbledon Chase1

      Type—Middle

      Start—September 1999

      1 School is spreading good practice in raising achievement in KS 2, pupil behaviour, monitoring and assessment, classroom management and support for NQTs.

      Connexions Partnership

      Merton as part of the London South area is one of the 12 areas where the Connexions Partnership began to deliver the service from 1 April 2001. The London South
      100W
      area has been allocated a provisional budget allocation of £9,408,621 and covers the boroughs of Merton, Kingston Upon Thames, Sutton, Croydon and Bromley.

      Infant Class Sizes

      Progress in implementing plan:

      As at January 2001, Merton LEA had no infants in classes of more than 30. The figure in January 2000 was 1,470 (30.8 per cent.).

      The authority has been allocated £2.4 million in capital funding and £1.7 million in revenue funding between 1999–2000 and 2001–02.

      Performance Data (England averages include independent schools)

      Key stage 2: pupils achieving level 4 and above

      Percentage

      2000

      1999

      1998

      1997

      English

      LEA

      75

      69

      66

      58

      England

      75

      71

      65

      63

      Maths

      LEA

      69

      68

      53

      55

      England

      72

      69

      59

      62

      Science

      LEA

      85

      78

      68

      62

      England

      85

      78

      69

      69

      GCSE and GNVQ results

      Percentage

      2000

      1999

      1998

      1997

      5+ A*-C

      LEA average

      40.5

      38.8

      37.3

      37.5

      England average

      49.2

      47.9

      46.3

      45.1

      5+ A*-G

      LEA average

      85.8

      86.3

      84.8

      82.9

      England average

      88.9

      88.5

      87.5

      86.4

      No passes

      LEA average

      7.4

      8.1

      7.7

      9.8

      National average

      5.6

      6.0

      6.6

      7.7

      GCE A/AS examinations and Advanced GNVQs

      2000

      1999

      1998

      1997

      Average points for two or more A/AS levels

      LEA average

      15.0

      14.6

      13.2

      12.3

      National average

      17.3

      18.2

      17.8

      17.3

      A/AS average per entry

      LEA average

      4.9

      4.7

      4.4

      4.6

      National average

      5.5

      5.5

      5.4

      5.3

      Advanced GNVQ point score

      LEA average

      9.7

      9.2

      11.4

      n/a

      National average

      10.1

      9.9

      9.6

      n/a

      101W

      LEA capital funding

      £000

      2001–02

      2000–01

      1999–2000

      1998–99

      1997–98

      ACG

      2,829

      357

      289

      139

      47

      SCA

      750

      48

      177

      53

      24

      NDS

      —

      2,074

      1,217

      1,287

      360

      VA Grant

      3,774

      187

      138

      104

      105

      Seed

      131

      121

      —

      —

      —

      Devolved Formula Capital

      —

      531

      —

      —

      —

      Additional Devolved Formula Capital

      —

      463

      —

      —

      —

      NGfL

      669

      478

      326

      294

      —

      Science Labs

      103

      103

      —

      —

      —

      Access at 85 per cent.

      232

      96

      —

      —

      11

      Security

      33

      47

      47

      45

      36

      Class size

      —

      1,351

      1,076

      —

      —

      Outside toilets

      —

      —

      —

      23

      —

      Energy Efficiency

      —

      —

      —

      42

      —

      Assistance with AMP

      —

      —

      21

      —

      —

      Nursery Provision

      —

      —

      —

      —

      —

      NDS Condition Funding

      404

      —

      —

      —

      —

      NDS Devolved formula

      802

      —

      —

      —

      —

      SLSU

      28

      32

      —

      —

      —

      PFI Credits

      20,700

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Total

      30,455

      5,888

      3,291

      1,987

      583

      Funding per pupil

      In Merton LEA, funding per pupil has increased by £600 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

      Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

      A PFI project to reorganise its secondary schools as part of a wider reorganisation was approved by the Project Review Group in July 2000 and is currently working towards contract signature.

      Further Education

      Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions where home postcode is in the local authority district of Merton.

      1996–97 to 1999–2000

      FEFC funded

      Non-FEFC funded

      16–18

      Adult

      16–18

      Adult

      Full-time

      Part-time

      Full-time

      Part-time

      Full-time

      Part-time

      Full-time

      Part-time

      1996–97

      1,812

      330

      920

      6,530

      23

      95

      126

      355

      1997–98

      1,812

      369

      858

      6,978

      23

      102

      134

      619

      1998–99

      1,833

      333

      827

      6,832

      50

      116

      193

      644

      1999–2000

      1,857

      365

      809

      5,925

      60

      171

      159

      946

      Modern Apprenticeships

      Information on Modern Apprenticeships for all English constituencies was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 30 March 2001.

      New Deal for Young People

      In the Mitcham and Morden constituency, 988 young people have joined the New Deal to end January 2001. 461 have found jobs, 361 of which are sustained.

      Labour Market Statistics

      The working age employment rate in Merton in winter 2000–01 was 73.9 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.5 per cent. The rate in winter 1996–97 was 74.6 per cent., in winter 1997–98 78.3 per cent., in winter 1998–99 81.1 per cent., and in winter 1999–2000 77.1 per cent. These figures are volatile at this level, and our best interpretation of the trend in the employment rate for Merton since 1997 is that it has been broadly flat.

      The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 13.8 per cent. in March 1997 to 6.3 per cent. in March 2001 in the Mitcham and Morden constituency.

      Teaching Methods
      Dr. Gibson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to integrate the methods of teaching in secondary education with those in higher education. [159799]

      Ms Estelle Morris
      The Government recognise that there are significant differences between secondary and higher education and that the approaches to teaching in the two sectors should reflect this. However, we also believe that there are significant opportunities for the sectors to interact with and learn from each other.

      The recent Green Paper "Schools: Building on Success" makes proposals which will strengthen the links between the university and school sectors to the advantage of both. These include the idea of joint appointments of teachers to the staff of both a university and a school. The Green Paper also sets out the Government's intention to pilot a university fellowship scheme to allow school teachers with real expertise in their subject to take a secondment to a university, in order to research their subject and perhaps

      103W
      embark on a higher degree. These proposals both recognise the differences between the sectors and the opportunity for each to learn from the other.

      Special Advisers
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date. [160029]

      Mr. Wills
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Since 3 May 1997, no more than three full-time equivalent special advisers have been in post at any one time.

      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160045]

      Mr. Wills
      I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 May 2001,Official Report, column 607W.

      Class Sizes
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size was for each year of secondary school in the north-west in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160080]

      Ms Estelle Morris
      The available data are shown in the table.

      Average class sizes: Classes taught by one teacher

      1997

      1998

      1999

      2000

      20011

      Classes mainly under 14

      24.5

      24.6

      24.7

      24.7

      3—

      Classes mainly 14 and 15

      21.2

      21.3

      21.2

      21.4

      3—

      Classes mainly 16+

      10.4

      10.5

      10.3

      10.6

      3—

      Year group 7 and below2

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      24.9

      Year group 82

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      25

      Year group 92

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      24.4

      Year group 102

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      21.6

      Year group 112

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      21.1

      Year group 122

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      11.6

      Year group 132

      3—

      3—

      3—

      3—

      9.4

      1 Provisional.

      2 Includes middle deemed secondary schools.

      3 Information by year group was collected for the first time in 2001 and only classes where a specific year group was given have been included, i.e. not mixed.

      The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22.0, is still five below the average primary class. In 2001–02 secondary headteachers will receive an average of £70,000 and primary headteachers £24,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose including on reducing class sizes if that is their priority.

      The full-time equivalent number of regular secondary teachers in the north-west increased by 1,300 between January 1997 and January 2001.

      In addition, the size of the average primary class in the north-west has gone down from 27.9 in January 1997 to 26.7 in January 2001. The corresponding figure for primary children in the Ribble Valley constituency is from 29.1 to 27.7.

      Tuition Fees
      Dr. Harris
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is his policy to ensure that student contributions towards tuition fees should rise in line with inflation. [159814]

      Mr. Wicks
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The maximum level of student contributions to tuition fees for students at publicly funded institutions is uprated each year to take account of inflation. In the next academic year it will be £1,075. How much students actually pay depends on an assessment of their income. Currently, over 40 per cent. of students make no contribution to their tuition fees and that figure will rise to around 50 per cent. from this September because we have raised the contribution thresholds above the level of inflation. We estimate that from September the average contribution made by students will be just £1,400 over the whole of a three-year course.

      Work-life Balance Challenge Fund
      Ms Kelly
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local authorities that have applied for funding from the Work-life Balance Challenge Fund; and how many have been successful. [160301]

      Ms Hodge
      The following shows that 56 local authorities applied for the Challenge Fund, of which 25 have been successful1

      Bedford Borough Council1

      Bedfordshire County Council

      Bolton Metropolitan Council (Housing Department)1

      Braintree District Council1

      Bristol City Council, The Equalities Unit1

      Bury Metropolitan Borough Council1

      Cambridgeshire County Council

      Chelmsford Borough Council

      Cheshire County Council

      City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

      Congleton Borough Council

      Coventry City Council

      Devon County Council1

      Dorset County Council

      Forest of Dean District Council1

      Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council1

      Hertfordshire County Council1

      Kent County Council

      Kingston Upon Hull City Council1

      Leicester County Council, Education Department1

      London Borough of Camden1

      London Borough of Croydon

      London Borough of Enfield

      London Borough of Merton1

      Medway Council1

      Mid Bedfordshire District Council

      Norfolk County Council1

      North Lincolnshire Council

      Nottingham City Council1

      Peak District National Authority1

      Perth and Kinross Council1

      Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Education Department1

      105W

      Redditch Borough Council

      Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council1

      Rutland County Council

      Salford City Council

      Sefton Education Department1

      Sheffield City Council

      Shropshire Social Services Directorate1

      Slough Borough Council

      Somerset County Council

      South Gloucestershire Council. Education Service

      St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

      Staffordshire County Council

      Stockton-on-Tees Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership1

      Stoke-on-Trent Social Services Department

      Stratford-on-Avon District Council

      Surrey Social Services1

      The London Borough of Hounslow

      The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

      Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

      Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

      Warrington Borough Council

      West Berkshire Council

      West Dunbartonshire Council

      West Lancashire District Council1.1 Successful

      Ms Kelly
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications there have been for funding from the Work-life Balance Challenge Fund; and how many have been successful, broken down by private, public and voluntary organisations. [160302]

      Ms Hodge
      We received 180 applications for the Work-life Balance Challenge Fund for the year 2000–01, of which 116 were from the public sector, 43 from the private sector and 21 from the voluntary sector. We have been able to support 88 projects, of which 49 are from the public sector, 34 from the private sector and six from the voluntary sector. Currently we are inviting applications for this year's (2001–02) Challenge Fund.

      Jobseekers
      Mr. Willetts
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobseekers have been provided with mobile phones to help them find work. [160202]

      Ms Jowell
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: Employment Zones aim to provide new and innovative solutions to help people back into work in 15 areas of persistently high unemployment. 1126 mobile phones have been issued to participants; 3 per cent. of the 35,000 total clients. Action Teams for Jobs are targeting the barriers preventing jobless people getting and keeping work in 40 areas in Great Britain. 63 of 17257 participants (0.35 per cent.) in Action Teams have had mobile phones issued where there was a clear jobsearch benefit to the individual.

      Mr. Willetts
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobseekers have been given financial help to(a) buy a car (b) buy a motorcycle and (c) take driving lessons, by the employment hit squads announced in June 2000. [160221]
      106W
      Ms Jowell
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The 40 Action Teams for Jobs in deprived areas are targeting the barriers preventing jobless people getting and keeping work. Over 5,000 people have been helped into work so far. Financial assistance has been provided to buy 28 vehicles and 382 driving lessons, mainly in rural areas where vacancies are a distance away from people's homes or suitable transport is required for self-employment purposes or as an incentive to encourage people to take up jobs which would normally not be accessible to them.

      ES Job Bank
      Mr. Willetts
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies are on the ES Job Bank; and how many people access the learning and work website each day. [160217]

      Ms Jowell
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

      Letter from Mark Neale to Mr. David Willetts, dated 8 May 2001:
      As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the ES Job Bank and Learning and Work Bank website. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on Mr Lewis' behalf.
      In answer to your specific question. on 1 May 2001, there were 405,348 jobs on the ES Job Bank. The usage of the Learning and Work Bank website (www.worktrain.gov.uk) has been growing since its launch on 8 March. In the last week of April, 41,636 visitor sessions were recorded on the site; the busiest day being Wednesday 26 April with 7,269 visits to the site.
      I hope this is helpful.

      Youth Cards
      Mr. Boswell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on the introduction of youth cards. [159816]

      Mr. Wicks
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Following an extensive procurement exercise conducted under the European Union Procurement Directive's Negotiated Procedure, the Government have selected CAPITA as their preferred bidder to develop and deliver the Connexions Card.

      The Connexions Card is an exciting and innovative development, which will provide a powerful incentive to young people to stay in learning.

      The Connexions Card will be rolled out initially in one region from autumn of this year and then progressively so that it will be available across England from autumn 2002.

    CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

      Concessionary Television Licences
      Mr. Willetts
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if residential homes are entitled to a free television licence for televisions that are watched both by residents over the age of 75 years and other people. [155412]
      107W
      Janet Anderson
      The Government have received a number of representations from hon. Members and members of the public on this subject. We are continuing to consider the matter.

      Departmental Policies (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, the effect on Shrewsbury and Atcham of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158433]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report Building on PAT10.

      We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one-in-four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone by December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

      We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.
      108W
      We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

      We have published a Green Paper on "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

      Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

      In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

      Shrewsbury and Atcham

      According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 157 national lottery awards to Shrewsbury and Atcham since May 1997, totalling £10,155,404. This includes an award from the Millennium Festival of £30,000.

      Thirty-four Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Shrewsbury and Atcham and between them they have received grants totalling £89,185.

      Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,500 people aged 75 or over living in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency.

      Shropshire Library Authority, which covers the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, received awards from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund of £99,494 in 1997–98, £85,932 and, as a member of a consortium of authorities, £324,439 in 1999–2000. and £23,775 in 2000–01. All the awards were for public library ICT projects, except for the 2000–01 award which was for a reader development project with the county's homeless community. It is not possible to say what proportion of the overall funding benefited the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, but the 1997–98 award was for a project wholly based in Shrewsbury library.

      School Sport Co-ordinators will be based in families of schools, in areas of greatest need, linked wherever possible through local education authorities to Specialist Sports Colleges. They will provide opportunities for young people to compete regularly for their school and

      109W
      take part in a wide range of sports. By 2004, there will be about 250 families established with 1,000 secondary schools and up to 6,000 primary schools benefiting directly from this programme. There is one school sport co-ordinator in Shrewsbury and Atcham attached to Wolverhampton MBC.

      English Heritage have awarded the following grants:

      Churches
      All Saints', Berrington—offered £17,514. paid £11,794
      St. Michael and All Angels', Pitchford—offered £155,652, paid £137,724 St. Mary's, Westbury—offered £74,700, paid £3,291 St. Alkmund's, Shrewsbury—offered £3,910, nothing paid to date Abbey Church of the Holy Cross, Shrewsbury—offered £66,708, paid £12,754 Holy Trinity, Minsterley—offered £20,071, paid £12,643 Other Listed Buildings Old Market Hall, Shrewsbury—offered £149,382, nothing paid to date Loton Hall, Alberbury—offered £49,659, paid £37,007 Hargreaves Farmhouse, Wollaston—offered £68,000, nothing paid to date Attingham Park, Attingham (roof repairs)—offered £24,264, paid £21,838 Attingham Park, Attingham (railings)—offered £22,250, nothing paid to date Ditherington Flax Mill, Shrewsbury—offered £500,000, nothing paid to date Conservation Officer—offered £22,369, paid £14,906 Conservation Area Partnership Schemes Shrewsbury—1997–98 £65,000 Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes Shrewsbury: West End and Northern Gateway—2000–01 £83,700, 2001–02 £83,700 Wyle Cop, Frankwell and The Square—2001–02 £55,000.
      There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. These include the receipt by the West Midlands Arts Board of £10,378,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £11,361,686 or by 9.5 per cent.

      Departmental Policies (Battersea)
      Mr. Linton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Battersea constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158762]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social 110W
      inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report Building on PAT 10.

      We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one-in-four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

      We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

      We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

      We have published a Green Paper on "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

      Through its commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.
      111W
      In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

      Battersea

      According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 92 national lottery awards to Battersea, totalling £13,579,536. This includes two awards from the Millennium Festival totalling £60,000.

      Twenty-four Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Battersea and between them they have received grants totalling £69,821.

      Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,900 people aged 75 or over living in the Battersea constituency.

      There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Battersea constituency. These are:
      London Arts received £26,765,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £29,886,048 or by 11.66 per cent.
      From 1 April 1999 Battersea residents under 16 were able to benefit from free admission to the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Imperial War Museum, HMS Belfast, the Cabinet War Rooms, the National Maritime Museum and the Museum of London. From 1 April 2000, Battersea residents over 60 were able to gain free admission to most of the above. Subject to the agreement of their Trustees, we expect very nearly all of the currently charging DCMS sponsored museums in London to introduce universal free admission from 1 December 2001.

      Broadcasting Act
      Mr. Gray
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Broadcasting Act 1996 is in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. [159274]

      Janet Anderson
      [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The courts decide whether legislative provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. No declaration of incompatibility has been made in the domestic courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 as regards any provision of the Broadcasting Act 1996; nor has there been any finding of incompatibility in respect of that legislation by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. A statement about compatibility with Convention rights of the provisions of new broadcasting legislation will of course be made by Ministers, as required by the Human Rights Act 1998.

      Millennium Dome
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people from the north-west visited the dome. [160098]

      Janet Anderson
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that exit polls of dome visitors conducted by MORI in January, April and August 2000 found that 4 per cent. of visitors to the dome, or around 260,000 people, came from the north-west.
      112W
      Additionally, NMEC's records show that bookings made by the North West Education Region, covering a similar area to the postcode area, under the free schools initiative totalled 20,226 or 3 per cent. of such bookings in the UK. The same Education Region also made 8,500 bookings (or 2 per cent. of such bookings in the UK) under the special offer available to schools for paid visits.

      Entertainment Budgets
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the entertainment budget was for his Department in the years from 1997 to date. [160096]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      The table shows expenditure by my Department on hospitality. The figures exclude the Department's Agencies and NDPBs.

      Year

      £

      1996–97

      41,000

      1997–98

      17,230

      1998–99

      28,688

      1999–2000

      32,533

      2000–01

      50,891

      2001–021

      3,334

      1 Spend to date

      Regional Tourist Boards
      Mr. Greenway
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had on the provision of additional funding for the marketing function of regional tourist boards. [160128]

      Janet Anderson
      The Department and the English Tourism Council (ETC) have had frequent discussions about additional funding for the Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs). The ETC have recently received £3.8 million in additional funding for an advertising and promotion campaign, as part of the recovery plan following the foot and mouth outbreak. More than half of this funding is being passed to RTBs for public relations and marketing work. The Department has also been involved in discussions with DETR on the use of additional funds being provided to Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) as a response to the impact of foot and mouth disease, some of which the RDAs may choose to use to support promotional activities by the RTBs.

      Tourism (Loans)
      Mr. Greenway
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of die Exchequer on the provision of an interest free loan scheme to tourism businesses. [160129]

      Janet Anderson
      As a member of the Rural Task Force, my Department has fed in suggestions on what help can be given to tourism businesses affected by foot and mouth, including loan schemes. A package of financial measures to help affected businesses was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and Chairman of the Rural Task Force, on 20 March. In addition, on 6 April the Department of Trade and Industry announced that tourist and retail businesses suffering cash-flow problems will now be able to apply for loans of up to £250,000 under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme with much greater flexibility over their repayments.

      Wembley Stadium
      Mr. Gardiner
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with Wembley National Stadium Ltd. about the Government becoming a stakeholder in it; and if he will make a statement. [160280]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      I have had a number of recent discussions with the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. about the Wembley Stadium project. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 2 May 2001,Official Report, columns 851–61.

      Mr. Bob Russell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a progress report on proposals for the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium. [160393]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 2 May 2001,Official Report, columns 851–61.

      Tourism Promotion
      Mr. Greenway
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the terms of the agreement are between the British Tourist Authority and the Premier League on promoting tourism. [160273]

      Janet Anderson
      The Premier League, concerned about the impact of foot and mouth disease on Britain's tourism industry, recently approached the British Tourist Authority with an offer to use the worldwide television coverage of its competition to help promote Britain to potential visitors from overseas. The exact details of the agreement are still under discussion between the BTA and the Premier League, but I understand that, among its provisions, BTA advertisements will appear on the perimeters of pitches in the 178 countries where Premiership games are screened.

      BBC Fair Trading Policies
      Mr. Healey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the outcome of the review of the BBC's fair trading policies; and if he will make a statement.[160693]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      Further to my written answer of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 696W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) about an independent review of the BBC Commercial Policy Guidelines and Fair Trading Commitment by Richard Whish, Professor of Law at King's College, I am today publishing, jointly with the BBC, the findings of that review. Professor Whish has concluded from his scrutiny of the documentation that:
      "the BBC's Fair Trading Commitment and the Guidelines are appropriate to ensure that the BBC does not distort competition in commercial markets."

      Sir Christopher Bland has written to me on behalf of the BBC Governors to acknowledge the report's findings and to inform me that when the Guidelines are next reviewed they will take into account Professor Whish's suggested clarifications to the existing format.

      He has also informed me that the BBC has been awarded the British Standards Institute's ISO 9001:2000 accreditation for its fair trading compliance procedures.
      114W
      I am arranging for copies of Professor Whish's report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

      Working Group on Human Remains
      Mr. Healey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will announce the membership and terms of reference of the Working Group on Human Remains. [160694]

      Mr. Alan Howarth
      I am delighted to do so. The main tasks of the Working Group on Human Remains will be to examine the current legal status of human remains within the publicly funded Museums and Galleries in the United Kingdom, to consider the desirability of a statement of principles (and supporting guidance) relating to the care and safekeeping of human remains and to the handling of requests for return, and to prepare a report for the Government.

      The Membership of the Group will be:
      Chairman: Professor Normal Palmer, Professor of Commercial Law, University College, London
      Mr. Tristram Besterman—Director, Manchester University Museum, Convener, Museums Association Ethics Committee
      Dr. Neil Chalmers—Director, The Natural History Museum
      Dr. Maurice Davies—Deputy Director, Museums Association
      Professor Caroline Forder—Professor of European Family Law, University of Maastricht
      Mrs. Hetty Gleave—Solicitor, Hunters, Chair ArtResolve
      Dr. Sally MacDonald—Manager, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London
      Dr. John Mack—Senior Keeper, British Museum
      Professor Sir Peter Morris—Nuffield Professor of Surgery at the University of Oxford and President-elect of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
      Dr. Laura Peers—Lecturer in Ethnology and Curator of Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford
      Professor Marilyn Strathern—Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge.

      The terms of reference for the Group are set out. The Government intend that the group should start work as soon as possible.

      Terms of reference for Working Group on the Potential Return of Human Remains
      To examine the current legal status of human remains within the collections of publicly funded Museums and Galleries in the United Kingdom.To examine the powers of museums and galleries governed by statute to deaccession, or otherwise release from their possession, human remains within their collections and to consider the desirability and possible form of legislative change in this area.To consider the circumstances in which material other than, but associated with, human remains might be properly included within any proposed legislative change in respect of human remains.To take advice from interested parties as necessary.Consider the desirability of a Statement of Principles (and supporting guidance) relating to the care and safekeeping of human remains and to the handling of requests for return. If the Panel considers appropriate, to draw up the terms of such a Statement and guidance.To prepare a report for the Minister for the Arts and make recommendations as to proposals which might form the basis for a consultation document (to be used for consultation under the Regulatory Reform Bill).

    CABINET OFFICE

      Helplines
      Mr. Levitt
      To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by her Department and its agencies. [159500]

      Marjorie Mowlam
      The Cabinet Office has responsibility for the following telephone helplines:

      1. An order line for reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

      2. An order line for printed Civil Service career information.

      3. A delegate helpline for the "Women Unlimited" event run by the Women's Unit.

      4. An order line for reports published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO).

      5. An inquiry line for Civil Service pensioners.

      6. Helplines for the public on foot and mouth disease and fuel availability.

      COI Communications, which reports to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, includes telephone inquiry service management within its wider remit as the procurer of publicity services for Government. Overall authority for such services rests with the commissioning Department.

      Ethnic Minority Monitoring
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to issue new guidance with respect to the inclusion of an Irish in Britain category in ethnic minority origin categories for monitoring purposes. [160323]

      Mr. Stringer
      For the purposes of monitoring the origin of employees in the Civil Service, the Cabinet Office has issued guidance to Departments and agencies that reflects the ethnicity categories in the Census 2001, including an Irish category.

      The Office for National Statistics has published an interim standard classification of ethnic groups for Government statistics more generally. This also includes an Irish category.

    AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

      Special Advisers
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date. [160024]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 May 2001, Official Report, column 607W.

      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160042]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Since 3 May 1997, a total of five special advisers have worked in the Ministry, two when my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was Minister of Agriculture, and three since my right hon. Friend the Member for
      116W
      Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) has been Minister. No more than two special advisers have been in post at any one time.

      GM Communications Unit
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when the GM communications unit was formed; [144347]

      (2) if he will make a statement on the GM communications unit. [144264]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The GM communications unit in the Cabinet Office was set up in July 1999 to co-ordinate across government on GM issues and provide a one-stop shop for journalists. The Cabinet Office continues to play a co-ordinating role in GM policy.

      French Beef
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of advice issued by the Food Standards Agency to British consumers concerning French beef. [144317]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Government have accepted it.

      Departmental Business (Overseas Visits)
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits abroad have been made by him and his Ministers on departmental business(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months. [149141]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      For overseas visits from 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the list published on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 196W; for overseas visits for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, I refer him to the list published on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W. In the past 12 months, my Ministers and I have made 36 visits abroad.

      Tobacco Farming
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times the Agriculture Council has discussed CAP subsidies for tobacco farming since May 1997. [l53227]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      The Agriculture Council discussed the EU tobacco regime, including subsidies for tobacco growing, three times in 1998 and adopted a number of changes to the regime. The tobacco regime has also been raised on a number of other occasions since May 1997 during discussions on other regimes and CAP reform.

      Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
      Mr. Matthew Taylor
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154531]
      117W
      Ms Quin
      MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 annual agricultural and horticultural census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census has been placed in the House Library.

      Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

      £000

      Of which:

      Total direct subsidies

      Crop subsidies

      Livestock subsidies

      Agri-environment

      Other1

      Cereals

      37.8

      34.2

      2.3

      1.0

      0.1

      General cropping

      31.8

      28.8

      2.4

      0.6

      0.0

      Horticulture

      0.4

      0.2

      0.0

      0.1

      0.2

      Pigs and poultry

      3.6

      2.2

      1.4

      0.1

      0.0

      Dairy

      8.5

      2.8

      4.9

      0.8

      0.0

      LFA cattle and sheep

      29.3

      0.4

      25.4

      3.3

      0.2

      Lowland cattle and sheep

      14.1

      1.7

      10.6

      1.8

      0.0

      Mixed

      33.8

      21.4

      10.7

      1.7

      0.0

      All types

      22.5

      14.8

      6.4

      1.2

      0.1

      1 Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

      Notes

      1. HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

      2. The figures show direct subsidy payments: they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

      Source

      Farm Business Survey

      In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short-term financial relief since 2 May 1997. This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation, worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer; £3,200 per average dairy farmer; £1,400 per average sheep farmer; and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the beef special premium scheme and suckler cow premium scheme respectively.

      Since May 1997, the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by countryside stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full-time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the hill farm allowance scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the hill livestock compensatory allowance in 1996–97.

      Truro and St. Austell also fall within an area with an objective 1 designation. This means that under the EU structural funds, the area is eligible for assistance to promote its development and structural adjustment. About £50 million of European funding over the next six years is available for rural development measures in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. This money will attract an equal amount of national public spending as matched funding, the majority of which will be provided by this Department. Details of these measures, which include
      118W
      As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU common agricultural policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

      support for processing and marketing, farm diversification and training, are set out in the single programming document for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. Farmers in Truro and St. Austell can also benefit from agri-environment schemes available under the England rural development programme.

      Consumers in Truro and St. Austell will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

      In relation to the Department's responsibility for fisheries policy, our key priority is to protect our fisheries resources for the future and we are taking firm action to ensure a viable future for the fishing industry. The last set of grant schemes, which ended in 1999, invested over £27 million in measures to help the fishing industry in England. Fishermen operating in the Truro and St. Austell constituency will now benefit from the £22.5 million aid package announced on 2 April to help restructure the English fishing industry, to improve the quality and value of the catch, and to retrain fishermen and rejuvenate fishing ports.

      Sheep Exports
      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in the last five weeks, and on which dates, sheep unloaded into the lairage at the Port of Dover awaiting export were returned to their(a) farms of origin and (b) other United Kingdom destinations; and how many sheep have been returned from Dover in this way. [155083]
      119W
      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 March 2001]: Three consignments of sheep, totalling 1,005 animals, awaiting export at premises in the Dover area were returned to their holdings of origin on 21 and 23 February 2001. One consignment of 416 sheep, awaiting export, was returned to a UK destination other than the holding of origin, on 23 February 2001.

      Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156243]

      Ms Quin
      MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU common agricultural policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

      Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

      Consumers in Great Grimsby will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

      The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Great Grimsby. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

      One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the rural development regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England rural development programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 million in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for public goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

      In relation to the Department's responsibility for fisheries policy, our key priority is to protect our fisheries resources for the future and we are taking firm action to ensure a viable future for the fishing industry. The last set of grant schemes, which ended in 1999, invested over £27 million in measures to help the fishing industry in England. Fishermen operating in the Great Grimsby constituency will now benefit from the £22.5 million aid package announced on 2 April, to help restructure the English fishing industry, and to improve the quality and value of the catch, and to retrain fishermen and rejuvenate fishing ports.

      Sheep Shipments
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make 120W
      available the communications, including notes of telephone conversations (a) between his Department centrally and regionally and the French authorities and (b) between Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth and his Department centrally and regionally since 1 November 2000 concerning animal shipments by Mr. Inizan from the UK to France; [156427]

      (2) if he will make available the communications, including notes of telephone conversations in his Department's (a) possession and (b) control between Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth and the French authorities since 1 November 2000, concerning animal shipments by Mr. Inizan from the UK to France; [156426]

      (3) if he will make available the communications between his Department and the French authorities since 1 November 2000 concerning compensation and indemnity for animals slaughtered in France originally emanating from Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth; [156424]

      (4) if he will make available, in relation to animals slaughtered in France emanating originally from Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth, test results and allied papers in the (a) possession and (b) control of his Department's (i) centrally and (ii) regionally since 1 November 2000; [156428]

      (5) under what certificates and permits Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth was allowed to export sheep from the UK to France after 1 September 2000; and if he will publish this documentation; [156430]

      (6) if he will make available the communications between Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth and (a) his Department and (b) the French authorities since 1 November 2000 concerning compensation and indemnity for animals slaughtered in France originally emanating for Mr. Inizan; [156418]

      (7) if he will make available the communications between Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth and his insurers copied (a) direct to his Department and (b) indirectly via the French authorities since 1 November 2000, concerning compensation and indemnity for animals slaughtered in France originally emanating from Mr. Inizan; [156425]

      (8) which of his Department's centres were responsible for the sheep exported from the UK by Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth and subsequently slaughtered by the French authorities after 1 November 2000; [156429]

      (9) if he will publish his Department's internal memoranda produced since 1 September 2000 concerning the shipments of sheep by Mr. Hugues Inizan of Plymouth from the UK to France on dates after 1 September 2000. [156431]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answers 30 March 2001]We have no record of communications with the French authorities specifically about Mr. Inizan's export of sheep prior to the confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK on 21 February. We are aware that Mr. Inizan exported a consignment of 402 sheep to France on 1 February 2001. The sheep were exported under an export health certificate which was certified on 31 January and which conformed to harmonised EU rules for such trade. The export health certificate was issued by the local animal health office in Llanishen, Cardiff.
      121W
      The French authorities have now informed us that the seven samples that initially showed positive results have been re-tested with negative results. They have concluded that the initial serological positive reactions must be considered as false positives.

      The Government cannot become involved in any contractual disputes between individual exporters and importers. However, the British Embassy in Paris has been actively pursuing the question of compensation, on behalf of British sheep exporters, for sheep slaughtered in France.

      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of sheep exported in the last year for which figures are available were exported to Greece; and what arrangements ere put in place to ensure that the journey complied with the requirements of Directives 91/628 (as amended) and the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order. [157887]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 10 April 2001]: 4,350 sheep were certified for export to Greece from the UK in 2000. This represents 0.69 per cent. of the total number of sheep certified for export during 2000.

      Directive 91/628, as amended, is implemented by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, as amended. Consignments of animals to EU member states must be accompanied by a route plan and all route plans are subject to official scrutiny to ensure that the proposed journey complies with the statutory requirements for maximum journey times, rest, and feeding and watering intervals. The animals are inspected for health and fitness to travel before each journey starts. Additional monitoring of the condition of the animals and their transport is carried out at Dover port. Route plan.; must be returned within 15 days of the completion f the journey and details of the actual journey are then checked.

      Foot and Mouth
      Dr. Julian Lewis
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the risks of subsequent infection which arise from burial of animals carrying the foot and mouth virus and the precautions to be taken in order to minimise such risks in the event of burial being carried out. [156211]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 30 Mach 2001]: Before carcases are buried the Environment Agency undertakes a risk assessment of the geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions of the proposed location. This includes an assessment of risk to local groundwater and surface water potable supplies. Carcases are only buried where the risk assessment shows it i safe to do so, or where there can be adequate risk management applied.

      After slaughter carcases are sprayed with an approved disinfectant which kills a large amount of the virus. Once rigor mortis sets in most of the virus carried inside the infected animals diminishes very quickly and veterinary advice is that there is very little risk of any remaining infection from buried animals spreading.

      Mr. Cousins
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has collated to link the outbreak of foot and mouth(a) with Chinese
      122W
      restaurants or takeaways and (b) other restaurants and takeaways in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne; and if he will make a statement. [156655]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 2 May 2001]: We have no evidence to suggest that the foot and mouth outbreak originated from Chinese food or any other specific food source. Investigations are continuing in co-operation with trading standards but it is too soon to comment on detailed findings. The current outbreak is due to the type O, PanAsia strain virus. This strain is responsible for a number of outbreaks in different countries throughout the middle east, far east, and in Greece, Bulgaria and South Africa. One possibility is that the outbreak might have been caused by pigs eating untreated food originating from one of these countries. However, we will not be limiting our investigations to this particular line of inquiry.

      Mr. Dalyell
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the risks of infection as a consequence of burying infected carcases; and if he will list the scientific studies which he has taken into account. [156465]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Foot and mouth disease is one of the most widely researched diseases and numerous scientific studies were taken into account when assessing the risks of infection resulting from burial of infected carcases.

      Once rigor mortis sets in most of the virus carried inside the infected animal diminishes very quickly and veterinary advice is that there is little risk of any remaining infection from buried animals spreading.

      Before carcases are buried the Environment Agency undertakes a risk assessment of the geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions of the proposed location. This includes an assessment of risk to local groundwater and surface water potable supplies.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will(a) relax the existing exclusion zones up to 30 miles around an infected area to enable animals situated therein to reach slaughterhouses; (b) make good the economic hardship incurred by those farmers caught in exclusion zones unable to move their animals; and (c) make fuller information available to those farmers caught in form D and exclusion zones, in particular by updates to the MAFF website and a local MAFF regional office helpline; and if he will make a statement. [156280]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The boundaries surrounding an infected area may extend beyond the statutory minimum 10 km for disease control purposes and because, in order to simplify identification, they are determined by clear geographical boundaries. If outbreaks of foot and mouth are still being confirmed in an area the movement restrictions cannot be lifted or relaxed. The area may also be extended to take account of windborne spread, particularly from pig premises. The procedure for lifting infected area restrictions involves a process of checking that there are no infected animals in the area surrounding the infected premises. An infected area may only be lifted 30 days after the preliminary cleansing and disinfection. From 23 April movements of animals from infected areas, but not within 3 km of an infected place, to abattoirs in the same infected area for

      123W
      immediate slaughter for human consumption have been permitted. From 4 May movements of animals from within 3 km of an infected premises to abattoirs in the same infected area for slaughter for human consumption have been permitted provided 15 days have elapsed since preliminary cleansing and disinfection of any infected premises within 3 km of the premises.

      Infected areas will be lifted as soon as possible and, for example, the declaratory orders relating to Northamptonshire. Leicestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire and Kent have already been revoked.

      When infected areas cannot be completely lifted, because of the number of disease cases, the Ministry will consider reducing the boundaries. Decisions to reduce boundaries are made on a case-by-case basis in discussion with vets, taking into account the number and proximity of any confirmed FMD cases. The northern infected area has been reduced on two occasions, firstly to exclude Ripon (on 2 April) and then to release part of the Yorkshire Dales (on 20 April).

      Compensation is payable for the market value of animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease. It is not payable for the consequential losses, for example caused by movement restrictions. Farmers in infected areas, whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of foot and mouth movement restrictions, may he eligible for the livestock welfare (disposal) scheme, operated by the Intervention Board on behalf of MAFF, under which they receive a slightly reduced rate of compensation for all animals slaughtered.

      We recognise the importance of making information about such schemes and developments available to farmers and the Ministry's website http://www.maff.gov.uk/ relating to foot and mouth disease, which contains such information, is updated regularly. There is already a helpline operating (0845 0504141) and this is open from 8.00 am to 11.00 pm. Various contact details are also given on the website, and farmers may contact their regional service centre or trading standards for information on obtaining a licence to move animals.

      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the routing of lorries carrying(a) carcases and (b) fuel to Throckmorton airfield; and what discussions he has had with Worcestershire county council on this subject; [157064]

      (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for traffic levels on local roads in the parish council areas of (a) Bishampton and Throckmorton, (b) Hill and Moor, (c) Wyre Piddle and (d) Pinvin of the decision to use Throckmorton airfield as a disposal site for carcases of culled animals. [156988]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answers 5 April 2001]The Ministry consulted Worcestershire county council concerning traffic implications of the scheme at Throckmorton airfield, in particular, the Worcestershire county council highways authority. There are planned routes into and out of the site for all transport vehicles, designed to minimise the impact on local residents. Vehicles transporting carcases are accompanied by escort vehicles, with instructions to follow the agreed planned routes.
      124W
      Mr. Duncan
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is for permitting a bull to enter a foot and mouth infected area for the purpose of inseminating milk-producing dairy cows. [156913]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The possibility of introducing a licensing system to allow bulls access to infected areas for the insemination of cows is currently being explored. Such movements of bulls would be subject to certain conditions similar to those set down under the current movement licences.

      Artificial insemination by an inseminator is now permitted subject to certain conditions, and there are plans to allow deliveries of semen to farms, to enable farmers to carry out a simplified insemination technique, without the need for an inseminator.

      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the Army's role in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak is restricted to logistics; and if he will assess the benefits of extending the role of the Army. [157037]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 5 April 2001]: We are grateful for the Army's contribution in support of MAFF in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak. This contribution is not confined to the provision of logistical support, although that role has been significant. It also includes assistance in engineering and the management and operation of MAFF slaughter and disposal operations. MAFF has been able to draw on military advice on the conduct of operations, the creation of integrated control centres, crisis management techniques and contingency planning. The range and size of the Army's role is kept under continuous review.

      Mr. Cotter
      T o ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease that have natural immunity to it. [157630]

      Ms Quin
      Immunity to foot and mouth disease is acquired by exposure to the virus or by vaccination. As there has not been, a case of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain since 1981, and we do not permit routine vaccination, all susceptible livestock are assumed to be susceptible to foot and mouth disease virus.

      During the current outbreak, it is possible that there may be livestock, particularly sheep, which have been exposed to infecion but have not exhibited clinical symptoms. These animals may have acquired some degree of immunity. There is also a possibility that such animals may become carriers of the virus. The number of these animals is unknown, but may be disclosed when animals are blood sampled as part of our sero-surveillance strategy.

      Mr. Gill
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what breaches of security there have been at the Pirbright Institute for Animal Health laboratories within the past 12 months. [157364]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 6 April 2001]There have been no reported breaches of security at the Pirbright Animal Health laboratories.
      125W
      Mr. Jenkin
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the restrictions on the movement and sale of livestock around Layer-de-la-Haye in Essex will be lifted. [157245]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Local veterinary inspections and serology sampling in the area will be complete by 4 May. A decision on the lifting of movement restrictions will be taken once the results of laboratory tests on these samples are known.

      Mr. Jenkin
      To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when movement restrictions on livestock in the Layer-de-la-Haye restricted area will be lifted. [159986]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: A new series of local veterinary inspections and serology sampling will be carried out in the area in the near. future. These are necessary because the last series revealed evidence of infection. Current restrictions will remain in place until no further evidence of infection is revealed.

      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to enable farmers and others affected by the foot and mouth outbreak to have access to counselling, telephone helplines and other personal support services. [157372]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 6 April 2001]: MAFF has posted on its website guidance to all in the rural community wishing to seek help during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It has also circulated to all livestock farmers in England contact details for organisations which can provide confidential advice, guidance and financial assistance, including the rural stress information network, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, the farm crisis network and the Samaritans. Through a rural stress action plan funded by MAFF, details of these organisations have also been widely publicised on yellow contact cards and in magazines.

      In addition, the foot and mouth disease telephone helpline is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week and calls are charged at the local rate.

      Mr. Harvey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what veterinary visits and check-ups are being carried out on farms in Devon adjacent to those where foot and mouth disease was diagnosed before 22 March. [157838]

      Ms Quin
      The majority of veterinary inspection visits will have been carried out by now although a few final visits may still be being carried out. Some visits may be required for premises where a partial ull is required, for example, where only sheep or pigs are to be killed. If the farms were identified as dangerous contacts, visits will be made to supervise the cleansing and disinfection operations.

      Sir Teddy Taylor
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the health of the sheep at the AWE site in Foulness following the visits of officials of his Department. [157515]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The sheep at the Atomic Weapons Establishment site in Foulness were last visited by veterinary officers from the local animal health office on 30 March. The RSPCA is now taking the
      126W
      lead with this issue, and are continually monitoring the situation on the island. I understand that the sheep have been moved to drier land, temporary accommodation has been found, and the welfare situation has been alleviated.

      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what date is to be set for movements to slaughter in the Chorley area. [157992]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Chorley is in an infected area for the purpose of the control of foot and mouth disease. Movement to slaughter under licence to approved abattoirs in the same infected area has been allowed from 23 April other than from premises within three kilometres of an infected place. Urgent consideration is being given to a licensing system to allow animals from premises within three kilometres of an infected place to be moved to slaughter.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have been involved in the cull of livestock as a result of the foot and mouth crisis; and if he will make a statement. [158055]

      Ms Quin
      As of 19.00 on 1 May, the total figure for premises affected by foot and mouth disease (and therefore involved in the cull of livestock) was 6,542.

      Mr. Fabricant
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many premises preventative culls have been carried out. [158203]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: As of 19.00 on 1 May, preventative culls have been carried out on 5,017 premises since the start of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak. This includes all dangerous contacts and premises involved in voluntary culls.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely impact of foot and mouth on the number of farms likely to remain in business in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [158720]

      Ms Quin
      Foot and mouth is having a considerable impact on farming and a range of industries throughout the UK. It is still too early to make a reliable estimate of the overall effect and therefore it is not possible to make an assessment of the number of farm businesses which will cease trading as a result of the disease.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms had been identified with foot and mouth infection on the premises by midnight 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [158716]

      Ms Quin
      As of 19.00 on 9 April, 1,163 premises had been confirmed as being infected with foot and mouth disease.

      As of 19.00 on 1 May, 1,525 premises had been confirmed as being infected with foot and mouth disease.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Minister responsible for managing foot and mouth disease in the Welsh Assembly with regard to increased use of the Army to speed up implementation of the cull and carcase removal or incineration schemes; and if he will make a statement. [158728]
      127W
      Ms Quin
      The Ministry is in constant contact with the National Assembly for Wales about all matters relating to the current foot and mouth outbreak. The Army has provided valuable assistance in speeding up the slaughter and disposal of carcases.

      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hunt staff in England and Wales hold slaughtering licences from his Ministry. [158260]

      Ms Quin
      This information is not available. Slaughtering licences are issued by the Meat Hygiene Service. They are granted on an individual basis and held for life. There is no requirement for licensed individuals to inform the Meat Hygiene Service of their current place of work and thus it is not possible to identify how many have or currently work as hunt staff.

      Mr. David Heath
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice has been issued to establishments licensed for the training of racehorses on movements of horses into and out of foot and mouth disease restricted areas. [158391]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Officials have undertaken a detailed assessment of the risks associated with the spread of foot and mouth through the movement of racehorses. This has been posted on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/. Officials have also liaised closely with the Jockey Club and the British Horseracing Board, which have produced detailed working guidance on the range of precautionary measures to be taken by their members. This is available from the British Horseracing Board.

      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is towards the employment and payment of agency vets to assist in slaughtering livestock infected with foot and mouth disease. [158262]

      Ms Quin
      To help in current foot and mouth disease control operations the Ministry is employing veterinary surgeons as temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) according to the standard scale of fees for temporary veterinary inspectors. These vets are employed as TVIs on an individual basis.

      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to order the slaughter of animals under the contiguous culling scheme without the consent of the animals' owners. [158263]

      Ms Quin
      My right hon. Friend the Minister's powers to order the slaughter of animals in order to control foot and mouth disease are laid down in section 31, Schedule 3, paragraph 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is towards the use of hunt staff to slaughter livestock infected with foot and mouth disease.[158261]

      Ms Quin
      I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on 30 April 2001, Official Report, column 490W.

      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to apply more selective criteria to dairy herds when considering the implementation of the contiguous cull policy; and if he will a statement. [158508]
      128W
      Ms Quin
      My right hon. Friend the Minister announced for England a broadening of the areas of discretion available to MAFF divisional veterinary managers. Under this revised policy, MAFF officials will continue to kill all animals which are dangerous contacts. On other contiguous premises, susceptible animals will be killed. However, cattle may be spared if there is adequate biosecurity. This will be a matter for local veterinary judgment.

      MAFF has already published guidance on biosecurity measures which have been agreed with the veterinary profession. Where cattle are not culled they will be subject to regular veterinary patrols.

      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to test milk and blood samples from dairy herds on premises contiguous with a foot and mouth outbreak for three weeks before proceeding with a contiguous cull of such herds; and if he will make a statement. [158478]

      Ms Quin
      Under the revised policy on dealing with cattle on contiguous premises, announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 26 April, officials will continue to kill all animals which are dangerous contacts. On other contiguous premises, susceptible animals will be killed. However, cattle may be spared if there is adequate biosecurity. This will be a matter for local veterinary judgment.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the issuing of Form D notices to farmers by telephone. [158489]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: A Form D notice is served on premises where animals may have been exposed to infection. When foot and mouth disease is confirmed on a premises, all premises with susceptible livestock within the 3 km protected zone around the infected place are contacted, where possible, by telephone to advise them tha those premises are subject to Form D restrictions. A Form D is also posted or delivered to each of those premises.

      Mr. Stephen O'Brien
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if(a) officials of his Department and (b) those acting on their behalf, asked participants in the insurance market in December 2000 and January 2001 about the availability, current and potential terms and affordability of insurance to cover losses to insureds consequent upon an event of an outbreak foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom.[158379]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: At the outset of the classical swine fever last year, the Minister established a Government/Industry working party to review ways in which the livestock industry could protect itself against the commercial consequences of any future animal disease outbreaks. The review covered the 14 OIE list A diseases that affect cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. Foot and mouth is one of these 14 diseases.

      One area considered by the working group was the extent to which insurance could be used by farmers to cover the business risks associated with becoming caught up in statutory disease control measures. Officials met the Association of British Insurers on 6 December 2000 and on 10 January 2001, Lorien plc were engaged by the

      129W
      Ministry to assist the working party. Lorien subsequently contacted various insurance providers to establish what types of insurance cover was available and the level of uptake by farmers.

      The working party was due to report to the Minister in the spring but this will be delayed by the current outbreak.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to visit Montgomeryshire to discuss the foot and mouth outbreak with farmers. [158721]

      Ms Quin
      There are no immediate plans for a ministerial visit to Montgomeryshire.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to provide information on a daily basis to farmers regarding the actions relating to the foot and mouth outbreak and the progress of the disease; and if he will make a statement. [158729]

      Ms Quin
      Information about the disease and the action the Government have taken has been placed on the Ministry website. This website is updated every day with the latest information and advice. Information is also available from local MAFF animal health offices. Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to every livestock farmer in England at the end of February enclosing information about the disease and how to protect their farm. He wrote again to farmers on two further occasions to update them on the steps we have taken to control the disease.

      Mr. Viggers
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans there are to bring animals into Hampshire as part of the Government's culling programme. [158226]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April, 2001]: There are no abattoirs in Hampshire contracted to slaughter animals under the livestock welfare (disposal) scheme. There is one landfill site in the county that has been identified for the disposal of carcases under the scheme but this would only be used for local on-farm slaughters of pigs and/or sheep.

      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms without confirmed foot and mouth cases had been earmarked for a partial or total cull by midnight on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [158717]

      Ms Quin
      As at 9 April, slaughter had taken place or was due to take place at 1,975 premises at which foot and mouth disease had not been confirmed.

      Mr. Breed
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possibility of using(a) flame-throwers and (b) napalm as a means of destroying animal carcases. [159205]

      Ms Quin
      Flame-throwers are not in service in this country or in the USA because of safety concerns. Napalm produces very toxic compounds when burnt, so cannot be used because of the public and environnmental health risks.

      We recognise that burning at higher temperatures is more efficient and cleaner, and so there is a need to increase the temperature of pyres, particularly at the beginning of the burn while the water in the carcases is
      130W
      being driven off. We have therefore commissioned urgent studies, in collaboration with the Ministry of Defence, on the possible use of gelled fuel mixtures to increase the temperature.

      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are in place to ensure that no animals known to have contracted foot and mouth disease are buried at Throckmorton airfield; and how many cases have been reported to him where a mistaken diagnosis may have led to diseased animals being buried there. [158987]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: All livestock are examined by a veterinary surgeon prior to slaughter. In the event of a clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease, the premises is declared an infected premises. We are not aware of any carcases of livestock from infected premises that have been disposed of at Throckmorton.

      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what land in the vicinity of Throckmorton airfield, Worcestershire, has been purchased by Government Departments; how much land has been so purchased; at what price and for what purpose; and if he will make a statement. [158207]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Ministry has purchased 155 acres of land adjacent to the burial site at Throckmorton. The land was purchased as a buffer against the burial site and additionally as a contingency to provide extra burial capacity should it be needed. The land was purchased for £3,875,000. This price reflects the potential of part of the site for development.

      Mr. Livsey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to slaughter and bury on farm those farm animals stranded on farms as a result of foot and mouth movement restrictions, indicating those that are destined for the welfare slaughter scheme in(a) D notice areas and (b) other less restricted areas. [158602]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Burial on-farm of animals slaughtered through the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme is not out of the question on grounds of policy, but is very difficult to implement. Many different organisations and agencies must be consulted to ensure that the site is safe, such as the Environment Agency, communication companies, gas and oil providers and water companies. This prolonged consultation makes on-farm burial too slow to be practical for the large numbers involved.

      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria his Department applies when deciding to slaughter on suspicion of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158984]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The procedures for the slaughter of livestock on suspicion of foot and mouth disease are set out on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/. Where a veterinary inspector carries out an investigation and is satisfied on clinical grounds that an animal exhibits signs of foot and mouth disease, the case will be confirmed on clinical grounds. Where, however, a veterinary inspector sees signs that are

      131W
      not totally consistent with foot and mouth disease, but where foot and mouth disease cannot be ruled out, the herd is slaughtered on suspicion.

      Mr. Dalyell
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what his estimate is of the time that(a) napalm and (b) pyre of wood takes to destroy a carcase; [158868]

      (2) what his estimate is of the cost of destruction per carcase (a) by fuelled pyre and (b) by napalm after investment in suitable equipment. [158870]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Decisions on methods of disposal of carcases are taken on operational, environmental and animal and public health considerations. Napalm produces very toxic compounds when burnt, and so cannot be used because of the public and environmental health risks. Pyres burn for approximately four days.

      Information on the cost of disposal per carcase is not currently available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Mr. Beith
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation is available to those who are unable to let grass parks because of animal movement restrictions during the foot and mouth outbreak. [159160]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Compensation is payable for the market value of animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease but is not payable for consequential losses caused by foot and mouth controls. There are no plans to make such payments in response to the current outbreak, but the situation will be kept under review.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the delivery of the 2001 census forms and the associated risk of the spread of foot and mouth disease; and what assessment he has made of that risk. [158960]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minister has not received any formal representations concerning the risk of individuals spreading foot and mouth when delivering census forms. However, officials from the Office for National Statistics have consulted the Department over appropriate guidance to issue to enumerators, census team leaders and census district managers to ensure that the exercise is conducted in a way that will do nothing to exacerbate the foot and mouth situation. This guidance has been developed with the support of the National Farmers Unions and will ensure that the census proceeds with maximum caution in rural areas. In particular:
      Census takers will respect all restrictions in relation to foot and mouth whether put in place by the authorities or by farmers/communities themselves.
      On no account will census takers use taped off thoroughfares or pass warning signs.
      Census takers will talk to the Royal Mail about local arrangements for deliveries in rural areas where there are restrictions.
      Where census takers cannot reach a farm or household they will:
      132W

      (a) attempt to make telephone contact with the householder and arrange to deliver the form in an appropriate way, e.g. delivering the form to the farm gate or arranging for the form to reach the farm or household with other deliveries.

      (b) post the form to the farm or household with an information leaflet and covering letter advising the householder to post back their completed census form or to call the census helpline for further assistance about completing the form.

      Mr. Fabricant
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk of spreading foot and mouth by census personnel carrying out their work in rural areas. [158414]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Guidance has been issued to enumerators, census team leaders and census district managers to ensure that the exercise is conducted in a way that will do nothing to exacerbate the foot and mouth situation. This guidance has been developed with the support of the National Farmers Union and will ensure that it proceeds with maximum caution in rural areas. In particular:
      Census takers will respect all restrictions in relation to foot and mouth whether put in place by the authorities or by farmers/communities themselves.
      On no account will census-takers use taped off thoroughfares or pass warning signs.
      Census takers will talk to the Royal Mail about local arrangements for deliveries in rural areas where there are restrictions.
      Where cannot reach a farm or household they will:

      (a) attempt to make telephone contact with the householder and arrange to deliver the form in an appropriate way e.g. delivering the form to the farm gate or arranging for the form to reach the farm or household with other deliveries.

      (b) post the form to the farm or household with an information leaflet and covering letter advising the householder to post back their completed census form or to call the census helpline for further assistance about completing the form.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received on rare l reeds being protected in the event of a cull in contiguous sites until signs of the disease show; and if he will mg e a statement; [158962]

      (2) what measures he is taking to prevent the elimination of rare breeds during the foot and mouth crisis. [157340]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 April 2001, Official Report, column 346W. Since then the Ministry has issued a joint, instruction providing for rare breeds of sheep on contiguous premises to be exempted from slaughter, provided that they can be isolated from other susceptible livestock and managed in compliance with tight biosecurity. Copies of the joint instruction are on the Ministry's website http://www.maff.gov.uk/, and more detailed guidance will be issued this week.

      Mrs. Shephard
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of available foot and mouth disease vaccines against various strains of the disease. [158881]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: As there are seven main types of foot and mouth virus (each with many sub-types), it has been necessary to focus attention on the pan-Asiatio O type virus responsible for the current outbreak. Vaccines for this strain come in different forms and strengths and their impact can vary between

      133W
      individual animals as well as species. However, no vaccine can be relied upon as being 100 per cent. effective against foot and mouth—not because it is in itself ineffective but either because it could be inadequately administered or because a small number of animals may respond a-typically and develop only a low level of immunity.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the cost of destroying clean animals, caught in restricted zones but not infected with foot and mouth; and if he will make a statement.[158959]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 26 April 2001]: No representations from the industry have been received by the Intervention Board concerning the cost of destroying clean animals under the livestock disposal scheme. Colleagues and officials have however initiated contact with operators of land fill sites over issues such as access and prices.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the extent of the exclusion zone following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Hawes. [159259]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The chief executive of North Yorkshire council requested that the infected area in North Yorkshire be reduced. Part of the lower Dales area of North Yorkshire has had restrictions raised but given that there are still cases in the Wensleydale/Richmond/Danby Wiske area, further changes to the infected area boundaries would be premature.

      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the addresses of each cremation pyre in Cumbria. [159453]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 27 April 2001]: MAFF is working with Ordnance Survey to plot the locations of all pyres and burial sites in Cumbria and elsewhere. The information will be released to all those bodies that need it for environmental and health monitoring purposes. We are considering whether the information can be released more widely without breaching the Data Protection Act 1998.

      Mr. Swayne
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice the deputy surveyor gave to Ministers with respect to proposals for reopening the New Forest in time for the Easter weekend. [159454]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The deputy surveyor advised me that he ha carried out a risk assessment which had been agree with the state veterinary service. He advised me that the risk of foot and mouth disease occurring in the New Forest was very low. It is my view that the phased re-opening is justified on the independent and professional advice I have received.

      Mr. Swayne
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he received regarding re-opening the New Forest; and if he will make a statement; [159266]

      (2) from what organisations and individuals he sought advice prior to opening the New Forest at Easter. [159267]
      134
      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 27 April 2001]: I received advice and representations from, among others, the Verderers, the Commoners' Defence Association, members of the New Forest Committee, the New Forest district council, English Nature, the National Farmers' Union, the Countryside Alliance, the State Veterinary Service and the Forestry Commission.

      Mr. Clifton-Brown
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the results of foot and mouth tests carried out on wild deer since the current outbreak began.[R] [159944]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: A number of deer have been tested for foot and mouth disease, all with negative results.

      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the comments made by Dr. Stuart Renton on the origin and development of the foot and mouth epidemic in Britain; [160206]

      (2) pursuant to his statement of 27 March 2001, Official Report, columns 827–53, on the likely source farm of the foot and mouth outbreak, what changes there have been in the Government's assessment of the situation; and what new information has come into the possession of the Government; [160237]

      (3) if he will publish the advice supplied to the Government by Dr. Stuart Renton on the origin and development of the foot and mouth epidemic. [160205]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The farm where foot and mouth disease infectivity was first present is still believed to be the Heddon-on-the-Wall case. Dr. Renton has not submitted advice or any evidence to the Government on the origin of the farm outbreak.

      Mr. Campbell-Savours
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those cases of foot and mouth in the National Parks which(a) have been reported, (b) await results of full testing and (c) have been confirmed following full testing procedures. [160285]

      Ms Quin
      We regret that it is not possible to provide a list of(a) reported cases or (b) those subject to testing without breaching the Data Protection Act 1998. A list of infected premises within English National Parks is however provided because of the legitimate public interest in the information being in the public domain.

      Providing actual numbers of reported cases can be achieved only at disproportionate cost. However as far as (b) there are 19 premises subject to testing arid 54 infected premises. Information is subject to changes as results of testing are confirmed but is correct as of 3 May.
      135W
      Name and addresses of infected premises within English National Parks

      Temple, Black Hall Farm, Seathwaite, Broughton in Furness, Cumbria

      Mitchell, Hesket Hall, Hasket Newmarket, Cumbria

      Holland, Bank End Farm, Hesket Newmarket, Wigton, Cumbria

      Gillett, Kilncroft, Thackthwaite, Dacre, Penrith, Cumbria

      Crosthwaite, Green Close, Penruddock, Penrith

      Kendal, Outgang Farm, Helton, Askham, Penrith, Cumbria

      Oliver, Cawfields, Haltwhistle, Northumberland

      Armstrong, Grindon Hall Farm, Haydon Bridge, Hexham, Northumberland

      Angus, Hazel Head Farm, Ulpha, Broughton in Fourness, Cumbria

      Pratt, The Ashes, Hawes, North Yorkshire

      Dinsdale, West Lea, Gayle, Hawes, North Yorkshire

      Bowe, Cartriggs Farm, Hawes, North Yorkshire

      Pratt, Hunger Hill, Burtersett, Hawes, North Yorkshire

      Lambert, Raygill Farm, Hawes, North Yorkshire

      Windsor, Dunnabridge Farm, Princetown, Yelverton, Devon

      Fawcett, Hill Top Farm, Askrigg, Leyburn, North Yorkshire

      Armstrong, Mosedale End Farm, Mosedale, Penrith, Cumbria

      Benn, Crook-a-Fleet, Mungrisdale, Penrith, Cumbria

      Strong, Holecrook, Weskot New Market, Witon, Cumbria

      Hope. Blackburn Fram, Wark, Hexham, Northumberland

      Cousins, Foresthall Farm, Selside, Kendal, Cumbria

      Waugh, Mireholme, Bassenthwaite, Cumbria

      Scrimgeour, Lonscale, Brundholme, Threlkeld, Cumbria

      Clarkson, Throstle Nest Farm, Aysgarth, Leyburn, North Yorkshire

      Yeats, Cloughfoot Farm, Haltwhistle, Northumberland

      Coward. Low Rough Hill, Askham, Penrith, Cumbria

      Wearing, Hill Farm, Heathwaite, Grizebeck, Cumbria

      Reeds, Moss Kennels, Hayden Bridge, Hexham, Northumberland

      Littlejohns, Minehouse Farm, Okehampton, Devon

      Winder and Co. Borderiggs, Broughton-in-Furness, Cumbria

      Lambert, Brough Hill Farm, Bainbridge, Leyburn, North Yorkshire

      Richardson, Greenlands Farm, Cockermouth, Cumbria

      Postlethwite, Armaside Farm, Lorton, Cockermouth, Cumbria

      Jackson, Oxen Park Farm, Oxen Park, Ulverston, Cumbria

      Boyren, Hill Park, Colton, Ulverston, Cumbria

      Norman, Kirkhouse Farm, Setmurthy, Cockermouth, Cumbria

      Heseltine, Crossfields, Aysgarth, Leyburn, North Yorkshire

      Pearson, The Faulds, Caldbeck, Wigton, Cumbria

      Edmondson, Walloway, Pennidock, Penrith, Cumbria

      Rigg, Biggards Farm, Calderbeck, Wigton, Cumbria

      Ostle, Mill House Farm, Wellington, Seascale, Cumbria

      Ritson, Baggra Yeat, Uldale, Wigton, Cumbria

      Lord Inglewood, Old Scales Farm, Wythop, Cockermouth, Cumbria

      Wilson, Limedale, Uldale, Wigton, Cumbria

      John Sutcliffe, Bridgefield Farm, Lowick Bridge, Lowick, Ulverston, Cumbria

      Sherwen and Sons, Bridge Petton, Gosforth, Seascale, Cumbria

      Thompson, Great Knott Farm, Blawith, Ulverston, Cumbria

      Twentyman, Croft House, Aughertree, Wigton, Cumbria

      Dickinson, Abbott Park, Colton, Greenwood, Ulverston, Cumbria

      Dickinson, Force Forge, Satterthwaite, Ulverston, Cumbria

      Wilson, Gate Farm, Uldale, Wigton, Cumbria

      Ridley, Wood Hall, Hesket New Market, Wigton, Cumbria

      Pattinson, Uldale Hall, Uldale, Wigton, Cumbria

      Marrs, Manor Farm, High Ireby, Wigton, Cumbria.

      136W
      Mr. Campbell-Savours
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has reached following the consultations on proposals to protect rare breeds and hefted sheep; and if he will make a statement. [160778]

      Mr. Morley
      On 19 April, proposals concerning the exemption of rare breeds and hefted sheep from the contiguous and 3km cull were published and views sought. The vast majority of respondents to this exercise welcomed the proposals. Arrangements for exempting rare breeds of sheep and goats, and other pedigree sheep and goats of high genetic value, and genuinely hefted sheep, such as Herdwicks and Swaledales, from contiguous and 3 km culls have now been introduced and guidance issued. The guidance explains what information needs to be submitted to gain exemption. I am placing a copy of this guidance in the Library of the House.

      These arrangements allow for owners of sheep or goats—who think their stock may qualify and are notified it is to be slaughtered as part of a contiguous or 3 km cull—to apply for exemption from their local divisional veterinary manager (DVM). Owners need to show that the animals can be isolated from other susceptible livestock, and managed in compliance with tight biosecurity. Before registration as an exempted flock/herd, the DVM will arrange for blood samples to be taken for testing. The results for these blood tests must be negative for registration to be granted; positive blood tests will result in the flock/herd being slaughtered.

      Mr. Webb
      To Ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk to the health of pregnant women from inhaling smoke from the burning of(a) infected and (b) uninfected carcases. [157369]

      Yvette Cooper
      [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I have been asked to reply

      The Department of Health's assessment of the risks to health of emissions from pyres burning carcases is published on its website www.doh.gov.uk/fmdguidance/index.htm. Copies are also available in the Library. This assessment covers all sectors of the population, including pregnant women. Inhalation of smoke from pyres burning carcases is not considered to pose a risk to humans of infection with foot and mouth virus and so no difference in risk is anticipated from burning either infected or uninfected carcases.

      GM Fish
      Mr. Alan Simpson
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the dedicated research being undertaken into the potential effects on biodiversity of the use of GM aquaculture stocks; [157267]

      (2) if he will list the research studies used by the Government to evaluate the potential risks of introducing GM fish varieties into aquaculture. [159811]
      137W
      Ms Quin
      The Ministry has not commissioned any research in this area. The potential risks of releasing GM fish are well understood and are considered in a booklet published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions entitle "Guidance for Experimental Releases of Genetically Modified Fish" (ACRE Guidance Note 8, February 1997). This is available in the House Library. Anyone proposing the release of a GM fish would have to submit a full dossier of risk assessment data as part of the statutory consent procedure.

      Code

      Project title

      SF0102

      The genetic identification of Atlantic salmon populations.

      SF0103

      Collation and analysis of data on genetic variation in Atlantic salmon from the British Isles.

      SF0217

      The role of the major histocompatibility complex in kin recognition in Atlantic salmon.

      SF0223

      Behavioural genetics and spawning success of spring run Atlantic salmon in the Girnock Burn, Aberdeenshire.

      SF0210

      Molecular genetics for discrimination in marine fish and salmonids.

      SF0224

      Detection of triploidy in Rainbow trout and Brown trout by fluorescence in situ hybridisation.

      FC0207

      Production of sexually sterile bivalve molluscs.

      FC0215

      Enhancing growth and survival of hatchery produced scallops.

      FC1118

      The molecular basis for the pathogenicity of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus.

      FC1126

      Designing fish for disease resistance.

      FC1139

      Improving the health of fish by promoting natural disease
      resistance—a molecular biological approach.

      MF0146

      Genetic identification of fish eggs by species-specific DNA markers for use in stock biomass assessments by the egg production method.

      MF0226

      Population genetics of shellfish in British waters.

      MF0428

      Large scale evaluation of fish egg identification using genetic probes.

      Mr. Alan Simpson
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the UK Government have taken to enforce Article 9.3.1 of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation code of conduct on minimising the harmful effects of introducing genetically altered fish stocks. [157270]

      Ms Quin
      In line with EU directive 90/220, a consent to release transgenic fish would be granted only if a rigorous assessment confirmed there was no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The assessment would take into account the likelihood of farmed fish escaping into open waters and look in detail at the potential impact on wild stocks. This policy is fully in accord with the UN/FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries.

      Stationery and Printing
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total gross running costs were to his Department in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997 of(a) stationery and (b) printing and publishing. [157628]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Our records show that the total gross running costs to core MAFF in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997 of (a) stationery and (b) printing and publishing were £1.912 million and £835,500 respectively.

      Parliamentary Questions
      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York on 27 March relating to protection of rare breeds during the foot and mouth crisis (ref: 156277). [157367]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 30 April 2001, Official Report, column 493W.
      138W
      Mr. Alan Simpson
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research programmes into fish genetics his Department has been involved with in the last 10 years. [157276]

      Ms Quin
      The Ministry has commissioned the following projects in the broad area of fish genetics, only one of which (FC1126) was related to the possible development of transgenic fish:

      Mr. Duncan
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will provide a substantive answer to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 28 March 2001, relating to the foot and mouth infected area around Stonesby, Leicestershire. [157489]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 9 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 30 April 2001, Official Report, column 493W.

      Mr. Key
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will provide a substantive answer to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury for answer on 29 March. [160345]

      Ms Quin
      I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 3 May 2001,Official Report, column 737W.

      A/F Protein Inc.
      Mr. Alan Simpson
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if(a) he and (b) his Department's officials have met representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts, United States; [157769]

      (2) what representations (a) he and (b) his Department's officials have received from representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts, United States of America; and what response he has made. [157770]

      Ms Quin
      To the best of our knowledge, neither Ministers nor officials have met or received representations from anyone associated with A/F Protein Inc.

      Fisheries and Aquaculture (State Aid)
      Mrs. Ray Michie
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's policy is on the European Commission's new guidelines for the examination of state aid to fisheries and aquaculture; and if he will make a statement. [157839]
      139W
      Mr. Morley
      The new guidelines for the examination of state aid to fisheries and aquaculture (2001/C 19/05) build on the previous guidelines. Among the changes made they tighten rules relating to the provision of operating aid and require more consistency with the conditions applying to grants under the EU fisheries structure fund. The UK, along with the other member states, were consulted on the new guidelines and will comply with them.

      EpiMan Computer Programme
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Department acquired(a) the EpiMan computer programme, (b) associated hardware and (c) access to expertise and advice for its (i) installation and (ii) operation; at what total cost; and when the EpiMan programme and operating system was (1) installed and (2) operating for full use by his Department. [157633]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Ministry was already contracted partners to the EpiMan project in 1996. The start-up costs were approximately £16,000. An updated version of the system was obtained and installed on Monday 19 February 2001 at no additional cost. The associated hardware was already available and access to expertise and advice, specifically for its use in the current epidemic, was operational from the time of confirmation of the first case. It is not possible to estimate the cost of operating this system.

      Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses—England 1999–2000

      £000

      Of which:

      Total direct subsidies

      Crop subsidies

      Livestock subsidies

      Agri-environment

      Other1

      Cereals

      37.8

      34.2

      2.3

      1.0

      0.1

      General cropping

      31.8

      28.8

      2.4

      0.6

      0.0

      Horticulture

      0.40

      0.2

      0.0

      0.1

      0.2

      Pigs and poultry

      3.6

      2.2

      1.4

      0.1

      0.0

      Dairy

      8.5

      2.8

      4.9

      0.8

      0.0

      LFA cattle and Sheep

      29.3

      0.4

      25.4

      3.3

      0.2

      Lowland cattle and sheep

      14.1

      1.7

      10.6

      1.8

      0.0

      Mixed

      33.8

      21.4

      10.7

      1.7

      0.0

      All types

      22.5

      14.8

      6.4

      1.2

      0.1

      1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes

      Notes:

      1. HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies

      2. The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP

      Source:

      Farm Business Survey

      In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short-term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

      This incudes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the beef special premium scheme and suckler cow premium scheme respectively.

      The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to

      Departmental Policies (Plymouth Unitary Authority)
      Mrs. Gilroy
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158026]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 annual agricultural and horticultural census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census has been placed in the House Library.

      As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed Within the framework of the EU common agricultural policy statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

      rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

      Since May 1997, the Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

      Since May 1997, the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by countryside stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and

      141W
      £18 million in 2001–02. Full-time hill Farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the hill farm allowance scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the hill livestock compensatory allowance in 1996–97.

      One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the rural development regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England rural development programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over the period 2000–06.

      Farmers in South-West Devon can benefit from schemes available under the ERDP. Three of the schemes within the programme—rural enterprise, processing and marketing, and vocational training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the ERDP.

      Furthermore, by supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for public good such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

      Consumers in Plymouth, Sutton, Ply mouth, Devonport and South-West Devon will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010. In relation to the Department's responsibility for fisheries policy, our key priority is to protect our fisheries resources for the future and we are taking firm action to ensure a viable future for the fishing industry. The last set of grant schemes, which ended in 1999, invested over £27 million in measures to help the fishing industry in England. Fishermen operating in the Plymouth, Sutton, Plymouth, Devonport and South-West Devon constituencies will now benefit from the £22.5 million aid package announced on 2 April, to help restructure the English fishing industry, to improve the quality and value of the catch, and to retrain fishermen and rejuvenate fishing ports.

      Wild Deer Cull
      Mr. Key
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on the culling of wild deer in Wiltshire in the spring; and if he will make a statement. [158196]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Ministry has no plans for such a cull.

      Invicta Lamb
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the implications for the farming industry of the closure of Invicta Lamb at Lamberhurst, Kent. [159594]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The Invicta Lamb abattoir at Lamberhurst was an important outlet for sheepmeat from the south of England in particular for export to the Continent.

      Animal Movements
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average distance moved by(a) sheep and (b) cattle intended for slaughter between farm and abattoir was in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. [159596]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The information is not available.

      Sugar Beet
      Mr. Jenkin
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will pursue to encourage transporters of sugar beet to use trunk roads for journeys to and from sugar beet factories. [159987]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Transporters of sugar beet must meet the relevant restrictions applicable to infected areas. The movement of sugar beet is not expected again until the autumn.

      Meat Imports
      Mr. Dawson
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to reduce risks posed by the importation of meat products by passengers from abroad. [159951]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on 27 March, this Ministry is co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that rules on imports by passengers are enforced effectively.

      Bovine TB
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of testing for bovine TB and associated slaughtering in the national herd since 20 February. [160208]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: Almost all routine testing for TB in cattle has been put on hold, with state veterinary service (SVS) resources diverted to deal with the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. In most areas, reactor cattle disclosed by testing carried out before the imposition of FMD movement restrictions are being held on farms. Decisions on re-tests on inconclusive reactors and short interval tests are being made on a case-by-case basis according to the FMD situation in different divisions of the SVS.

      Krebs Trials
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of the foot and mouth epidemic on the Krebs trials. [160207]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      [holding answer 3 May 2001]: Operations in the badger culling field trial were scheduled to resume after the close season ended on 1 May. However, preparations for the 2001 culling programme have been delayed because MAFF wildlife unit staff have been redeployed to assist with foot and mouth disease control measures. Some management functions are being maintained to ensure that the wildlife unit can rapidly move back into trial operations.

    HEALTH

      Consultant Vacancies
      Mr. Harvey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many vacancies there were for consultants in each year since 1995 broken down(a) by specialty and (b) by health authority; and if he will make a statement; [148087]

      (2) how many vacancies there were in the NHS for consultants by specialty in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [150390]

      Mr. Denham
      The data requested were not collected centrally before 1999. They are now published annually in the Department of Health Vacancies Survey, which has been published in the Library.

      The total number of consultants as at 30 September 2000 (the latest figure) was 24,310—an increase of 1,081 or 4 per cent. on the year before.

      Waiting Lists
      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were waiting on in-patient lists at each(a) NHS trust and (b) health authority area in March 1997; [153487]

      (2) how many patients were waiting more than 13 weeks on out-patient lists at each (a) NHS trust and (b) health authority in March 1997; [153488]

      (3) which (a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities have more (i) in-patients and (ii) out-patients waiting 12 months for their operations than in March 1997. [153473]

      Mr. Denham
      The data requested are publicly available in the following publications prepared by the Government Statistical Service (available in the Library):Hospital in-patient waiting list statistics, England, National Health Service trust based: The "Green Book".
      Hospital in-patient waiting list statistics, England, population based: The "Yellow Book".
      Waiting times for first out-patient appointment, England, NHS trust based: The "Red Book".
      Waiting times for first out-patient appointment, England, population based: The "Purple Book".

      Import Checks (Southampton)
      Mr. Key
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inspectors are employed to check imports of(a) meat and meat products and (b) fruit and vegetables at Southampton; what percentage of containers or loads are inspected; how many shipments have been rejected in the past year; what was the country of (i) production and (ii) export; and if he will make a statement. [155118]

      Ms Stuart
      [holding answer 23 March 2001]: At present, data from enforcement authorities in respect of imported food are not separately identified. Under the terms of the new Framework Agreement between the Food Standards Agency and local food authorities, recently agreed, information specifically on imported foods will be available, but not before 2002.

      Checks at Southampton port on meat, meat products, fruit and vegetables imported from third countries are the responsibility of the Port Health Authority. Imports of these foods from member states of the European Union
      144W
      are not subject to border controls. Imports of meat and meat products from other EU member states are subject to random checks at their point of destination within the United Kingdom.

      Mental Health National Service
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the effects have been in Shrewsbury and Atcham on mental health patients of the introduction of the mental health national service framework. [156494]

      Mr. Hutton
      The mental health national service framework sets national standards and defines service models for promoting mental health and treating mental illness in the five following areas; mental health promotion, primary care and access to services, effective services for people with severe mental illness, caring about carers, and I Preventing suicide.

      The local implementation team in Shropshire with responsibility for delivery of the mental health national service framework and the national health service plan (mental health) requirement is working actively to deliver the necessary changes in local services.

      A stocktake of primary care mental health services is under way, as a bridge to improved links and joint work with primary care and general practitioners. The funding for an assertive out reach team has been identified, to serve the people of Shrewsbury and Atcham, and this will be functional this year. The low secure service on Wroxeter Ward is part of the regional network of secure services, and offers 16 beds providing a focus on rehabilitation.

      Mr. Nicholas Winterton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been made available to help providers in South Cheshire deliver the provisions in the national service framework for mental health in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [159920]

      Mr. Hutton
      Modernisation money allocated to South Cheshire health authority for adult, adolescent and child mental health services for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is shown in the table. These figures do not include funding made available to local providers of mental health services by the health authority from their general allocation. The figures also exclude allocations to local authorities for mental health services for the residents of South Cheshire.

      Modernisation funds

      Year

      £

      1999–2000

      279,000

      2000–01

      316,000

      Funding details for South Cheshire health authority are not yet available for the year 2001–02. However, the national health service plan announced that there will be significant investment for the development of mental health services for the period 2001 to 2004 and health authority allocations will be made available on the basis of weighted populations.

      Mr. Nicholas Winterton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been made available to help providers deliver the provisions in the national service framework for mental health in(a)1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [159919]
      145W
      Mr. Hutton
      In 1999–2000 an additional £68.5 million, and in 2000–01 a further £66 million was made available to providers to deliver the provisions in the national service framework for mental health. In the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 an extra investment of £329 million will be provided to fast forward the national service framework and to enable us to deliver our national plan commitments. In addition £30 million for 2001–02 to 20002–03 will be made available to improve the physical infrastructure in acute wards.

      GPs
      Mr. Derek Twigg
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of hours worked per week by general practitioners in England and Wales was in(a) 1971, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [157882]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The only data on hours worked by general practitioners are from the general medical practitioner (GMP) workload surveys. One was carried out in 1989–90. Details in the table show hours worked on general medical service (GMS) and non-GMS duties. The information is for Great Britain and is not available for England and Wales only.

      Average1 number of hours worked per week by general medical practitioners by type of activity, 1989–90

      Hours

      GMS and non-GMS duties

      41,99

      of Which:

      GMS duties

      37.01

      1Average is calculated whether or not the GMPs were involved in the activity in their recording week.

      Source:

      GMP workload survey 1989–90

      Profound and Multiple Disabilities
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reduction in the number of services for profound and multiple disabilities in the last three years. [158085]

      Mr. Hutton
      It is the responsibility of local statutory authorities to determine the level of services required in their area. Data on services for people with profound and multiple disabilities are not held centrally, but it is widely recognised that the number of children and young people with profound and multiple disabilities who survive into adulthood is increasing. The recently published White Paper "Valuing People, a New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21 Century" specifically recognises the needs of people with profound and multiple disabilities.

      It included our target for an additional 6,000 severely disabled children by 2002 to receive support by a co-ordinated care package from health and social services. Additionally integrated health and social services for children and young people with severe disabilities and complex needs will be one of the priority uses of the capital element of the learning disability development fund. Support for families of disabled children is also being given through the Government's "Quality Protects" programme and through the New Opportunity Fund providing grants for projects offering palliative care to children with life limiting illness and their families.

      Meat Inspection
      Mr. Simon Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce hazard analysis critical control points to the meat inspection system in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [158501]

      Ms Stuart
      I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on 3 April 2001,Official Report, columns 137–39W.

      Mr. Simon Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the introduction of hazard analysis critical points to the meat inspection system in the United Kingdom. [158502]

      Ms Stuart
      Representations on hazard analysis and critical control points and the future control of meat inspection have been received from UNISON and hon. Members on behalf of constituents. I am advised that UNISON and the Association of Meat Inspectors have also been holding discussions on this issue with the Food Standards Agency.

      Council of Europe Public Health Committee
      Dr. Iddon
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what objectives he is pursuing in relation to the market in food supplements through the Council of Europe and meetings of its public health committee. [159179]

      Ms Stuart
      We consider that in the interests of consumer choice the market for supplements sold under food law should be open to all products which are safe and appropriately labelled.

      Drugs
      Ms Moran
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been made available for(a) drug education and prevention and (b) drug rehabilitation in Luton since 1 May 1997. [159416]

      Ms Stuart
      Information on funding for drug education, prevention and rehabilitation is not available centrally for Luton. National health service funding for these services is provided to Bedfordshire health authority. The Luton drug action team will receive its share of the new pooled treatment budget via Bedfordshire health authority and has been allocated £1,199,000 for 2001–02.

      Drug treatment in the Luton drug action team area is mostly provided from NHS, social services, police, Probation and Prison Service funds that are embedded within mainstream services and cannot readily be disaggregated. However, certain earmarked grants and allocations to Bedfordshire health authority can.

      £000

      Drug misuse special allocation

      1997–98

      410

      1998–99

      436

      1999–2000

      537

      2000–01

      568

      In-year addition

      2000–01

      118

      147W

      £000

      Health Action Zone drug prevention work in Luton

      1998–99

      200

      1999–2000

      100

      Eastbourne Hospital
      Mr. Waterson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average waiting times were for a first appointment with a consultant at Eastbourne District General Hospital in(a) May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; [159191]

      (2) what the average wait was at Eastbourne District General Hospital for a first out-patient appointment in (a) May 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [160131]

      Ms Stuart
      The information requested can be found in "Waiting times for first out-patient appointments in England: Detailed statistics". This is published quarterly and can be found in the Library.

      Prescription Charges
      Mr. Coaker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges was last reviewed; [159754]

      (2) what criteria he uses for exempting medical conditions from prescription charges. [159787]

      Ms Stuart
      The list of medical conditions conferring exemption from prescription charges was agreed with the medical profession in 1968. It was last reviewed as part of the comprehensive spending review in 1998. We concluded that there should be no change to the list of conditions conferring exemption for the rest of this Parliament.

      Mr. Coaker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what it would cost to exempt people with Parkinson's disease from prescription charges; [159786]

      (2) how many people with Parkinson's disease are required to pay for their prescriptions. [159785]

      Ms Stuart
      Information about people with Parkinson's disease who are required to pay for their prescriptions is not held centrally. We cannot, therefore, provide a reliable estimate of the cost of exempting all people with Parkinson's disease. However, many people with Parkinson's disease will be aged 60 or more and already entitled to free prescriptions.

      Treatments (Children)
      Mr. Love
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to monitor the use of unlicensed and off-label treatments on children; and if he will make a statement; [159605]

      (2) what research his Department has carried out into the extent of the use of unlicensed and off-label treatments on children; and if he will make a statement. [159606]

      Ms Stuart
      [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The vast majority of medicines on the United Kingdom market have been granted a marketing authorisation. Use of medicines in children where this is not specified in the
      148W
      marketing authorisation ('off-label' use) is permitted under UK law where the clinician believes it is justified. This is a matter for clinical judgment, informed by specialist guidance produced by and available to the profession. The Medicines Control Agency and Committee on Safety of Medicines continue to monitor the safety of all medicines, whether used within their product licence or used unlicensed or 'off-label'.

      It is our view that children should have access to medicines that have been fully evaluated for use in childhood. As medicines regulation in the UK derives largely from European legislation, an international approach is needed. We have therefore raised the profile of the issue at European level to encourage companies to undertake appropriate trials on the use of medicines in the treatment of children. This formed the basis for an international guideline, operational in the European Union from January, and applicable in the United States of America and Japan. In addition the European Commission has been asked to develop measures for children's medicines. We await their proposals.

      Hospital Hygiene
      Ms Ward
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional money has been made available to West Hertfordshire NHS trust as a result of the recent report on cleanliness in hospitals. [159537]

      Mr. Denham
      An allocation of £150,000 was made last year to improve the patient environment at West Hertfordshire Hospitals national health service trust. A further allocation is currently being determined and will be announced shortly.

      Waiting Times
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives he has introduced to ensure compatibility of waiting times between health authorities. [160069]

      Mr. Denham
      Our national health service plan targets will reduce the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment to six months and for out-patient appointments to three months by 2005. The modernisation agency and the Department's regional offices are working with the NHS to significantly improve access to care and to reduce variations in waiting times in the areas with the longest waits.

      Audiology Services
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the waiting times for initial hearing tests for(a) adults and (b) children. [160068]

      Mr. Hutton
      Information on waiting times for initial hearing tests is not collected centrally.

      The "Action on Ear Nose and Throat (ENT)" initiative, which has been established as part of our modernisation strategy for the national health service, is looking at improving access to ENT and audiology services. Departments are being supported to re-design the way services are provided, in order to improve access and reduce waiting times. One element of the initiative focuses specifically on audiology, with the aim of spreading best practice to all audiology departments.

      Residential Care Homes (North-west)
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) private and (b) local authority residential homes in the north-west there were in the years from 1997 to date. [160089]

      Mr. Hutton
      The table shows the number of independent and local authority staffed residential care homes in the north-west region. Information is presented for the years 1997 to 2000.

      Number of local authority staffed, private and dual registered residential care homes in the north-west region1, 1997 to 2000, as at 31 March

      Year

      Total number of homes

      Local authority staffed homes

      Independent homes2

      Dual registered homes3

      1997

      3,196

      345

      2,570

      281

      1998

      3,594

      323

      2,845

      426

      1999

      3,599

      309

      2,872

      418

      2000

      3,703

      304

      2,947

      452

      1 The Government Office regions of north-west and Merseyside.

      2 Consists of voluntary, private and small homes.

      3 Homes that are registered to provide both residential and nursing care operated by the independent sector.

      Source:

      Department of Health annual return RA form A

      Special Advisers
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160057]

      Ms Stuart
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 May 2001, Official Report, column 607W.

      Cataract Operations
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the waiting list was for those waiting for cataract operations on the NHS in the north-west in each of the years from 1997 to date; [160088]

      (2) what the cost of a cataract operation was in the north-west in each of the years from l997 to date. [160087]

      Mr. Denham
      We do not collect procedure specific waiting list information.

      The cost of a cataract operation in the north-west from 1997 to date is shown in the table.

      North-west regional average costs for a cataract operation

      £mean average

      Narrative and admission type

      1997–98

      1998–99

      1999–2000

      Day case

      621

      620

      570

      Elective inpatient

      693

      839

      791

      Non-elective inpatient

      814

      1,317

      1,359

      Note:

      These data relate to the financial years as stated.

      Refrigerants
      Mr. Laurence Robertson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health which premises owned and leased by his Department use(a) chlorofluorocarbons and (b) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other relevant energy needs; if he will publish details of such use and the reasons for it; and what specific guidance on the use of these substances he has issued to NHS trusts. [159965]

      Ms Stuart
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Of the buildings owned or leased by the Department, three of its main headquarters buildings and three of its main regional office buildings use hydrochlorofluorocarbons as refrigerant in air conditioning systems. The Department is looking at options to replace these with more environmentally friendly alternatives.

      Guidance issued to the National Health Service is to ensure that they do not purchase any products that use chlorofluorocarbons, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons where there are suitable alternatives.

      Correspondence
      Mr. Burns
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive a reply to his letter of 25 January concerning Mr. Heywood-Waddington of Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in replying. [160166]

      Mr. Hutton
      A reply to the hon. Gentleman's letter was sent on 2 May 2001.

      I apologise for the delay in replying to his correspondence but, unfortunately, his letter did go astray within the Department. A copy of his correspondence was sought and faxed through to the Department on 1 May. New operational procedures have been introduced in the Department to ensure that this sort of delay should not happen again.

      Breast Reduction Surgery
      Mr. Bob Russell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 583W, on surgical treatments, when he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to discuss procedures for offering breast reduction surgery following clinical recommendations and reduce the postcode lottery in this area of health care; and if he will make a statement. [160163]

      Yvette Cooper
      [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Breast reduction surgery was assessed against the criteria for proposing topics to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and it was decided that it should not be referred at this time.

      NHS Trusts (Greater London)
      Mr. Cox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts cover the Greater London area. [160267]

      Mr. Denham
      There are 32 acute hospital national health service trusts and 37 non-acute trusts in the Greater London area effective of 1 April 2001. These are listed in the table.
      151W

      NHS trusts in the London region

      Trust name

      Type

      Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

      Acute

      Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

      Acute

      Barts and The London NHS Trust

      Acute

      Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

      Acute

      Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

      Acute

      Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

      Acute

      Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

      Acute

      Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

      Acute

      Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

      Acute

      Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      King's College Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

      Acute

      Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

      Acute

      North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

      Acute

      Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Queen Mary's, Sidcup NHS Trust

      Acute

      Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

      Acute

      Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

      Acute

      Royal Marsden NHS Trust

      Acute

      Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

      Acute

      St. Mary's NHS Trust

      Acute

      University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

      Acute

      West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

      Acute

      London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

      Ambulance service

      Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust

      Community

      Community Health South London NHS Trust

      Community

      Croydon and Surrey Downs Community Health NHS Trust

      Community

      Harrow & Hillingdon Healthcare NHS Trust

      Community

      Riverside Community Health Care NHS Trust

      Community

      South West London Community NHS Trust

      Community

      Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

      Community and mental health

      Oxleas NHS Trust

      Community and mental health

      Parkside Health NHS Trust

      Community and mental health

      Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust

      Community and mental health

      Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      North East London Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      South London and Maudsley Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      West London Mental Health NHS Trust

      mental health

      Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Barnet Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Bexley Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Bromley Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      City and Hackney Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Enfield Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Greenwich Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Haringey Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Havering Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Kingston Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Nelson and West Merton Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Newham Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Redbridge Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Teddington, Twickenham and Hampton Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone Primary Care Trust

      Primary care trust

      152W

      NHS Direct (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each month for which data is available how many telephone calls were received by NHS Direct from people living in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [160368]

      Ms Stuart
      NHS Direct Stafford, which covers the Shrewsbury and Atcham area in Shropshire, became live on 31 October 2000. Information is not collected on a constituency basis, but the number of telephone calls received from people with a Shropshire postcode is shown in the table.

      Month

      Number

      October 20001

      20

      November 2000

      437

      December 2000

      740

      January 2001

      1,018

      February 2001

      1,062

      March 20012

      1,691

      1 Covers one day (31 October 2000)

      2 Increase in numbers coincides with television advertisement campaign in the Central TV region.

      source:

      NHS Direct Stafford

      Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were employed at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [160364]

      Yvette Cooper
      The table shows the number of hospital medical and dental staff employed by the Royal Shrewsbury hospital national health service trust in both 1997 and 2000. This indicates an increase in the number of doctors working at the trust:

      Hospital medical and dental staff within the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust

      At 30 September

      Number

      1997

      200

      2000

      220

      Note

      Figures rounded to the nearest 10

      Source:

      Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

      We are committed to further increasing the number of staff in the national health service and outlined proposals for this in the NHS plan, published in July 2000. Proposals include 7,500 more consultants and 2000 more general practitioners by 2004.

      Beta Interferon
      Mr. Todd
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the health authorities in which beta interferon is made available to newly diagnosed MS sufferers; [160262]

      (2) what guidance he has given to health authorities on their policies on the use of beta interferon pending the outcome of the NICE review. [160261]
      154W
      Mr. Denham
      We have recently reminded all chief executives in the National Health Service that existing guidance contained in circulars EL(95)97 and HSC 1999–176 remains in place pending the publication of authoritative guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

      Information about health authorities' policies on the treatment of multiple sclerosis is not available centrally. Any such policies should provide for individual cases to be considered on their merits in the light of the evidence available on different forms of treatment.

      Overseas Visits
      Dr. Fox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the overseas countries visited by each Minister in his Department as part of their official duties in each of the last five years. [160327]

      Ms Stuart
      Health Ministers as part of their official duties have visited the following countries.

      Year/country

      Visitor

      1997

      Belgium

      Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Public Health) (PS(PH))

      France

      PS(PH)

      1998

      Germany

      Secretary of State (SofS)

      France

      SofS

      South Africa

      SofS

      USA

      SofS

      Barbados

      SofS

      Sweden

      Minister of State (Commons) (MS(C))

      Japan

      MS(C)

      Belgium

      PS(PH)

      Italy

      PS(PH)

      Luxembourg

      PS(PH)

      1999

      Switzerland

      SofS

      France

      MS(C)

      USA

      MS(C), PS(PH)

      Italy

      Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords)(PS(L)

      Singapore

      PS(L)

      Turkey

      Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health)(PS(H))

      Finland

      PS(H)

      Belgium

      PS(H)

      Greece

      PS(PH)

      Luxembourg

      PS(PH)

      2000

      USA

      MS(H)

      Belgium

      PS(L), PS(H)

      Switzerland

      PS(H)

      Germany

      PS(H)

      France

      PS(H)

      Luxembourg

      PS(H)

      Ireland

      PS(H)

      Sweden

      PS(H)

      2001

      Belgium

      PS(L)

      Sweden

      PS(H)

      Germany

      PS(H)

      155W
      Dr. Fox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of sending(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants to health conferences in (i) the UK and (ii) overseas in each of the last five years. [160328]

      Ms Stuart
      The Department does not collect the information in the form requested and an answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      NHS Direct
      Dr. Fox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to date of NHS Direct. [160306]

      Ms Stuart
      NHS Direct has been funded from a top-sliced central budget. The total costs of the service since 1998–99 are given in the table. These costs include all set-up costs for establishing the call centre environment, and central costs.

      £million

      Year

      Total cost

      1998–99

      14

      1999–2000

      55

      2000–01

      89.1

      The 2000–01 figures are an estimate based on latest information. The final costs will not fluctuate widely from the information in the table.

      Commission for Health Improvement
      Dr. Fox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to date of the introduction and operation of the Commission for Health Improvement. [160311]

      Mr. Denham
      Not including the preparatory administrative costs borne by the Department (which could not be identified without disproportionate effort), the cost of establishing and continued operation of the Commission for Health Improvement between 1 November 1999, when it came into being, and 31 March 2001, is £13.7 million. This total includes a proportionate contribution from the National Assembly for Wales.

      The breakdown of expenditure in each year is shown in the table:

      Year

      £ million

      November 1999-March 2000

      2.3

      April 2000-March 2001

      11.4

      Parliamentary Questions
      Mr. Key
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide a substantive answer to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury for answer on 23 March. [160344]

      Ms Stuart
      I replied to the hon. Member today.

      ME
      Sir Brian Mawhinney
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many ME specialist clinics have outreach mobile units to go to those whose symptoms are so severe as to render them bed or house-bound; [160332]
      156W
      (2) if he will list those NHS trusts which provide specialist out-patient clinics for those suffering from ME; [160329]

      (3) if he will list the NHS trusts which provide specialist (a) in-patient and (b) ward facilities for those suffering from ME. [160331]

      Yvette Cooper
      The information requested is not held centrally.

      The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services which people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) access. These patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialities including general medicine, neurology and immunology. The CFS/ME working group is developing guidance to improve the quality of care for CFS/ME patients.

      Sir Brian Mawhinney
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors specialising in ME are attached to NHS trusts in the(a) Cambridgeshire/Peterborough, (b) Lincolnshire and (c) Northamptonshire health authority areas. [160333]

      Yvette Cooper
      The information requested is not available centrally or collected in Lincolnshire. Addenbrooke's national health service trust is reported to have five general neurologists working across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In Northamptonshire, no one clinician has been identified with a particular interest in CFS/ME, although general physicians and neurologists are available to exclude alternative diagnosis.

      Children's Secure Accommodation
      Sir Brian Mawhinney
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each appropriate English local authority the most recently available average amount which is spent per annum per child on children held in secure accommodation, together with the number of such secure placements in the most recent period for which figures are available. [160336]

      Mr. Hutton
      At 31 March 2000 there were 436 approved places in local authority secure accommodation. Information on numbers of children admitted to secure units and numbers of days that each child spends in secure units is not available. Information on numbers of children accommodated on 31 March is available but because the numbers are so small, and because of the likely variations in numbers in secure units on each day of the year, this would not produce reliable calculations of average spend per annum per child.

      Diabetes
      Mr. David Stewart
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive advice from the UK National Screening Committee on the proposed screening programme for type 2 diabetes. [160346]

      Mr. Denham
      The United Kingdom national screening committee's proposals for a type 2 diabetes development project were approved on 2 April. Officials are now developing more detailed plans including a specification
      157W
      for the sites, finalised costings and a timetable for the project. The project is being designed to dovetail into existing research projects on screening for type 2 diabetes and should ensure that we have a clear picture of whether or not screening is the most appropriate way to improve identification of this condition. I expect to receive further updates from the UK national screening committee as the work progresses.

      Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham
      Mr. Viggers
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for patients at the Accident and Emergency Unit at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham. [160003]
      158W
      Ms Stuart
      This is day-to-day management information and, as such, is not collected centrally. The information should be available from the chairman of the Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

      Royal Hospital, Haslar
      Mr. Viggers
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to promote public awareness of the facilities available at the Accident Treatment Centre at the Royal Hospital, Haslar. [160004]

      Ms Stuart
      An active publicity campaign has been undertaken by Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority and Haslar communications group. The campaign began on 23 April 2001 and will run until June 2001 involving the use of leaflets, articles in the local media and a road show visiting local shopping centres.

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

Zimbabwe
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing with regard to the present developments in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State, Brian Wilson, summoned the Zimbabwean High Commissioner on 27th April 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. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will raise Zimbabwe again at the General Affairs Council next week.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. We have been giving aid to Zimbabwe to the tune of £14 million a year. Nearly £1 million goes to governance and human rights. Who monitors the distribution of the British taxpayers' money? Bearing in mind the amount of corruption in Zimbabwe at the moment, what assurance can Her Majesty's Government give that those funds are not being distributed by Mugabe's cronies? With corruption so rife, have the Government considered targeted personal sanctions such as travel bans on Mugabe and his family and identification of their assets?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we are alive to the importance of targeting the aid where it will be properly delivered and of ensuring that it is the kind of aid which will benefit the people we wish it to benefit. We continue to maintain a bilateral development programme in Zimbabwe, as the noble Baroness rightly said, for which the 2000–01 allocation is around £14 million. That programme is focused on health issues, such as AIDS and HIV-prevention programmes and rural water and sanitation measures along with the reform of local government, governance and human rights. Twenty-five per cent of the adult population are infected by the HIV/AIDS virus and 63 per cent of Zimbabweans live below the poverty line. We have a responsibility to help those people.
A long list of projects was given by my right honourable friend Claire Short on 2nd May in a
892
Written Answer, which I shall happily forward to the noble Baroness and also place a copy in the Library. My right honourable friend, in addition to giving the list of the current projects being carried out in Zimbabwe by DfID, said that she continues to keep the Zimbabwean programme under regular review to ensure that it is still effective and appropriate in the current difficult circumstances.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the Government's current attitude towards land reform in Zimbabwe and to the UNDP initiative on land reform?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, we have always said we will support a land reform programme which is transparent, fair and cost-effective and which forms part of a wider Zimbabwean government programme to reduce poverty, as agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe in 1998 at the land conference. However, their present so-called "fast-track" programme does not meet those conditions. We urge the Government of Zimbabwe to take immediate steps to end the illegal occupation of farms and to restore the rule of law.
In relation to the UNDP initiative, we welcome any initiative which encourages dialogue between all stakeholders and leads to a programme based on the principles agreed at the 1998 land conference. The UNDP has now received a response to its letter to President Mugabe and it is in the process of consulting donor countries and donors on the next step.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at a time when the whole of democratic institutions and human rights are at stake in Zimbabwe, we must do everything possible to assist those who are battling for those rights, including the Opposition leader, against whom a very dubious case has been brought? We must also recognise the astonishing courage being shown by both black and white judges in Zimbabwe in trying to sustain the culture of human rights and the rule of law.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. We are greatly impressed by the courage of both the judges and the political Opposition. We will give our backing wherever possible from the outside, although such backing is unfortunately limited because this is a struggle inside Zimbabwe. The brave judiciary is upholding the finest traditions of sustaining the independence of the judiciary. We, like the rest of the democratic world, are watching with great interest the trial of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai. He achieved what he wanted to happen, the trial having been referred to the Supreme Court. We have full confidence in the independence of the Supreme Court and await the outcome of the trial with interest.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government of Zimbabwe made clear their objective of removing white people who own property in Zimbabwe. Is that not a form of ethnic cleansing? When will it be treated as such?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not know how I can say more emphatically what I have said from this Dispatch Box and what other Ministers of this Government have said in both Houses. We deplore the violence that has accompanied the occupation of the farms. It is contrary to the land reform process to which the Government of Zimbabwe agreed. We call on the Government of Zimbabwe to end the illegal occupation of the farms and to ensure the enforcement of the rule of law.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, mentioned the position of Morgan Tsvangirai, who, before he became leader of the Opposition, was a trade union leader. Is the Commonwealth engaged in looking at his legal position, including his trial?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group decided to send a three-man ministerial mission, led by Barbados and including Australia and Nigeria, to Zimbabwe. That mission was to visit Zimbabwe in time to report back to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group so that the group could make appropriate recommendations to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In fact, that is dependent on the Government of Zimbabwe receiving the mission. It is up to the participants in that mission, plus the Commonwealth Secretary General—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, if the House does not wish to hear the answer in relation to the Commonwealth, that is not giving the matter its due importance.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there have been some prolonged Answers. Is the noble Baroness aware—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the clock says "8 minutes". I believe that the feeling of the House is that we should move on.

Animal Rights Extremism
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, in addition to clauses in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, to prevent the Animal Liberation Front from damaging the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, new legislation is being introduced in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We have also published a consultation paper on the Government's strategy for tackling animal rights extremism, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
Last week the Home Secretary met representatives of the City and financial institutions to discuss ways of supporting those who have concerns about being targeted by extremists, and a ministerial committee has been set up to co-ordinate work across government to tackle animal rights extremism.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the excellent performance of this industry and its valuable exports are still at risk from violent attacks on individuals and their property? Can he confirm that United Kingdom law requires new drugs to be tested on at least two species of mammal before they can be marketed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I and the Government certainly recognise the value of the pharmaceutical industry. It would be a tragedy if companies were forced to move abroad to continue their research. The pharmaceutical industry has made a tremendous contribution to medical science, to the welfare and health of human beings and to the welfare of animals. On the second question raised by the noble Lord, I am not an expert in such matters. That is beyond my ministerial brief. However, I shall undertake to advise the noble Lord. I am sure that he knows more about this subject than I do.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that for the rule of law to prevail in this particular area, as in many other areas where people abuse the right of free speech and the right to demonstrate, more is required than the passing of legislation? Does he agree that the robust enforcement of the law by the police and deterrent sentencing by the courts are also required to make it clear that people who go beyond the rule of law are beyond the pale and that such behaviour is not acceptable in a democracy?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is evident that your Lordships' House shares those views. I

895
certainly do. We believe that the rule of law should be upheld; we believe in effective and firm police action. We have been unstinting in our support, particularly for Cambridgeshire Constabulary. We have provided the constabulary with extra funds, which have been used well. Important protection work has been undertaken with great vigilance and the constabulary is to be congratulated on the way in which it has policed that difficult situation at Huntingdon.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is the fact that shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences Company are now not being dealt with by certain financial houses such as, I believe, Charles Schwab an indication of the Government's apparent failure in this area? Is that an indication that the rule of law has not been successfully upheld and that apparently respectable organisations are effectively being intimidated?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that we have been unstinting in our support. As I said earlier, only last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary met with financial institutions to press them and to ensure that there is support for Huntingdon Life Sciences. It is in nobody's interests that financial institutions should withdraw their support from those lines of scientific investigation and inquiry. I believe that we must continue to give our support, and we want to work with everyone to ensure that they can operate effectively. It is in everyone's interests that they do so.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is this a case where we should use whatever pressure we have within the European Union to try to do something on a pan-European basis? The financial institution mentioned in my noble friend's question is, in fact, an Irish bank that has now withdrawn its support from Huntingdon Life Sciences, if the Financial Times is to be believed. Perhaps we should achieve a uniform approach to such issues, not necessarily just because of the Huntingdon Life Sciences case, but also for other companies involved in this necessary type of work in the pharmaceutical industry.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, ultimately it is for those financial institutions to make their own commercial decisions. The role of government is to encourage and to ensure that we provide the right level of support and commitment. In that regard, we have been doing all that we can. The noble Baroness makes an important point in relation to Europe. I congratulate her on her support for European institutions. I have no doubt that in working across Europe in this area we can bring extra pressure to bear so that we can protect the important work that organisations like Huntingdon Life Sciences carry out.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there may be areas in which unnecessary testing of animals takes place, particularly by some of the
896
pharmaceutical firms? Would it not strengthen our case if those were reduced, particularly those which damage the pharmaceutical industry?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have the statistics in front of me but my recollection is that testing on animals is at its lowest level since 1955. That is as a direct result of government policy. It is our desire to minimise the level of testing on animals and we have carried that through in government.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister realise that consultations and task forces are one thing but what is required is action?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not recall that the previous government were wanting in calling up task forces and taking joint ministerial action when they though that right. No doubt the noble Lord will make a case that it was action. I believe that we have been firm and resolute and have been taking action. That action is demonstrated by our commitment to four crucial changes in the current Criminal Justice and Police Bill which is before your Lordships' House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that last week, during the second day in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it was pointed out to the Government that the head of the research centre at Huntingdon, who was attacked at the research centre, would have been protected had he been attacked at his own home but not at the research centre? Therefore, can the Government point out to the Home Secretary that that matter must be put right before the Bill returns to another place?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that ABH travels as an offence; I believe that it is an offence wherever it is committed. We have tried to ensure that Cambridgeshire Constabulary has more than adequate resources to deal with the problem at Huntingdon Life Sciences and we have done exactly that. The Bill tries to provide for an additional range of offences and penalties which can be applied where people pursue directors and so forth to their places of residence. We are intent on doing that and I understood that the noble Lord supported us in that.

Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Investigation
2.52 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to follow up the findings of the report of the investigation into Mirror Group Newspapers plc, published on 30th March.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and the relevant regulators are carefully considering what action should be taken in response to the inspector's findings.
On the question of possible director's disqualification against individuals whose conduct is criticised, legal advice is being taken before deciding on whether such proceedings are appropriate. Ministers hope to be in a position to make that decision as soon as possible.
The Independent Company Law Review Steering Group has also been asked to consider the issues raised in the report which are relevant to the work of the review and to make recommendations.
On other regulatory issues, liaison is continuing with the relevant regulatory bodies, including the Financial Services Authority, the Stock Exchange and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in order to ensure that, where appropriate, progress is made towards implementing the inspector's recommendations. Given the length of time it has taken to produce this report, the Government are keen to see rapid progress made, subject to a careful consideration of the complex issues involved.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is grave public disquiet about the whole course of the Maxwell affair and public reflection on the fact that effectiveness of the hoards of professionals involved in the affairs of Maxwell appears to have been in inverse ratio to the size of the frauds and the size of their fees?
Given that the report contains 101 recommendations, will the Government contemplate having an annual occasion on which this House and the public can be told what progress is being made with regard to each of those recommendations?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is an extremely complicated investigation which involved the interviewing of 180 witnesses. It has taken a long time to complete because it was broken up by the court cases which took place in the middle of it and the difficulties of getting Mr Kevin Maxwell to give evidence. In those circumstances, it has been carried in a timeframe with which one cannot argue and to a cost which is not unreasonable.
Of course, there are many lessons to be learnt and we shall pursue them as fast as possible. The inspectors suggest that a monitoring mechanism should be put in place to ensure that the recommendations are carried through. The department will examine how best that can be done.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the need for all inspectors to be representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, as was the case in my day? Is it not required
898
by the present Administration that there should be an overall view of what the inspectors do, how they do it and when they do it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the inspectors have carried out the investigation perfectly appropriately in the circumstances. The fact that one of the inspectors became a High Court judge in no way slowed up the process. Certain questions need to be asked about the length such reviews take, which is why the Secretary of State has initiated an internal examination into whether Sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 can be speeded up while still giving careful consideration to the issues.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister quantify the exact costs to the public purse of the whole Maxwell issue, not only this report but the legal cases that have been heard? As regards the report, can he tell us whether he believes it would have been shorter had people not been paid on an hourly basis to do it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that it is appalling ever to say anything which might imply that the members of the legal profession could in any way be tempted by such action. The current breakdown of costs shows that the accounting inspector and his team cost £7 million and the legal inspector and the legal costs were £1.5 million, making a total of £8.5 million, excluding VAT. The investigation took a long time and was immensely complicated. It was broken up by the two incidents I mentioned: the court proceedings and the difficulty in obtaining the final evidence from Mr Kevin Maxwell. Taking into account those two factors and the sequence of events, the investigation could not have been undertaken quicker.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key issue in the case is that over £400 million has been plundered from the pension funds of a series of quoted companies? Regardless of the time taken so far, would it not be indefensible if that outrage went totally unpunished?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are two parts to the question. First, the court cases took place and judgments were reached. The inspectors rightly took the view that they should not undertake inquiries covering the same ground as those covered by the court cases. They therefore considered the other issues involved and we are considering and taking legal advice on action which should follow as regards the disqualification of directors.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether any Labour Members of this House were involved with the Maxwell companies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, after 10 years, the inspectors' review is now available to everyone. It

899
sets out their views on all those who participated and comments on those whom they believe to be responsible for all these actions.

Nuclear Weapons
3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Given that their aim of a nuclear weapon-free world would require Trident and its weapons to be destroyed, when and how they envisage this taking place.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government wish to see a safer world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain, Britain's minimum deterrent is a necessary element of national security. We have made it clear that when we are satisfied with progress in mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear arsenals, we shall include British weapons in multilateral negotiations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that both policies which the Government claim to support are directly opposed to each other? One policy envisages a considerable spread of nuclear weapons and the other their total abolition. Is not the Government's position in this matter in serious need of clarification? If they have any difficulty in dealing with that question, will the Government approach the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who has considerable experience in this area?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has considerable experience in this area of policy and his views are always welcome. We made it very clear when we were elected that we would retain Trident while pressing for progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament. We have made good our pledge on multilateral nuclear disarmament by abolishing the free-fall bomb in March 1998, by substantially reducing our nuclear arsenal and by greater transparency in our stockpiles of nuclear and fissile material. We have also pressed very hard internationally on this point. I believe that the Government have stuck faithfully to what they undertook to do at the time of the previous election.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can assist me on one small matter of logic. If someone is against Trident and wants to destroy it, would not one expect that person to be in favour of ballistic missile defence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been clear about what we seek to do in respect of Trident. We have not retained weapons that we do not believe are necessary. That exactly reflects the position
900
articulated by the President of the United States only last week when he said that the US deterrent would be reduced to the minimum necessary. As to missile defence, today we receive in London our friends from the United States led by Steve Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser. We shall further discuss national missile defence during the course of the day, and I hope that we shall then have a clearer view of what the United States is asking us to consider.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in welcoming the US announcement of substantial unilateral reductions in the large nuclear arsenals which it possesses, I ask the noble Baroness whether she will also use her influence to persuade the Americans that a multilateral approach to a reduction in nuclear weapons, which would succeed in persuading the Russians to take similar action, would be rather more constructive.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that we should underestimate the importance of President Bush's announcement last week. It is possible that some political commentators did not read President Bush's announcement last week quite as carefully as I know the noble Lord will have done. The noble Lord will be aware that the United States President said that the US could arid would change the size, composition and character of its nuclear forces, and that in a different part of his speech he stressed the importance that he attached to international negotiations on what was happening not only in relation to nuclear missile defence but missile defence in general. At the moment the US is considering not simply nuclear defence but other very potent chemical and biological weapons, as well as the more conventional weapons that are being developed by some rogue states throughout the world.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Baroness attempt to remind the House of the occasions when the Government have moved at all to get some action taken about the 40,000 or so nuclear warheads which exist and which will be a real threat to the peace of the world for as long as they exist? I cannot recall the Government saying or doing anything about them.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the agreed strength and international safeguard arrangements which we put forward in September 1998, with the International Atomic Energy Authority in a monitoring role. I also remind the noble Lord that last year we pressed the matter very hard at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference, the final document of which spoke of an international unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. I believe that the Government have attempted to ensure that the threat posed by nuclear

901
missiles throughout the world is taken seriously not only in this country but also by our friends—and those who may not be quite so friendly—overseas.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in welcoming the American initiative on nuclear defence, I ask the noble Baroness what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reconcile the people of Fylingdales, and other places which may be affected, to the intrusion (if that is the right word) into their areas of this very necessary defence initiative.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to respond to the noble Lord with all the sincerity that I can muster, until we are clear exactly what the US wishes us to consider it is very difficult to be reassuring on specific points. Until there are specific proposals, we can make no specific responses. Therefore, it is very difficult to be specific with people in the locality who may be affected. If such proposals are forthcoming, they will be important not only for local people—I recognise the importance for those who live near these installations—but for all the people in the United Kingdom.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
3.7 p.m.
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.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before we continue the Committee stage, can noble Lords be made aware of the basis on which they are to debate the Bill? The newspapers tell us that there was a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday which indicated that there would be an election. That affects the way in which our debates may proceed this afternoon. If the Government intend to go to the polls more or less a year early, having launched on a Session of Parliament with a very heavy legislative programme, which began late, I believe that noble Lords should know about it as soon as possible. I realise that if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replies he will probably tell us that he will write to us about it, but that is no good this afternoon. Perhaps the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms will be kind enough to tell us whether he knows anything now; and, if not, when he will know something.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have been advised by my colleagues to say that I shall write to the noble Lord. I am surprised that the noble Lord should ask this question. As he will be aware, this morning we had a meeting lasting about an hour and half in which we discussed planning for this Bill but he did not raise the point that he has just raised. The only information I have is that the Prime Minister's car was seen to drive
902
into Buckingham Palace and out again. I believe that the windows were shaded. As soon as there is an announcement to the public about the possibility of an election I shall in the usual way interrupt the business, ask the House to resume and make a Statement regarding progress of business. But until there is a public announcement my hands are tied.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I should make clear that at the start of the discussions this morning both sides agreed that they would take place on a contingency basis.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have just replied on a contingency basis.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 47 [Extension of existing disclosure powers]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 40, line 31, leave out "or may be"
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 97A, together with my other last minute amendments—for which I apologise to the Committee—were suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. I remind Members of the Committee that I am not a solicitor.
The Bill extends to Scotland. Although criminal justice is a devolved matter, the Bill is promoted for Scotland under the reserved power of this Parliament to make laws for Scotland.
Amendment No. 97A restricts the circumstances in which the disclosure of information can be extended to criminal investigations. It removes the opportunity for disclosure powers to be used where criminal proceedings may be initiated. The Bill could be read as permitting so-called "fishing trips" into sensitive information. That would be a mistake. The amendment removes such a possibility. Amendment No. 97B is similar in effect to Amendment No. 97A. It applies to disclosure when criminal proceedings have been initiated.
Amendment No. 101A upgrades from the negative to the affirmative procedure any order made under Clause 47(3). As drafted, Clause 47(3) will be subject to annulment. These regulations deal with matters of substance; that is, the extension of disclosure powers. They should be fully debated in Parliament prior to implementation under the affirmative procedure. I also suggest that the regulations should be placed before the Scottish Parliament for its approval before implementation.
Amendment No. 102A seeks to ensure that there is no right to require the disclosure of items subject to legal privilege within Clause 47. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right to privacy. The law is usually eager to protect the relationship between a solicitor and his or her client. Provision is made for that within the doctrine of legal professional privilege. To protect that doctrine,

903
provision should be made on the face of the Bill to ensure that Clause 47 does not extend to the disclosure of information subject to legal privilege.
Amendment No. 198A simply restricts the circumstances in which the disclosure of information will be permitted. It restricts that disclosure to actual criminal investigations. Amendment No. 108B similarly applies where criminal proceedings have been initiated. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before we get into the detail of these particular amendments, we are in the awkward situation to which I previously alluded. That is a particular difficulty so far as concerns Part 2 of the Bill. The section contains a complicated matter with considerable detail. It was not discussed during the consideration of the Bill in another place. At Second Reading it was briefly referred to in some speeches.
We all want to help the police. There is no difference between the Government and the Opposition or any Member of the Committee in that desire. The Bill deals with difficult matters of crime. However, at the same time we are conscious of the spectre of "Big Brother" and of the tremendous opportunities offered by electronic communications and IT for the retention of information about everyone. There are all kinds of new analytical tools—data mining, friendship trees and so on—that can be used on such electronic data. Therefore, there are important issues in the Bill which have not been properly discussed.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with privacy of tax information. It also deals with legal privilege. The noble Earl drew attention to that matter. Some of his proposed amendments deal with that issue. It is an extremely important principle in our law in ensuring justice. The enacting of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Government's difficulties with it since, provide an awful warning, as well as an overlap to these provisions. It is extremely important that these potential powers—given not only to the police but also to other authorities—are properly controlled and looked at. It is a difficult and delicate area in which to strike the right balance. Unless we have a proper opportunity to debate the Bill—not merely today, but on Report after the usual reflection, at Third Reading and after another place has had an opportunity to look at any amendments we might make to it—we would not want to see Part 2 of the Bill proceed.
I make that point in the hope that we can perhaps avoid any unnecessary discussion if we should be interrupted in our deliberations today and it becomes clear that we are not going to have a full debate on the matter. In principle, we are not against any powers of this kind. But we believe that they need serious reflection and thought from Parliament as well as from outside and from the affected bodies. Both legal interests and others have great reservations about this
904
part of the Bill. Some of those concerns are reflected in the proposed amendments before us today. Therefore, we must think very carefully about the matter.
Lord McNally: We on these Benches share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Indeed, they will be a reoccurring motif throughout the debate. The Home Office and, indeed, Law Officers are always coming to this House with a sense of urgency and righteousness that they need this or that power at once to fight the forces of evil. But the duty of the House and another place is to give due scrutiny to measures and to make sure that powers extended to the authorities are made to jump sufficiently high hurdles before they are granted.
In recent years there has been a tendency for insufficient scrutiny of such measures. I think of the emergency legislation after Omagh where the Home Office slipped in a whole series of powers along with the anti-terrorism measures. The House has a right to say that there should be proper scrutiny of such measures. Indeed, I hope that it is not just when the interests of lawyers and accountants are brought into question that the House should show its willingness to dig in its heels. If the Prime Minister had had his original wish of an election on 3rd May, the Bill would not have seen the light of day. It would not even have had the chance it has now of becoming law. Therefore, it is no use Ministers warning us of the dire consequences of not giving them their legislation within the next 24 hours. They or the successor government have ample time to bring these measures back to Parliament in the summer for them to have the scrutiny that such important measures deserve.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support what my noble friend Lord Cope has said. We are moving into a sensitive area of the Bill. While I am not suggesting that police should not have all the necessary powers to investigate crime, it is an area that must be approached with great care. The fact is that many authorities in this country hold in their records private, intimate and sensitive information about individuals. The rights of those authorities to disclose that information have to be looked at with great care. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered this aspect of the Bill. While it accepted the need for the powers to disclose, it expressed concern as to some of the details.
I should like to raise one important point. I may be raising it in ignorance more than anything else. We are widening the power to disclose to cover, for example,
"the purposes of any criminal investigation … which … may he carried out",
and,
"the purpose of initiating or bringing to an end any such investigation".
I am not clear whether there has to be a degree of satisfaction and whether the individual whose information is being requested is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. We fell that that provision should be looked at in the course of this debate. Surely it is right that there should be some

905
reason to believe that the individual is involved if he is the person whose information is to be disclosed—information relating perhaps to his health, to his financial position, to his taxation position and many other matters.
Baroness Noakes: Many of the amendments in the group stand in my name. I shall not address them in detail at this stage as I should like to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has to say. A number of concerns have been expressed about this part of the Bill. They have been expressed by those who are involved in advising on tax matters. I refer to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, with which I am connected, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. There are concerns about the possibility of information going overseas to territories that treat tax offences differently and where there are different consequences for taxpayers and their families. More fundamentally, there are concerns about the impact of the Bill on the compliance culture of the UK tax system. Our tax system is built on a high degree of trust between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue. The Bill as drafted would drive a coach and horses through that framework of trust, which has served the country well for a long period of time.
The Bill has also attracted the concerns of business interests such as the CBI. It is concerned about business information being disclosed abroad to the harm of UK businesses. Furthermore, concern was expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which my noble friend Lord Carlisle referred. It concluded that there is a need to introduce adequate safeguards into the Bill.
Many of my amendments concerned the introduction of adequate safeguards. In particular, they centred on introducing a requirement for the consent of an appropriate judicial authority—a Crown Court judge or the equivalent in Scotland—and conditions such as a judge having to take into account whether or not a crime is reasonably expected to be committed and having to take into account some of the overseas dimensions.
I emphasise that serious concerns have been expressed on those points. That is not to say that those who are commenting have any desire to stop the proper fight against serious crime. All Members of the Committee share that desire and all those who have commented share that desire. What is so worrying is the wide and sweeping nature of the powers and the lack of checks and balances within the legislation. I shall not say any more about my amendments at this stage because I should like to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has to say.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I rise briefly to support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. In all the talk about legal privilege there is a danger—not among Members of the Committee but beyond these walls—of it being thought that the privilege attaches to the lawyer. The privilege is for the benefit of the client. Legal privilege is an ancient one
906
and is the bedrock of a fair trial process. It surprises me that there is not protection for the traditional right of non-disclosure of legal communications in the Bill as it stands. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General can assure us that it is already there. I am strongly in favour of amendments that support legal privilege.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendments because, although the powers are sought probably correctly in the main, there must be some safeguards. There is no time adequately to discuss this matter. It is wholly unreasonable that in these circumstances we should be required to deal with the safeguards that are needed. I support the amendments on that ground.
3.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I sympathise with the tone of what has been said, not least because the regrouping has only just arrived in my hand. I therefore understand that fellow Members of the Committee will have difficulty in moving their amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, moved Amendment No. 97A and spoke to Amendments Nos. 97B, 108A, 108B, 102A, 110A and 116A. However we get on today, it may he helpful if we at least attempt to remind ourselves of the amendments with which we are supposed to be dealing. I dare say that I have the amendment numbers wrong. The noble Earl has gone to two of the pre-existing groups, about which I make no complaint at all. We are all in the difficulty of having to deal with much wider groupings than we had originally intended.
I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said. He wishes to help the police and other investigators—the Bill is not limited to the police—in legitimate inquiries. The noble Lord said that this is a delicate area. I accept that. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that Ministers sometimes come with a sense of urgency and righteousness. We are having a division of labour this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Bassam will do the urgency and I shall do the righteousness—if that is acceptable to the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked specific questions about whether there should be a reasonable suspicion before the material may be disclosed. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have said. I understand entirely that the noble Baroness said that she would not go into the detail of her amendments because they formed what might be called a wider-sighted shot.
Perhaps I may deal with the specific amendments that have been moved so far. Those are the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Earl. Lord Mar and Kellie, which seek to leave out the words, "or may be", along with the grouping which is the offspring of the Law Society of Scotland, dealing with legal professional privilege, touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Phillips of Sudbury.

907
Amendments Nos. 97A and 97B, and 108A and 108W seek to leave out the words "or may be" which noble Lords will find in the relevant subsections in Clauses 47 and 49 of the Bill. I underline the following words because they have been of great concern to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. We believe that, subject to appropriate safeguards—I shall return to these because they are important—public authorities ought to be able to disclose information about wrongdoing to law enforcers. The appropriate safeguards are those within the provisions themselves, together with the very important restrictions put on disclosure provided by the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, along with the Secretary of State's power to limit disclosure overseas. If carried—I know that they have been moved with good motive and with a view to securing a good outcome—these amendments would prevent the spontaneous disclosure in cases where information holders had information about criminal activity, but where criminal investigations or procedures had not been initiated.
Perhaps I may give an example, which does not intend in any way to diminish the point which has been made by a number of noble Lords. I understand that there has been an occasion where a drugs trafficker reported his earnings as arising from drug trafficking. Under the present law, the Revenue authorities were not able to inform the police of that matter. I hope that all noble Lords would agree that that is nonsensical, not least because the expertise, subtlety and sophistication of those who commit some of these extremely extensive crimes are significant. The reason why we seek to include the words "or may be" is that it should not be necessary to wait for the trigger of a criminal investigation before such matters can be disclosed. However, I state again that the appropriate safeguards to which I have referred are in place. I hope that I have dealt fully with the point put to me by the noble Earl.
On the question of legal privilege which, as I said earlier in my remarks, was touched on also by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Amendments Nos. 102A, 110A and 116A are not necessary because information which benefits from legal professional privilege could not be disclosed in a way which would undermine the privilege. Most compulsory powers to obtain information do not extend to material which is legally privileged. For that reason, it would be unusual for the disclosing authorities to possess information which is legally privileged. Where the compulsory powers do so extend, the information keeps its privileged nature, notwithstanding the compulsory acquisition. The extent of the privilege will therefore limit the extent to which the authority will be able to disclose the information to third parties. That is because the disclosing authority will have to refrain from acting in a way which would undermine the individual's legal professional privilege. I accept the analysis put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as regards exactly whose property is the privilege.
908
All disclosing authorities under Schedule 1 and Clause 49 will be public authorities within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand that the only exception is Section 4(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. My advice is that the Government do not intend to bring that into force. What are the consequences? It would mean that any disclosure that might be made would need to comply with the right to a fair trial by virtue of Article 6 of the European convention. I can say from my own experience in acting for the British Government in the case of Shah that this is not lightly overlooked by the European Court.
The voluntary disclosure of information to the authorities under the provisions of Schedule 1 or those contained in Clause 49 sometimes may amount to a waiver of the privilege. In those circumstances, the information would not be protected from disclosure. I have dealt with this in some detail because it is not the limited point put forward by the noble Earl. I have sought to reflect more widely the general concerns that have been raised. I repeat that I understand that those concerns deliberately have been raised in general terms because at present we are not dealing with specific points of detail.
This covers the amendments that have been moved so far, but I think that the noble Earl may have a question to put to me, to which I happily give way.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I should like to clarify that I spoke to Amendments Nos. 101A and 102A, rather than to Amendments Nos. 110A and 116A. Amendment No. 101A concerns moving the order from the negative to the affirmative procedure and possibly also putting it before the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl is quite right. Indeed, when gathering together my papers and probably because of my poor handwriting, I read "110A" for "101A".
Amendment No. 101A would not alter the principle that, once the Bill comes into force and thereby harmonises over 70 existing provisions covering statutory disclosure, the Government ought to be able to enact by statutory instrument similar provisions contained in subordinate legislation. We believe that the negative resolution procedure will be sufficient: in this case. I remind noble Lords of an extremely important point which is normally deployed against my submissions; namely, that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has examined the Bill. As I remember, it did not express reservations of any kind about the use of the negative procedure in relation to this power.
I apologise both to the Committee and to the noble Earl for having mistaken the group to which he was speaking. As I have said, the regrouping—as it may subsequently become—was not in my hands when he moved his amendment. I wanted to pay particular attention to the substance of the amendments.

909
I hope that I shall be able to continue to address noble Lords for a few moments longer. I was brought up in Wales where, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will underline, we were always taught to be extremely economic when making submissions of any kind. Indeed, I have often pointed out to the Chief Whip that, given the kind of remuneration one enjoys, one is not really entitled to look for more than 12½minutes.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wonder whether it would help the noble and learned Lord if I were to put two questions to him. First, can he make it absolutely clear to the Committee that, in response to those amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie which stipulate that,
"Nothing in this section authorises the making of any disclosure of items subject to legal privilege",
the noble and learned Lord is saying that they are absolutely unnecessary and that the common law rights of legal privilege will override the provisions set out in the Bill?
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that Schedule 1 contains a list of all those authorities which can seize documents subject to legal privilege, but that, having seized such information, the authorities could not make use of it. However, is it not the case that such information will be of use to the seizing authorities, quite separate from their passing it on to a third party?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not agree with the noble Lord's second proposition. As he and I know from our respective work in practice, sometimes documents are seized which nevertheless can be subject to the successful assertion of legal privilege. In those circumstances, the judge would not rule such documents admissible; he would have recourse to Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and, in any event, there are the Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act dimensions that I have indicated.
It also seems to me that, if a bad faith seizure is made, in the view of many judges it would not be admissible to allow the consequential information as opposed to the original document to be used. I am conscious of the fact that I should not answer at too great a length. Therefore, overcome by shame and submission, I am about to sit down.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and to all noble Lords who have suddenly taken an interest in my amendment. It has been a wide-ranging debate with wide-ranging answers which will certainly be of interest to the Law Society of Scotland. I would normally be able to say that I look forward to reading Hansard and considering the matter before the next stage, but I rather suspect that I shall not be able to do so. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dissolution of Parliament
3.41 p.m
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House—I hope that this does not come as a surprise to your Lordships—to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has today asked Her Majesty the Queen to proclaim the Dissolution of Parliament. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she will comply with this request.
The House will meet at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow, at 11.30 a.m. on Thursday and at 9.30 a.m. on Friday. At the end of Friday's business the House will adjourn and Dissolution will take place on Monday, 14th May. The general election will take place on Thursday, 7th June.
We shall proceed with today's business as it appears on the Order Paper, although, in the light of this announcement, it is proposed to adjust the remainder of the week's business in your Lordships' House. With the leave of the House, I propose to make a further statement about these matters later today. I shall try to ensure that notice of the statement is given on the annunciators but I cannot at this stage inform the House of exactly what time the statement will be made. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will today table a Business of the House Motion for consideration at the start of business tomorrow, as is usual on these occasions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for that statement. Clearly the very short period between the announcement of the Dissolution and the Dissolution itself will mean that a number of Bills on which the House has been working very hard will not be completed. We on these Benches will, in the usual way, offer all our assistance and co-operation in moving forward certain non-controversial items which have had a reasonable parliamentary scrutiny. We hope that later today we shall be able to facilitate a further statement from the Government Chief Whip which will assist the House to understand what will happen. We look forward to hearing further details from him on that occasion.
The noble Lord mentioned that we shall sit tomorrow at 2.30 p.m., at 11.30 a.m. on Thursday and at 9.30 a.m. on Friday. I hope that we can reach a degree of agreement in terms of what business should go through to enable us to stick to those times. I hope that we shall be able to firm up on those times later today in order to make it quite clear to the House what

911
we will be doing and when we will be doing it. Members of the House will then be able to adjust their diaries accordingly.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Government Chief Whip for his "surprising" statement about the forthcoming general election. I can assure him that we on these Benches will co-operate in every way possible on non-controversial and beneficial legislation and endeavour to speed up such matters.
Perhaps the noble Lord will let us know whether Starred Questions will take place in the usual way on Thursday at the beginning of business. We look forward to the further statement.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I believe that the period between the announcement and dissolution is the normal period that has been followed in previous years. We discussed it in the usual channels this morning and there is no reason that we should not be able to stick to the times that I have suggested. As to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, yes, there will be Prayers and Starred Questions as usual on Wednesday at 2.30 p.m. and on Thursday at 11.30 a.m. There will be Prayers but obviously there will be no Starred Questions on Friday.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
3.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 47.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 97B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment
No. 98:
Page 40, line 37, at end insert—
"(2A) In so far as subsection (2) has effect in relation to—

(a) information that has been obtained under or by virtue of the provisions of Part 5 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) (mergers); or

(b) information that has been obtained, for the purpose of facilitating the exercise by a relevant authority of functions under Part 5 of that Act, under or by virtue of the provisions of Part 8 of that Act,

that subsection shall have effect as if, in paragraphs (a) and (b), for "whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere" there were substituted "in the United Kingdom"."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 98 formally.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister suggested that he wished to move Amendment No. 98 formally. Perhaps he will explain what this government amendment and related amendments seek to do—unless, of course, he is agreeing to my suggestion that, in view of the announcement made by the Government
912
Chief Whip, it would be better not to move any further on Part 2 of the Bill and to leave the issue to subsequent legislation after the general election has taken place.
I should make it clear that, if the Government are re-elected, it will be a matter for them how they proceed. If my own party is elected to government, we shall look very carefully at these provisions. I do not think that we will bring them back in exactly the same form but as I made clear earlier, we will wish to pursue the point that lies behind them. However, we do not think that it is right to proceed at this stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I was struggling to find my notes.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: What is the purpose of introducing amendments to the Bill when we now know that it will go no further in the House in this Parliament?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is clearly a matter for the House to decide ultimately. I was going to respond to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on Part 2 of the Bill.
When we were having our discussions earlier in the day about how we might proceed in the event of the announcement that has just been made by the Chief Whip, we undertook at least to debate the clauses in a consolidated group rather than in the groups that had earlier been agreed through the usual channels. I was anticipating that we would proceed in that way and that my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn would address all of the issues that have been tied together in the new consolidated group before us.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps I should make it clear that large parts of the Bill are acceptable to us. We obviously discussed some amendments the other day and more are before us today but, in the circumstances, we shall not take up the time of the Committee by pressing some of these amendments.
I believe that a Bill based on this Bill will succeed. It is right that it should; it contains many provisions which we support. At the same time, there are a few elements in the Bill which we do not think should proceed in the circumstances because they have not had sufficient discussion. Part 2 of the Bill, with which we are now dealing, is exactly such an element.
There are two possible scenarios at the moment for dealing with Part 2. If the Government are content that Part 2 should be dropped from the Bill, it would nevertheless be helpful if Members of the Committee who have views on Part 2 take this opportunity to express them. That would enable whoever drafts the legislation after the election to know the points of concern and the Bill could be improved as required.
On the other hand, if the Government are persisting in their attempt to achieve Part 2, we shall have to press these amendments more resolutely and at greater

913
length. If that is the case, so be it, but it would be helpful to know the Government's overall view of Part 2 so that we know how to conduct ourselves.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Although we remain of the view that this is an important part of the legislation, the representations that were made to us in the event of an announcement being made this afternoon are being given active consideration. We have some sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord.
I believe that we should be well advised, if we proceed, to have a generalised debate picking out the particular points that Members of the Committee wish to make on Part 2. I suspect that at the end of the day the noble Lord may find that it is not necessary to press his amendments as forcefully as he might otherwise do. There is some value in hearing the views of the Committee on the various issues that have been "flagged up" through the amendments so that they are on the record and legislators in a future Parliament may take account of them.
In the mean time, I believe that we should move in the way that has been suggested. No doubt we can continue to have discussions outside this Chamber as to what will ultimately find its way into the finalised piece of legislation. As the noble Lord said, much of the Bill is uncontroversial and much of it will meet with ready agreement. It is perhaps worth adding that Part 2 was fully debated in another place; and we find the discussion that is taking place on this part of the legislation most helpful.
Lord McNally: I can understand the Minister's remark that some of the proposals are under "active consideration". However, I put it to him that the Government must not be too leisurely on these matters. If we are to spend a large part of today on Part 2 and if other parts of the Bill about which some of us feel equally strongly are not reached, or are reached at some unearthly hour tomorrow morning, we shall strongly take the view that any idea of parliamentary scrutiny has been totally thrown out of the window and we shall have to look to our own resources in those circumstances. Many will take the view that was assumed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the Bill has not received sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and that it would be far better were it to be brought back as a whole later.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I quite understand the noble Lord's argument. It is one to which I listened carefully outside this Chamber earlier. If we can provide the opportunity for some additional scrutiny on Part 2 this afternoon, albeit in a more truncated time-frame than might otherwise have been the case, the noble Lord may well find that there is a more receptive ear to the points made to us in private discussions earlier. I welcome the opportunity for us to move through the Bill and perhaps to continue
914
discussions on the final format of this piece of legislation. That observation is made in the full intention of being as helpful as I possibly can.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, I suggest that the Minister or his noble and learned friend should introduce government Amendments Nos. 98 and 102 and explain what is happening.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps it may be helpful if I take up his invitation.
Originally, this grouping included Amendments No. 98 and 102. Both were tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam. Amendment No. 98 prevents the overseas disclosure of information collected in connection with the examination of merger proposals under the Fair Trading Act 1973. These amendments therefore carve out overseas disclosure of merger-related information from the harmonising and widening effects of Clause 47. They do not alter the effect of the Bill in relation to the other provisions in Schedule 1.
We have made it plain in the past that we want to improve co-operation with overseas competition authorities in tackling the threat of international cartels to the world economy. These amendments—here I hope to pick up the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—respond to concerns expressed by the CBI about the use of information voluntarily provided by companies to the OFT in connection with merger proposals. Businesses were concerned—I understand their concern—that confidential business information could be passed on to overseas authorities and be used against them. A consequence might be—I recognise that this is a reasonable thought to have—that companies might be less willing to co-operate with competition authorities when providing information on a voluntary basis.
In our judgment it would be rare for such material to contain information which might be of relevance to an investigation into a cartel and, therefore, potentially disclosable under the disclosure provisions for a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings.
These concerns were put forward persuasively and moderately. That is why we have acted to exclude the overseas disclosure from the disclosure provisions in the Bill. The CBI has welcomed the tabling of these amendments. It has some concerns about other aspects of information disclosure but has indicated its belief that those concerns can be met by the Office of Fair Trading issuing a notice on how it would operate the disclosure provisions. The CBI, again quite reasonably, wishes to have adequate consultation prior to the publication of the OFT notice. The Director-General of Fair Trading has agreed to do exactly that.
Therefore, the legislation as amended, if the Committee is content, will enable the UK to improve international co-operation in fighting crime but will at the same time safeguard the legitimate interests of

915
United Kingdom business. That is a brief explanation of the thinking behind the two amendments. I commend them to the Committee.
The Earl of Northesk: While accepting that we are debating this part of the Bill in something of a limbo, I have one or two queries about the amendments. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that, in its supplementary memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Office stated, at paragraph 28(f):
"It is intended that disclosures of information via clause 47 will be regulated and controlled by procedural requirements to be drawn up by the relevant authorities and distributed to relevant members of staff".
The Bill does not say as much, but I assume from this that to all intents and purposes it is the Government's intention that Clause 47 should operate under the regime of a form of code of practice. But, as the CBI has pointed out, if we wish to be certain that these provisions do not have an adverse effect on the competitiveness of UK businesses,
"It is essential that … there should be full prior consultation on this in line with the Government's commitment in November 2000 to a standard twelve week consultation period".
Moreover,
"The guidance should take into account current developments and proposals in the OECD for a code of practice/convention on the subject of information exchange between enforcement authorities".
I simply ask: what is the Government's response to these eminently sensible and desirable suggestions?
I have one further point to raise. The amendments apply only in the context of information relating to merger investigations. But, by definition—the noble and learned Lord referred to this fact—this is not the only area where the problem arises. Viewed logically, the Government's position is that they concede that, in the context of mergers, there are legitimate reasons as to why the disclosure regime should be limited to the United Kingdom. It is reasonable to suppose that that conclusion arises, at least in part, because of an acknowledgement of variations in the way in which different judicial processes operate country to country. That is all well and good. But why, therefore, have the Government not extended their concerns here, as logic demands, beyond the narrow focus of mergers?
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: In addressing merely the procedure, not the merits, of this amendment, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could clear my mind in one respect. I remain confused as to whether we are engaged in one of only two courses that I believe are open to us: the first is through a pastiche of a discussion on the whole of Part 2 to leave a sort of legacy to the next Parliament as to how a reintroduced Part 2 might be treated in that Parliament, which—I add in parenthesis—is often wasted labour; the other is to work in precise detail on a part of the Bill that is intended to be put into legislation in the next few hours, certainly the next few days. I deduced from what was said initially from the Dispatch Box that the
916
former would be dealt with cursorily but that this amendment would be dealt with in detail. I should like to know the course upon which the Committee is now embarked.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe my noble friend made it clear that the Government wish this Bill to be on the statute book; indeed, only a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that we could look for general support—I hope I paraphrase fairly—for the Bill. I hope I have this right, but I believe that the noble Lord said on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench that he would prefer Part 2 to be excluded from the Bill. Our intention, subject to any votes that might be taken or any view that Members of the Committee might care to express, is that we wish to continue with this legislation and see it through to the statute book. As I say, that process is subject to the wishes of the Committee and, indeed, those expressed at the Report stage, which may well be taken tomorrow.
I trust, therefore, that I have dealt sufficiently with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. In answer to the points raised by the noble Earl, I sought to point out that the Director-General of the OFT has already undertaken that adequate consultations should take place. It seems to me that any relevant matter that the CBI wishes to raise in the OECD context, or any other, ought to be a matter for that quite careful and, I hope, dispassionate scrutiny. I stress two considerations, I think, fairly. The CBI has welcomed the tabling of these amendments. However, it has said, perfectly reasonably, that sometimes the devil is in the detail. The confederation wants to consult fully with the OFT, and the latter has responded in a way that I hope is agreeable to the Committee.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As I understand it Part 2 of the Bill applies to Scotland. As much of Part 2, as far as I can see, relates to matters that are devolved to the Scots Parliament, the latter must have asked the Government if Westminster would legislate for it in this matter. When the Government agreed to do so, can the noble and learned Lord say whether they explained to the Scottish Executive that they might deal with Part 2 in a cursory and truncated manner? Indeed, did the Executive agree to that? Presumably the Scottish Executive handed the matter to Westminster in order to get it dealt with properly, with all the wisdom that Westminster can demand.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure that wisdom is entirely coincident with length; sometimes, in my experience, it is not. However, my experience of short wisdom is less than my experience of long wisdom, if I may put it that way. As the announcement of the Prime Minister's visit to Her Majesty was made only this afternoon, I doubt whether the Scottish Executive were informed of that. I simply have no means of knowing. Until 20 minutes to four o'clock this afternoon, I did not know what my noble friend the

917
Chief Whip was going to say. However, in common with the noble Baroness, and others, I suppose that I may have had my reasoned suspicions.
We do not need to be cursory about this. I hope that I am answering as fully as I can, consistent with the discipline that we do believe that many of these matters are important. From what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, I take it that there are some aspects of Part 2 that are less contentious than others. It seems to me that we can be discriminating in the amount of time that we spend on each group. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was good enough to say that many of the aspects of the Bill would have Opposition support, although I believe that he put it more optimistically; namely, that if he and his colleagues were in government after 7th June, they would introduce a very similar Bill.
I do not believe that I should be either inviting or encouraging Members of the Committee to do anything that they think is inappropriate. However, there are many answers that can be given to the amendments that have been tabled. I seek to put them forward with reference, for example, to the Human Rights Act, to Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to the Data Protection Act.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It seems that I did not make myself clear earlier. Perhaps I may do so now. Both in our discussions this morning and—I hoped—this afternoon, we said that we do not believe that any of Part 2 should proceed. The Bill contains many useful provisions, which can proceed despite the truncated debate. However, that does not apply to Part 2: it needs further and serious discussion.
Obviously we are proceeding with that discussion now; indeed, that is part of the process. But if the Government's conclusion is that they wish to press on with Part 2 today, we shall continue to debate it today and, presumably, tomorrow. In fact, it makes us wonder whether or not the Report stage should take place tomorrow. After all, that would mean a considerable foreshortening of the normal procedures laid down in the Companion. It would mean that we had inadequate time to discuss with those representing the very serious outside interests—the various professions that have been mentioned—which are involved in Part 2 of the Bill. We would be unable to discuss the Government's reactions with them and, thereby, try to frame new and better amendments in order to improve Part 2. Frankly, I do not consider that there will be time for us to do so between now and tomorrow.
If the Government persist in their desire to push on with Part 2 of the Bill, we shall have to reconsider our position most carefully in that respect. However, for the moment, we had better get on with the discussion. So far, we have discussed Amendments Nos. 98 and 102. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we reverted to the sort of grouping that was originally intended. If the Government do not propose to agree to our suggestion to drop Part 2, I believe that we should revert to the original grouping. That would make for a neater debate. Let us, therefore, bring the
918
debate on those amendments to a conclusion. We can then proceed to debate the group commencing with Amendment No. 99, and so on, as originally proposed.
Lord Renton: I should like to add a few brief words to what my noble friend Lord Cope has just said. It has always been the tradition in both Chambers that there should be a reasonable interval between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the commencement of the Report stage, especially on a Bill affecting the administration of justice or the freedom of the individual. That enables time to be given for the drafting of necessary amendments. On a Bill of such a complex nature, we really need time between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage. I understand the unusual and unfortunate position that they are in, but, with deep respect to the Government, I really do not believe that it is feasible to do as they suggest.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the noble Lord's point. However, that must be a matter for the House to determine. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I understood that it was a reasonable working possibility that we would start and finish the Report stage of the Bill tomorrow. Despite the grouping in which we are conceptually engaged, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 98 and 102 because they are government amendments. Although I am willing to assist the Committee in every circumstance, I thought that I ought to confine myself to not proposing opposition amendments. That is why I spoke to Amendments Nos. 98 and 102. If the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is suggesting that we should go back to the original groupings, that can be done. Any noble Lord is entitled to degroup or decouple the amendments so that they can be dealt with in the appropriate way.
It might be helpful to adjourn for a short time to ascertain, consistent with everyone's legitimate interests—they are not perfectly unanimous, but that does not derogate from any of them—how little we agree on, or how little we disagree on. At the moment I am not sure that the present discussion is doing the Committee an enormous service. However, I believe that the Question ought to be put on Amendments Nos. 98 and 102 which I have already discussed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Question is, That Amendment No. 98 be agreed to?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have not had my say on Amendment No. 98. I heard what the noble and learned Lord said about a moment for reflection. Are we to have that moment or are we to continue to debate the government amendments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not intend to be discourteous to the noble Lord. I did not realise that he wished to speak to Amendment No. 98. There seemed to be general agreement to my suggestion of a brief adjournment. That would at least permit us to

919
agree on what we disagree about and to understand precisely what we are to do. I am trying to be the servant of the Committee. I recognise that arid discussions about who said what to whom in what circumstance and how far we shall progress tomorrow do not assist any of us in our discussion of what is agreed to be a very important part of an exceedingly important Bill. I am not sure what length of adjournment the Committee would think appropriate. We do not want to waste time, but would it be prudent to adjourn for perhaps 40 minutes?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I noticed that certain discussions were taking place behind the arras to which my party was not in any way a party. That is not helpful. We do not know where we stand. If there are to be discussions, we wish to participate in them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, that is understood. I believe that the discussions were an attempt to assist the Committee as I made the general suggestion. Is it acceptable to adjourn for 40 minutes to ascertain whether or not we might reach some agreement, or at least some defined disagreement?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I believe that that would be helpful. Did the noble and learned Lord mention 40 minutes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I suggested an adjournment of 40 minutes.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If that is acceptable to others, I consider that that is an appropriate thing to do. Then we can proceed in whatever way we decide, assuming that we reach agreement on that matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I beg to move that the Committee stage stand adjourned until 4.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.13 to 4.55 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We were considering Amendment No. 98 when we adjourned the Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the patience of the Committee. I think that it was generally regarded as a good idea if we paused for a moment or two. I can tell the Committee that an amendment will be put clown to be voted on to delete Part 2 from the Bill. I have done that in deference to quite a number of noble Lords who put forward concerns which we thought were justified. Accordingly, as always, we rejoiced in being able to accede to the view of the Committee. In that spirit of amity, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 98.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes had given notice of her intent ion to move Amendment No. 99:
Page 40, line 37, at end insert—
"(2A) Information shall not be disclosed by virtue of this section except with the consent of the appropriate judicial authority."
The noble Baroness said: I am saved from addressing the Committee at length on the large number of amendments in this group which I had put forward. Perhaps I may say how much I welcome the withdrawing of Part 2 which caused many organisations considerable concerns, as I outlined earlier.
We understand and welcome the main thrust of the provisions: to enable information to be exchanged to allow the better detection of organised and international crime. However, when the provisions come back to this House we shall seek significant safeguards. We shall consider in particular what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said on the kind of safeguards needed in the light of the wide powers which were drafted in that Bill. We shall seek powers with more safeguards or less extensive powers.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Baroness moving Amendment No. 99?
Baroness Noakes: I shall come to that. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 99. I reiterate my support for not taking forward Part 2.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102A not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Restriction on disclosure of information for overseas purposes]:
[Amendment No. 103 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 108 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Disclosure of information held by tax authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 108A to 110A not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Interpretation of Part 2]:
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 116A not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Additional powers of seizure from premises]:
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 45, line 7, at end insert "; and
(f) in the case of material held in electronic form, whether it would be reasonably practicable for the material to be copied on those premises"
The noble Baroness said: We now turn to Part 3, which relates to powers of seizure. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 118A, 119, our 122ZA, as opposed to that of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and 122B.
Clauses 51 and 52 extend the powers of the police to seize items from premises and from persons or individuals when they are conducting a lawful search. They give the police and other law enforcement agencies power to remove material that may extend beyond that which they are entitled to seize from premises so that they can examine it elsewhere. That could mean that items subject to legal privilege could be removed from premises to be examined at a later date.
The clauses recognise that, with the development of information technology, investigators may wish to seize and forensically examine an entire disk or hard drive to determine when individual documents have been created, amended or deleted. They would result in the retention of all the material on the hard drive, including, possibly, some legally privileged material. The clauses also give the police and other law enforcement agencies the power to retain such material.
We are concerned about the inevitable erosion of the doctrine of legal privilege, which was referred to on earlier amendments this afternoon on Part 2. For example. the duty of confidentiality is an essential element in the relationship between a client and his solicitor or barrister. A client must be confident that he can disclose the whole truth to his legal adviser, who will respect his client's confidence. Furthermore, the privilege that attaches to communications between a solicitor or barrister and their client when there is a prospect of litigation is fundamental to the justice process. If there is any erosion of that doctrine of legal professional privilege, that relationship will be damaged and the potential for breakdown in the administration of justice will become apparent.
Amendment No. 122ZA is a drafting point. We believe that for Clause 51(4) to make sense, the words "to have" should be inserted.
Amendment No. 122B, which relates to Clause 54 and the examination and return of property seized under Clauses 51 and 52, would ensure that,
"Where the initial examination of the seized property has been conducted without the presence of—

(a) the person from whom it was seized … or

(b) a person with an interest in that property",

proper notice should be given as to why the examination was conducted, notwithstanding their absence, unless that person had been given prior opportunity to be present at the examination and had
922
declined. The amendment would add credibility to the power of seizure and would aid transparency. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I advise the Committee that the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, numbered 122ZA on the supplementary list should be numbered 122YA.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I shall speak to the selection of amendments in my name relating to Scotland. As well as the five in this group, I shall speak to the amendments in the next group because they are purely consequential.
Amendment No. 118B would provide that there was no right to seize items subject to legal privilege. Those briefing me in Scotland are concerned about the erosion of legal professional privilege. The provisions may not be compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 1992 case of Niemitz v Germany extended the definition of "home" to include a solicitor's office. That may be appropriate to the Bill.
Similarly, there is a danger of collateral privileged information from third parties being obtained. Legally privileged material should be excluded from the Bill. Amendment No. 119A would have a similar effect.
The intention of Amendment No. 122YA—or ZA—is to probe the meaning of,
"as soon as reasonably practicable".
I have suggested that a limit of 48 hours would be sufficient. That is beyond argument.
Amendment No. 122C would delete Clause 55 and replace it with the single sentence:
"If, in contravention of sections 51(7) and 52(6), an item subject to legal privilege has been seized, it shall be returned forthwith:.
That clear instruction requiring the immediate return of any items subject to legal privilege would considerably improve on the complicated formula in the existing clause. The other amendments are consequential on the attempt to repeal Clause 55.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I should read out exactly which amendments are in this group: Nos. 117, 118, 118A, 118B, 119, 119A, 122YA, 122ZA, 122B, 122C, 122D, 123A, 124A, 126A, 126B and 126C. I shall pause for a moment in case any of your Lordships wish to say anything.
In the absence of any further comment, I shall start with Amendment No. 117. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, it would add whether it was reasonably practicable for material held in electronic form to be copied on premises as a factor to be taken into account when considering whether the material could be sifted or analysed on the premises.
I still do not understand how the issue of whether electronic material can be copied on premises is relevant to deciding whether it should be removed from the premises for sifting or analysis. We accept the principle that copies should be seized if they are a satisfactory alternative to originals, but that principle

923
can be covered in supporting guidance, which would emphasise that investigators should always give careful consideration to whether removing copies would be a satisfactory alternative to taking originals. Copies are equivalent to originals for the purposes of the proposals in Part 3. Clause 64(1) makes specific provision for that. We therefore do not think that Amendment No. 117 is necessary or consistent with the broader structure of the proposals.
Amendment No. 118 is part of a series concerning legally privileged material. Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 would prevent the disapplication of the provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in Clauses 51 and 52 respectively. Amendments Nos. 118B and 119A would have a similar effect.
We believe that this group of amendments, some of which, as has been said, are consequential, would undermine a key aspect of the proposals in Part 3. Legally privileged material can be seized lawfully under the new powers in Clauses 51 and 52 only if it is not reasonably practicable to separate it from other material to be seized; in other words, in all other circumstances, material which is accepted by investigators as being legally privileged cannot be seized.
Lord Avebury: Following on from what the noble Baroness said when she moved the amendment, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can clarify for me a matter concerning legally privileged material on a hard disk. If the police enter premises and find a hard disk containing all the material which a solicitor uses in the course of his business, they will be aware that some of it is legally privileged. However, short of going into every document on the hard disk, they will not be able to separate that which is legally privileged from the rest of the material which they may seize lawfully. Therefore, how can they operate in those circumstances without, perhaps inadvertently, taking away with them material which is legally privileged?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I know myself, in practice, such a situation does present difficulties, and I shall go on to explain the safeguards which may be required. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that inquiry. However, I have had helpful consultations with representatives of the Bar Council and the Law Society, who have recognised the responsibility that exists for the proper investigation, detection and prosecution of crime, and have, of course, recognised the fundamental value of which the noble Baroness spoke—that legally privileged material should be protected. I believe that that can be done and perhaps I may develop the point in a moment.
Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 are not workable because the subsections which they aim to remove are essential in that they disapply the normal legal barrier to seizing anything that a person has reasonable grounds to believe is legally privileged.
Amendments Nos. 118B, 119A and 122C and the consequential, relatively minor amendments are more comprehensive. However, their consequence would be to destroy the necessary scope to seize and retain
924
legally privileged material in limited circumstances—I underline the following words—for strictly limited purposes.
If the new powers which we propose are to be fully effective in practice, they must allow for seizing items which are reasonably believed to be or to contain legally privileged material. The police may wish to seize a roomful of papers for examination, which the occupier—perhaps a solicitor or a prospective defendant—asserts contain a few items of legally privileged material on, to take the noble Lord's example, a hard disk, although he will not be able to identify the precise location. The police may seize a computer hard drive, which, they are told, contains legally privileged material but which, nevertheless, they need to seize.
If, either due to time constraints or the technology available, in either case it is not reasonably practicable for the police to separate the legally privileged material, it may be necessary to seize it as part of a larger bulk of material. However—I come directly to the noble Lord's point—once any necessary process of analysis, separation or sifting had been carried out off the premises, items identified as legally privileged would have to be returned. The only exception would be in relation to inextricably linked material. In order to permit the seizure of legally privileged material in that type of circumstance, it is necessary to disapply the provision on seizure found in Section 19(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
The new powers are necessary in order to meet the problems highlighted in the Bramley case, which, as Members of the Committee know, has been the subject of a great deal of analysis and legal discussion. Criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated and, increasingly, they use technology for criminal purposes. We have tried to carry out a fair balancing exercise in Part 3; in other words, to include safeguards in order to ensure that the rights of a person from whom material is seized are protected.
Several of those safeguards are relevant. There will, for the first time, be a statutory right to apply to a judicial authority for the return of legally privileged material, whether it is seized under the new powers or otherwise. That will enable disputes about legally privileged material to be dealt with judicially more quickly and effectively.
When an application is made for the return of legally privileged material seized under Part 3, an obligation to secure the material will arise once the application is made. Once secured, the material can be examined only with the consent of the person from whom it has been seized, thus giving him control. Where legally privileged material is retained on grounds of inextricable linkage, the use to which it can be put is very limited. It can be used only to facilitate the use in any investigation or proceedings of the material to which it is inextricably linked.
We do not wish—I say this as a matter of clear policy—to compromise the status of legally privileged material. We seek to introduce limited flexibilities

925
which are necessary but subject to safeguards. If the amendments were carried, we would not achieve that aim.
A good deal of extremely serious crime is carried out by virtue of, or may be evidenced by, electronic records which, even 25 years ago, we would not have thought of as documents. I believe that the public have rights in the same way as do defendants or prospective defendants. I consider that the balance that we have here is scrupulous and proportionate.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 118A, 122ZA, 122B and 122YA. We do not believe that Amendment No. 118A is necessary. As can be seen from Clause 54(4), our proposals already make it clear that it is desirable to allow interested persons or their representatives to be present at an examination. That can certainly be expanded upon further in the guidance which will support implementation.
Where an application is made to the appropriate judicial authority for the return of legally privileged material—again, I hope that this covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—the property must be secured pending agreement on examination procedures or examination under the direction of the judicial authority. That provides ample scope for proper supervision of the process. I do not believe that Amendment No. 122ZA improves the wording of Clause 54(4) and I do not consider that it serves any purpose.
With regard to Amendment No. 122B, I cannot support the introduction of a requirement for a written notice where an examination has been conducted in the absence of the relevant person. In most cases, the reasons are likely to be operational requirement or the continuing unavailability of the person concerned. We must strike the balance to which I alluded earlier.
Amendment No. 122YA would require the return of non-retainable material within 48 hours. Our proposed wording is,
"as soon as reasonably practicable".
We shall emphasise in guidance that that implies return as soon as the whole examination has been completed unless there are very special factors which warrant delay; for example, the unavailability of the person to whom the material is to be returned or the need, in practice, to agree a convenient time to return a large volume of material. Some of the amounts of material stolen are very large. I do not see the benefit of setting a specific target such as 48 hours, which, on the large majority of occasions, I hope would be capable of being bettered. Therefore, for the reasons that I set out in a little detail, we are not able to support any of the amendments in this new, enlarged grouping.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before we go any further, I wonder whether the Attorney-General will clarify one matter. Quite frankly, I am a little mystified by the early clauses in Part 3. Having read them, I wondered to what extent judicial authority would be required for any seizure—in relation to which there are very wide
926
powers—granted under Clauses 51 and 52. When I looked through the rest of Part 3, I found Clause 60, which is entitled:
"Application to the appropriate judicial authority".
That clause makes it clear that it is assumed that no judicial approval is required for the exercise of the powers in Clauses 51 and 52. Clause 60(2) states:
"Any person with a relevant interest in the seized property may apply to the appropriate judicial authority".
It is not until after the seizure has taken place that judicial authority will ever be required. Bearing in mind the fact that very wide new powers of seizure will be given, it is rather strange that those powers can be exercised without any application for judicial power. Perhaps the Attorney-General would confirm that that is the case—the matter is basically relevant to our discussion of Part 3.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The limit is made clear in Clause 51(1)(a), on page 44 of the Bill. That paragraph states that the person has to be "lawfully on any premises" and that if he,
"finds anything on those premises that he has reasonable grounds for believing may be or may contain something for which he is authorised to search",
various consequences follow. I stress that he has to be lawfully on the premises and that he will need to execute his warrant.
The question of judicial authority is the second stage at which there is disagreement. The aggrieved party who has had his property seized—but only lawfully, on the basis of lawful presence and lawful authorisation—can then make the application.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of what happens when the item seized is a hard disk that contains some material that is legally privileged. I am particularly grateful to him for his assurance that if legally privileged material is discovered, it will be returned as soon as practicable. That matter is covered in Clause 54(2)(c). However, that raises a further question: if the hard disk is found to contain legally privileged documents, how can they be separated from the rest of the hard disk? Physically that is not an option, although I suppose that the police could cut the documents from the hard disk and paste them on to a floppy disk or zip cartridge and return that to the owner. I am curious to establish how that part of the Attorney-General's assurance would be implemented if the data were entirely in electronic form. The only practicable approach seems to involve the normal method of cutting the document from the hard disk and pasting it on to some other electronic media. How else will it be possible to implement the assurance?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: So far as hard drives are concerned, the normal procedure would be to image the disk, not to seize the original. Our guidance is intended to deal with that. If the noble Lord wants to raise such questions—I know that he is extremely

927
knowledgeable about such matters and more of an expert than many of us—we are more than happy to have his views on the construction of the guidance.
There are difficulties in this context and the public do have rights. I know from instances with which I have been concerned that sometimes the claim for legal privilege is a device. Sometimes—very rarely—the legal adviser will be colluding in crime. That should not give a legitimate cloak to what I stress is very serious crime indeed. One is not talking about the ordinary run of criminal cases that are tried in a magistrates' court or the Crown Court. In my experience, in some cases one is talking of international criminality of the grossest potential and actual damage to the public interest.
In this context we have tried—I stress that we have carefully consulted the Bar Council and the Law Society—to get a decent recognition of and proportionate compromise between two interests that appear to clash but which do not do so because legal professional privilege is essential for a civilised society. The investigatory powers that we are considering are intended to protect it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response. I hear what he said and I appreciate that the Government are endeavouring to seek the right balance that is, in their view, proportionate. It would not be of great assistance to the Committee if we were to discuss the matter further this evening. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118 to 118B not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Additional powers of seizure from the person].
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 119A not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Notice of exercise of power under s. 51 or 52]:
[Amendments Nos. 120 to 122 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Examination and return of property seized under s. 51 or 52]:
[Amendments No. 122 YA to 122B not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Obligation to return items subject to legal privilege]:
[Amendment No. 122C not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Property seized by constables etc.]:
[Amendment No. 122D not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Application to the appropriate judicial authority]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 52, line 39, at end insert—
"() An application made under subsection (2) shall be heard by the appropriate judicial authority within 48 hours of it being made."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.123, together with Amendment No.123A, relates to Clause 60, which deals with remedies and safeguards in the event that property is seized in the exercise of a relevant power of seizure. We are supportive of the clause in principle but, as it is currently drafted. there is no time frame within which such an application must be heard for the return of the property. As such, there is no incentive for the appropriate judicial authority to move quickly or, indeed, at any pace at all. It should be remembered that some of the material may be legally privileged. In addition, it is possible that a person's livelihood is on hold pending the recovery of seized material. If it is not therefore necessary or proper to retain the material to further an investigation, the property should in our view be returned as expediently as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We agree that applications to the appropriate judicial authority for the return of seized property should be heard as quickly as possible. We believe that that is essentially a matter for Crown Court rules rather than for legislation.
It is envisaged that when an application is made the parties may want to delay the hearing while they try to agree either between themselves or—this is increasingly common now, as the noble Baroness will know—through an independent counsel acting as a "third party" arbitrator. When the material is secured, that will depend on the consent of the person from whom the material was seized. When the appropriate judicial authority orders the return of the property, the implication of the current proposal in Clause 60 is that the return should take place immediately or as soon as is reasonably practicable. I believe that that is right—one does not need to give a judicial authority an extra level of discretion to specify a reasonable time, as the amendments would do.
I cannot therefore support the amendments. However, in answer to the concerns of the noble Baroness, I undertake to consider whether further guidance is needed in the code of practice to emphasise and underline the swift return of property seized. The time limits for hearing applications—the other aspect of the noble Baroness's concerns—will be considered as part of the Crown Court rules which will be promulgated to support this legislation. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to the amendment and appreciate his undertaking to consider whether or not further guidance is required. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 123A and 124 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Cases where duty to secure arises]:
[Amendment No. 124A not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [The duty to secure]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Use of inextricably linked property]:
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Application to Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 126E and 126C not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Application to powers designated by order]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 63, line 33, leave out "modify any enactment that makes" and insert "make any modification of any enactment making"
The noble and learned Lord said: This group consists of government Amendments Nos. 127 to 129 and opposition Amendments Nos. 130 and 131.
The purpose of Part III is to give additional powers of seizure to the police. The existing powers of seizure to which the new powers apply are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Clause 70(1)(a) gives an order-making power which enables other powers to be added to the list in Schedule 2. Subsection (1)(b) provides that amendments can be made to Part III if they are consequential to the addition of another power to Schedule 2. Subsection (1)(c) gives the power to amend by order the actual piece of legislation being added to Schedule 2. This is necessary because a consequential amendment to that underlying piece of legislation may be needed to ensure that it works properly.
As originally drafted, subsection (1)(c) did not provide that these amendments must be consequential and any amendment to the piece of legislation being added to Schedule 2 could have been made. We are grateful, not for the first time, to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee for drawing that to our attention. We did not intend the provision to be this wide and we fully accept the committee's recommendation on that point. Therefore, if carried, our amendment would insert into subsection (1)(c) a qualification restricting such amendments to ones which the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of the addition of the new power to Schedule 2.
The amendment to subsection (4) is needed as our amendment to subsection (1)(c) no longer contains the word, "modify".
I accept the principle behind the opposition amendments to Clause 70. I am told that they are not technically perfect. Apart from that, I believe that we have met the point by putting forward amendments which are technically better drafted and, on that basis, since we have accommodated the point although not the precise wording, I invite support for the government amendments and ask the Opposition not to move their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: When one sees the Secretary of State given power to alter an enactment—here he is given power to alter a number of complex provisions embodying new law—one wonders whether that is sound and in order. However, subsection (3) states that the power given to the Secretary of State shall be exercised by statutory instrument and that no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament. That means that positive approval by Parliament is needed, and that puts it in order.
These are the sorts of provision that the excellent committee on delegated powers examines and it has given them clear passing. The committee says that the provisions appear to have been drafted carefully in the light of the requirements of the ECHR. Our conscience, therefore, can be more or less satisfied, although one should always look at the possibility of a Henry VIII clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I must inform the Committee that I cannot call Amendment No. 128.
[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 63, line 35, at end insert "which the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of any provision made by virtue of that paragraph"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 64, leave out line 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Use of video and telephone links for decisions about detention]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 65, line 8, after "inspector" insert "(who is present at another police station)"
The noble Lord said: The provisions grouped with Amendment No. 131 A involve Clauses 74 and 75 and relate to decisions to be made about detention, in

931
particular to extend the detention of somebody who has not yet been charged. A large part of the reason for tabling these amendments and querying the provision is because of the "overstretch" of the inspector ranks of the police force.
Inspectors are being given additional duties, in particular by Clause 75, and will be allowed in the future to conduct some of their present duties, such as extending detention, over the telephone and through video conferencing. The inspector ranks are extremely concerned about that because of the huge reduction in the numbers of inspectors. That process started with the Sheehy report since when a considerable drop in the numbers of inspectors, chief inspectors and indeed superintendents above them has taken place. That means it is more difficult for them to take these decisions in the way they would wish.
The other day one of the leading members of the Inspectors' Central Committee said that the video reviews are another measure to compensate for the lack of numbers in those ranks. The members of the service have always been proud of the independent element that they are able to bring into the system of justice, but a video review of detention appears to make it much more doubtful whether such good decisions can be made without their being present and listening to the arguments made, including those made by the detained individual. Modern communications may be wonderful but if reviews are to be carried out by looking at a television screen or via a telephone link that could cause a downgrading in the independent element of the inspection.
In one sense, matters are made easier. The inspectors would not have to drive to a different police station in order to make a decision about a detention, but in another sense there is a danger of downgrading the authority with which such decisions are made. That is a matter of concern. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the reasons for doing this. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not believe that we can possibly object to the strengthening, as the Government propose, of the 1984 Act. In my opinion, it was an adventurous Act that dealt with the technical developments that had taken place in our society and indeed all over the world. The Government should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Cope for the, further strengthening of the law that he has proposed in his amendments. I shall not trouble your Lordships by taking up time by going through them in detail, but they appear to me to be helpful and to strengthen the Bill, which I should have thought the Government would welcome.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: All these amendments refer to Clause, 74 which introduces arrangements for carrying out reviews of the continuing need for detention by telephone and provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations.
The purpose of Clause 74(2) is to allow certain reviews, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said, to be carried out by telephone. The reviews in question must
932
be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector and must normally take place no later than six hours after detention was first authorised and then at intervals of nine hours. Detention for longer than 24 hours requires the authority of an officer of at least superintendent rank and it is not proposed to make the telephone option available for these superintendents reviews.
The purpose of the proposed provisions is to enable reviews of detention and other custody-related decisions to be carried out using video-conferencing and to allow for certain reviews to be conducted over the telephone in extreme circumstances. I need to stress that point. In our view, safeguards and supporting procedures are already included and the proposed amendments would detract from the flexibility and workability of the arrangements. That also is an important element of what we are saying to the House this afternoon.
Reviews of detention should only be carried out by telephone in extreme circumstances and, where that is the case, it does not seem sensible to restrict the option to a reviewing officer who is present at another police station as Amendment No. 131A would require. If a reviewing officer is prevented from attending the police station where the detainee is held—it may be that he has been delayed by transport difficulties or by poor adverse weather combined with transport difficulties or by some other circumstances beyond his control—he should be able to make use of mobile telephone facilities to conduct the review.
Nor do I believe that we should make the changes suggested in Amendments Nos. 131 C and 131 F. Where any review or other decision-making process is carried out by telephone or video-conferencing, there is provision for any record required in connection with it to be made by another officer who is present at the police station with the detainee. There is no requirement for reviews carried out at police stations in the standard manner to be tape or video recorded and no obvious reason to introduce such a requirement where those processes take place remotely.
As regards Amendment No. 131E, we do not want to restrict the scope for carrying out decisions about detention by video-conferencing to circumstances where it would not be practicable for an officer present at the station to perform the relevant functions. PACE offers scope for any officer to act as the custody officer where circumstances demand it, but the issue here concerns ensuring high-quality decision making and access to specialist expertise by enabling certain decisions to be taken remotely.
There may indeed be an officer present at the station who could adopt the custody officer role and, for example, make decisions about charging and bail. However, the proposed arrangements allow the alternative of contacting a skilled and experienced custody officer via video-conferencing who could significantly enhance the process by bringing his fall knowledge and expertise to bear.

933
Amendments Nos. 131B and 13ID suggest restricting telephone reviews and all decision making via video-conferencing to circumstances where secure communications are available. That would place unrealistic restraints on those options. Sophisticated technical arrangements are needed to ensure that such connections are completely secure and that the contents of the relevant discussions are unlikely to be such as to demand complete security. Clearly there may be instances where security is a more pressing issue, but we would argue that those need to be judged and assessed on an individual basis.
In general terms, I can certainly understand concerns being expressed about the concept of custody-related decisions being taken remotely. All of us want to ensure that such decisions are fair, effective and soundly based. However, I am sure that what is being proposed will tend strongly to improve the quality of such decisions.
As I have already explained, our clear intention is that reviews by telephone will be rare exceptions. They are not a fully satisfactory substitute for reviews where the officer can see and hear the person concerned, but they are very much better than dispensing with a review altogether or introducing a significant delay into the review process.
I recognise that dealing with a range of custody-related decisions using video-conferencing is breaking new ground and that is why we are committed to thorough trials before considering the general application of such provisions. However, I believe that it would be wrong to ignore the scope for developing technology to deliver real improvements to the quality of the relevant decision-making processes. Custody work is increasingly recognised as an important specialism within policing and the provision of a direct link to an expert practitioner can only help to ensure that the right decisions are made. Video links are proving their effectiveness across an ever wider range of activities and we should not lose the opportunity to test them in the way that is proposed.
I understand the motivation for the various amendments that are suggested, but I do not believe that they are necessary or, in these circumstance, at all helpful. The proposed provisions are a sound and carefully limited basis on which to test the new concept. We are prepared to revisit them if trials highlight issues of principle or substance. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is most unsatisfactory to have to consider this legislation at such speed when the provisions have not been considered at all in another place just because the Prime Minister wants to hold a general election a year early. However, that is the case. In the circumstances, I shall not pursue the detailed points in the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131B to 131F not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business of the House: Order of Business
5.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the announcement earlier today, I am now in a position to announce that the order of business has been agreed between the usual channels for the remainder of this Session.
Tomorrow the House will meet at 2.30 p.m. as usual for Starred Questions. My noble friend the Leader of the House will move a business Motion to suspend Standing Orders necessary to enable us to finish a number of Bills in the next three days. Assuming that the business Motion is agreed to, we will then take the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill; which will be followed by the remaining stages of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill; and finally the remaining stages of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.
On Thursday 10th May the House will meet at 11.30 a.m. for Prayers and Starred Questions. We will then take the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill and the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill.
Assuming that the Bills have been received from another place, we will then take all stages of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, the Finance Bill and the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Finally, if any amendments are received from the other place in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill, they will also be considered on Thursday.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9.30 a.m. for prayers. There will be no Starred Questions. We will then deal with any amendments which may have returned from another place. Finally, Royal Assent will be given to a number of Bills and the House will then adjourn.
Parliament will be dissolved on Monday 14th May but that will be done by proclamation and will not involve any proceedings here.
I should also inform the House that it has been agreed that the business which had been tabled for Wednesday and Thursday this week will not now be taken. The Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and the Committee stage of the Culture and Recreation Bill will be removed from Wednesday's and Thursday's Order Papers respectively.

935
Your Lordships may be wondering what the arrangements will be for the tabling of amendments and for speakers' lists. In relation to the rating Bill and the Finance Bill, speakers' lists will be put up in the Government. Whips' Office and will remain open until 6 p.m. tomorrow. The Clerk of the Parliaments has agreed that the Public Bill Office will accept amendments to any Bill in advance of Second Reading and will also relax the deadlines for late tabling of amendments as much as possible.
It may also help if I list the Bills which are currently before this House or in another place which will not be proceeded with this Session. There will be no further proceedings on the Homes Bill; the International Development Bill; the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill; the Hunting Bill; the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill; the Culture and Recreation Bill and the Adoption and Children Bill.
It may also be helpful if I tell your Lordships that an informal copy of the order of business for the next three clays, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, is available in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Henley: My Lords, first, I offer my commiseration to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and many others who have been denied making their speeches in tomorrow's great debate. Perhaps I may offer my thanks to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for his useful statement and for the fact that he is making available to all noble Lords a copy of the draft Order Paper. I trust that it will be available in the Government Whips Office tonight.
We had most useful and constructive discussions within the usual channels and I am grateful for all the assistance which the Government Chief Whip gave to us. We on this side of the House were keen to be as co-operative as possible, as I made clear earlier. However, we wanted to be co-operative on the basis that the Government got the basis of their programme but only as regards those Bills which have received adequate and proper scrutiny within this House. We must always remember that this House is a revising Chamber and it is important that we give adequate scrutiny to all Bills which come before us.
The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip listed a number of Bills which have not reached the statute book and with which the Government will not proceed further. I ought to remind the noble Lord that we had a late start to this Session and that a number of those Bills came before this House at an early stage of it. Some had their First Reading in this House as early as last February but were not proceeded with further because the Government decided that they had to give greater priority to Bills which they knew perfectly well had no chance whatever of getting on to the statute book. The Government also felt it important to allow the House of Commons a full week off in February for half-term and some two extra days holiday then for this House when they could have pursued the Bills. The Government are also bringing this Parliament to a premature end.
936
Some of those Bills might in due course proceed to the statute book when the new Conservative government return to office after 7th June. We will pursue them as appropriate. However, as I made clear, we did not think it right that we should give time to Bills which have not received proper scrutiny in this House.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord for his co-operation in these matters and I hope that we can continue with the same degree of co-operation during the remaining days of this Parliament.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for the consultation he has carried out during the past few days, in particular today, in preparing the order of business for the next three days. In general, we on these Benches welcome what is now put forward. As a newcomer to the usual channels, I was grateful to see the degree of consultation which takes place in your Lordships' House on these matters. I am also particularly grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments for agreeing to relax the normal arrangements for the tabling of amendments to Public Bills. We will be able, for example, to table amendments for the Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill until noon tomorrow and consequentially for the other legislation coming forward.
As the Opposition Chief Whip said, there are a number of Bills with which we are not proceeding and the Government Chief Whip has listed them. We on these Benches would have liked to see three of those Bills go forward. We would have liked to see going forward the Homes Bill, in particular its provisions relating to the homeless. We are sorry that it was not possible to reach a consensus through the usual channels on that measure.
Similarly, we would have liked to see go forward the International Development Bill, for which there was a good deal of support in another place and which could have reached the statute book in the time remaining. Finally, we would have liked to see the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, in respect of which there was a strong feeling that it ought to reach the statute book. We on these Benches regret that we have not been able to find a way to do so before the end of the Session.
In conclusion, I believe that with those exceptions the method we have proceeded with has been useful and I hope it augurs well for the remainder of our business of this Session.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Roper. The draft Order Paper will be available in the Printed Paper Office.
I do not want to get into a debate on the Bills with which we are not proceeding. As I am sure the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip know, there are plenty of precedents of the then Labour oppositions—in 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997, and I researched all the relevant copies of Hansard to find them—co-operating with the government to get

937
certain Bills through. The country will have to decide on the priorities of the party opposite when they consider that it was not able to reach agreement in respect of Bills to help home buyers and the homeless, to help the third world and to stop tobacco advertising. But there we are.
We have now agreed the business and I hope that we can proceed with expedition. I hope that the House will not have to sit late on Wednesday or Thursday, and I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement on the programme. I look forward to Friday.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify the position with regard to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill? It is a far-reaching Bill and we have not discussed it thoroughly in Committee. A Bill which extends the powers of the courts and the police, and indeed extends the powers of individuals which may not always be well motivated, is one which we should consider carefully and not in a hurry. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government intend to get it on to the statute book in this Parliament?
Lord Carter: My Lords, having discussed the matter with the usual channels, the Bill should complete Committee stage today. We hope that, with the tabling of Report stage tomorrow, we can reach agreement on the Bill. Noble Lords will understand that, as the matter is in play at the moment, I must be careful about how I phrase my words. We hope that the Bill will reach the statute book this Session.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, a little earlier when the noble Lord explained that the Government did not intend to proceed with Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it was clear that there were various other clauses over which a question mark hung. We hope that the Government will not proceed with some other matters, but in the circumstances we are prepared to allow other parts of the Bill to proceed because we believe that those measures should be put in place, even if we have detailed comments upon them.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I ask the Chief Whip to listen. We have heard from two most distinguished lawyers on the Back Benches, latterly, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the haste with which the Bill is passing through the House. The noble Lord must not count his chickens in any way. We have many misgivings about dealing with a Bill of this magnitude at such speed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, sometimes it is hard enough to count my colleagues instead of chickens. All I can say is that we should complete the Committee stage today. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally, understand the position. We shall explore their problems with the Bill as we proceed with the Committee stage today. We have agreed to finish the Committee stage today and then review the
938
position. We hope to reach agreement so that this Bill, which deals with important matters to do with criminal justice and police powers, can reach the statute book. That is why we have tabled Report and remaining stages for tomorrow.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
6.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 76 [Use of video links for proceedings about Terrorism Act detention]:
[Amendments Nos. 131G to 131J not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Codes of practice]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 131K:
Page 69. leave out lines 6 and 7.
The noble Lord said: The Committee now moves to that part of the Bill which deals with the video recording of interviews. This matter appears to have lost the interest of some noble Lords. These amendments are directed at the code of practice which is to be prepared in this regard. The particular subsection that is dealt with by Amendment No.131K provides that the code of practice can vary in different parts of the country. That seems rather odd. Why should different parts of England be treated differently from the point of view of the code of practice for the video recording of such interviews?
Similarly, although I believe more understandably, Amendment No. 131L goes to the subsection which suggests that different offences or descriptions of offenders may be treated differently in the code of practice. I can see that more serious offences may require greater safeguards, but it seems odd that descriptions of offender should he treated differently in the code of practice.
Finally, Amendment No. 131M in this group proposes that where the code of practice is to be, first, introduced and, secondly, altered at a later stage, the matter should be dealt with in Parliament by the affirmative rather than negative procedure. In view of the lack of time that we are devoting to the matter at this stage, I believe that that is a reasonable suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If taken together, these amendments would undermine the whole purpose of Clause 78, which is to provide a more straightforward mechanism for changes to the codes to be trialled. Clause 78 enables proposals for limited amendments to the codes for trial purposes to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. The clause works by inserting after Section 67(7) of PACE three new subsections, (7A), (7B) and (7C). New subsection (7A) provides for an order to be made so that an existing code of practice can be modified. Subsection (7B) sets out the limits for such modifications to a code of

939
practice in relation to the length of time for trialling, designated areas and classes of offences or offenders. Subsection (7C) sets out the requirement for the order to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendments Nos. 131K and 131L simply remove from subsection (7B) two of the three trialling limitations. The effect of the wording proposed by Amendment No. 131M would appear to be a requirement for any modifications to the codes to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Committee needs to be aware that the situations in which it is desirable to trial amendments to the PACE codes of practice are becoming increasingly common. This increase reflects the legislative changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as well as the evolution of police practice—new procedures and techniques—and consequently the knock-on effects for the codes of practice.
If we supported the amendments, whenever it was considered desirable to pilot changes to the codes of practice it would not be possible to limit trials to designated areas or to particular types of offences or classes of offender and any changes would require the full affirmative resolution procedure. I assure the Committee that we do not seek to shortcut Parliament by the provisions of Clause 78. Before any changes to the codes of practice are implemented nationally they will still be subject to the same procedure of public consultation and full debate before both Houses, as is already required by Section 67 of PACE.
We believe that it is important for a number of changes to the codes of practice to be trialled before they are implemented more widely. It is our intention to do this with the proposals for reviews of detention by video link and other custody decisions which are proposed in Clause 74. In order for trials to be carried out effectively and evaluated properly, it may well be necessary for them to be conducted in particular areas and with specific types of offence and classes of offender. Additionally, for trials to be conducted more readily the negative resolution procedure which we propose is a more flexible way to achieve that end.
I can understand some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, but what we are trying to do is to ensure that in making changes for the longer term we have effective trialling in the short term. In that way we can effectively evaluate those trials so that before we advance to full implementation across the country we have a better picture of how the measures may work in practice. We argue that ultimately there are safeguards here and no short circuit is intended.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have not been given any examples but have been told that it is all about pilots. I shall not pursue the matter at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131L and 131M not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Authority for intimate searches]:
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker moved Amendment No. 131MA:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert—
"(2) After subsection (7) of section 55 of the 1984 Act there is inserted—
"(7A) The Code of Practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 66 shall provide guidance as to the circumstances in which it would be proper to consider that it is not practicable. for an intimate search to be conducted by a suitably qualified person.""
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his letter to me on this matter. I hope he will forgive me if I nevertheless briefly air the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
An intimate search—for example, a physical examination of a body orifice other than the mouth—most usually of the anus or of the vagina, is a highly intrusive procedure. It is permitted under the Police, and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, only when an officer of the rank of superintendent or above,
"has reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that a person who has been arrested and is in police detention may have concealed on him anything which—

(i) he could use to cause physical injury to himself or others: and

(ii) he might so use while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court; or

(b) that such a person—

(i) may have a Class A drug concealed on him; and

(ii) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest".

Where the search falls under paragraph (a), it may be conducted either by a person with medical qualifications or by a constable of the same sex as the detainee if,
"an officer of at least the rank of superintendent considers that"—
to have the medical examination—
"is not practicable.
This Bill would allow an officer of the rank of inspector to authorise such a search, if necessary by force, by a constable with no medical qualifications.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights does not in any way dissent from the need to have this power to search. However, as it pointed out in its first report at paragraph 75:
"It is hard to imagine a more intrusive or humiliating police procedure which could be lawful".
The committee noted a risk that the searches might violate Article 3 concerning freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment and Article 8, the right to respect for private life.
As a member of the Immigration Complaints Audit Committee, I received complaints where young persons of perhaps 19 were in acute distress at the prospect of being examined in this way by a law enforcement officer. Not all cultures view these events with equanimity. They are associated with violation

941
and torture. That is not to say that the power should not be there. But that is why the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concern about,
"reducing the level of seniority of the officer who has to decide … whether it is impracticable for an intimate search to be conducted by a medically qualified person".
The committee was,
"particularly disturbed by anything which even slightly erodes the protection for a person's interests in physical integrity, and bodily privacy, or gives the impression that an interference with them is being taken less seriously than it was".
When the committee took evidence on this point, the Government told it that, in practice, a constable would rarely be authorised to conduct such a search, and would be so authorised,
"only in a wholly exceptional and urgent case to prevent injury to the detainee or other people from a hidden weapon such as a razor blade, where no medically qualified personnel could be reached quickly".
The committee accepts that. However, regard for Articles 3 and 8 indicates that guidance for exercising the discretion to authorise a constable to conduct an intimate search,
"should be included on the face of the legislation".
The most reasonable and easy way to achieve this general objective would be to amend Clause 80 with the proposed amendment. There would then be a necessary consequential change to the code of practice.
The Joint Committee asked for guidance to be included on the face of the Bill. However, it may work as well, and allow time for consultation before the code is adjusted, to follow my proposed amendment. The whole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the limits of discretion which this more junior officer may exercise are defined with greater clarity. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise to point out that this is another part of the Bill—there are more parts to come—where the permission of an inspector is required instead of that of a superintendent. The underlying reason for that is that there are fewer superintendents than junior officers. As a matter of fact, there are also fewer inspectors. Therefore, it all adds to the overstretch of the work of the inspectors. I hope that this provision will not lead to a downgrading of the quality of decisions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the thoughtful way that my noble friend Lady Whitaker has brought the matter forward. Intimate searches by junior officers—constables—are very rare indeed. There were only four out of a total of 170 searches in 1999–2000.
I recognise the force of the noble Baroness's comments and that there is a good case for guidance in circumstances in which it might reasonably be considered that it was not practicable for a doctor or a nurse to carry out such a search. Probably, in practice, the circumstances are likely to he the situation described by my noble friend where there are
942
reasonable grounds to believe that a detained person is concealing a dangerous article and speedy action is necessary.
In certain circumstances, intimate searches may also be made for Class A drugs. However, there is no discretion for searches in that category to be carried out by anyone other than a suitably qualified person.
I hope that I can assist my noble friend by underlining that a full review of all codes of practice under PACE is currently being carried out. We would endeavour to incorporate the relevant guidance in Code C. That covers detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers.
It is not necessary or appropriate to insert a specific requirement for guidance into the legislation. The codes under PACE, as is well known, refer to many critically important areas of police practice. But PACE does not spell out in detail what they cover. The proposed addition put forward by my noble friend, for reasons I perfectly well understand, would go against that general approach. I hope that my assurance that the full review is being carried out and that our aim is to incorporate the relevant guidance in Code C meets my noble friend's concerns.
Baroness Whitaker: I thank my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General for that answer and for his assurances. The assurance would be stronger if there were more on the face of the Bill. However, in the circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment and I hope that we shall be able to look at the guidance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Samples]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 131N:
Page 71, line 13, at end insert—
"() Subsection (1) shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has issued guidance about the circumstances and procedures for the authorisation of the taking of samples under sections 62(1)(a) and (1A)(a), and 63(31(b) of the 1984 Act."
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord has said that guidance will be provided. Amendment No. 131N suggests that the new provisions regarding samples should come into force only after completion of the review of the guidance and its publication.
Also in the group is Amendment No. 131P. Clause 81(2) states that whereas an intimate sample has up to now been taken only by a doctor, it can now also be taken by a nurse. That is in a more normal case where it is not being done by a constable. My amendment suggests that it should be done by a nurse only if a doctor is not available. We believe that it should be done by a doctor wherever possible. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 131N is not necessary as the change in the authority level to which the noble Lord referred does not seek to alter the circumstances in which authorisation can be given. It simply changes the level of authority. There is no diminution of the criteria. The Government have already undertaken to up-date the current guidance in

943
Home Office circular 16/95 which provides guidance on the use of the DNA database. The circular, when up-dated, will emphasise that samples should be taken in the least intrusive manner possible.
I turn to Amendment No. 131P. Registered nurses are highly trained medical professionals. They now regularly carry out an expanded range of work, and rightly so, in the National Health Service. Allowing them to take the whole range of samples which at present only registered medical practitioners can take reflects their expanding role in many different medical environments. The proposed change would be in keeping with current practice in hospitals and doctors' surgeries, where they already take such samples. It also means that delay will be avoided, which is useful not only to the investigator but to the person from whom the sample is to be taken.
We do not wish to impose any restrictions on nurses' ability to take such samples. I therefore advise the Committee not to support the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131P not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Speculative searches]:
[Amendment No. 13IQ not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 131R:
Page 72, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble Lord said: Clause 82 deals with the right of the police to make speculative searches against records held anywhere in the country. Amendment No. 131R seeks to delete paragraph (d) from the new subsection to be inserted by Clause 82(2). We are unhappy with the prospect of a "public authority", as it is called in paragraph (d), having the same rights with regard to surfing the national databases as the police. The police are highly disciplined and highly trained and are susceptible to discipline in a way that other public bodies certainly are not. We feel that the power given by the clause is altogether too intrusive, too great and too wide. We feel that there is no need to allow public authorities to have that right. We feel strongly that it should not form part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Can the noble Lord enlarge on the kind of public bodies he has in mind?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That is a fair question. One that seems to be within the purview of the provision is a local authority acting under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As I am sure the noble Lord will know, that Act provides for a number of hybrid offences that have certain civil as well as certain criminal characteristics. However, where there is a breach of an order made under the Protection from Harassment Act the local authority has the right to
944
take the malefactor back to the magistrates for criminal penalty. At that point, if not earlier, the local authority will have the right of speculative search under Clause 82. I give that one example. It may be that in replying to the amendment the Minister will give others.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are number of amendments in this grouping—Amendments Nos. 131S, 131T, 131TA, 131TB and 131TC. Does any Member of the Committee wish to speak to those amendments?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendments Nos. 131S to 131TC stand in my name. They deal with overseas authorities that are to be given the same power to trawl through British police records. The power is extremely wide. Any policeman in the world will be able to trawl through information held by our police forces. Those who are competent in their own countries to carry out an investigation—perhaps the local authorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred—will also be able to trawl extremely widely. Any person with,
"functions under any international agreement which consist of or include the investigation of conduct which is … unlawful … or … contrary to international law",
will also be able to trawl extremely widely.
Those are very wide powers. We do not seek to stop them altogether. Our amendments are limited to making the Secretary of State tell Parliament which overseas authorities are to be given the powers and allow Parliament the opportunity to approve the giving of authority to overseas bodies in the way I have described.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 131R, 131S, 131T, 131TA, 131TB and 131TC. Amendment No. 131R would remove paragraph (d) from new subsection (1A), which, if passed, would include public authorities with any functions in any part of the British Islands whose functions consist of or include the investigation of crimes or the charging of offenders, to be included in the list of bodies with whose fingerprint and sample records can be speculatively searched.
Most public authorities which have prosecution functions will not have their own records of fingerprints or samples, but the police ought to be able to check records against those that do—for example, the Immigration Service or in some instances Customs and Excise. If the taking of evidence about fingerprints or DNA is scientifically and forensically accurately done, it is a very important tool indeed. It is objective evidence in a way that identification or circumstantial evidence are not. We believe that it is legitimate to have this extension. That is the short difference of principle and approach between the noble Lord and myself.
Amendment No. 131S seeks to replace ''British Islands" with a longer but identical description. As is well known, by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978 the term "British Islands" includes the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

945
As regards Amendments Nos. 131T, 131TA and 131TC, for the reasons I gave a few moments ago, what we are looking for in Clause 82 is a clarification of the ability of police forces in England and Wales to check fingerprints and DNA profiles taken under PACE against those held by other British police forces, other public authorities concerned with the investigation of crime that hold such records—I emphasise that point—and police forces and criminal investigation bodies from outside the jurisdiction. I suggest that the drafting properly reflects the roles of the organisations and the purposes for which fingerprints and DNA profiles can be exchanged rather than trying to produce an exhaustive list of all possible police or law enforcement bodies.
I do not think that the proposals in these amendments would work. Potentially they would require the listing of hundreds of police forces around the world as well as other international bodies such as the War Crimes Tribunal. If an affirmative statutory instrument was required each time a request was received from a country for the first time, the system would collapse.
This clause would not give the persons and bodies listed access to our databases. It would enable the police to check our records against those of the law enforcement agencies that have their own records of fingerprints and samples, but only for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. It needs to be borne in mind that any exchange of information must comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I can inform the Committee that requests from abroad will be mediated through the Interpol Section within the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Finally, Amendment No. 131TB seeks to replace the word "places" with "countries". In this context, the word "places" is meant to be vague. This sub-paragraph contemplates in particular international tribunals which may be set up to deal with war crimes and other crimes against international law. In some of these situations it may be arguable whether we are referring to states, provinces, territories or, simply, "places", whose status in international law for such purposes may be unclear.
6.30 p.m
Lord McNally: Before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down, does he have no concerns as regards a matter that was raised during our discussions on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act regarding the issue of the "big browser"? Here we see two developments coming together in a pincer movement: first, legislation that will broaden the databases that can be consulted and, secondly, as the noble and learned Lord mentioned earlier, frightening advances in the technologies capable of undertaking such cross-referencing. The two arms of this pincer will give the authorities massive powers to cross-reference data and, to borrow the phrase used in the discussions
946
on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the ability to "big browse" without any real controls over what is being done.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I do not regard these advances in technology as frightening. I recall, as will the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, how when we first started out in the law, many questions were raised and arguments fought over fingerprinting. At that time, neither of us could have contemplated the objective quality of DNA.
I do not wish to refer unnecessarily to a matter that is sub judice, but we know of the allegations made against the man who is supposed to have raped and murdered the young English schoolgirl in northern France. If—I emphasise that word—those allegations are proved, DNA will have provided an extraordinary tool to aid detection. It is not possible to provide for the legitimate use of that tool without sometimes being able to cross-refer. I should have to say to the parents of that child that, although I recognise the civil liberties implications here, in the balance I believe that their needs come rather higher.
This judgment has to be made. One does not want to see the state intrude illegitimately or unnecessarily. However, I believe that we have got the balance right, not forgetting that the Data Protection Act does provide protections to the individual. Any judge who tries a criminal trial constantly has his attention drawn to Section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He is entitled to exclude any evidence which militates against the fairness of the trial.
The technology surrounding DNA evidence has advanced, so much so that in a recent United States case it was said that the odds against someone else having committed the crime were 73 trillion to one; namely, more human beings than have existed since Creation. Although one has to be sceptical and careful, I think that a reasonable balance has been struck. I return to the point I made—which is not simply a call from the hustings. I would find it difficult to explain to an ordinary member of the public who has an interest in these matters and who may be a victim or complainant, or the relative of a victim or complainant, that we have the technology but that we do not allow for its use. I have not found an answer to satisfy myself, let alone one to satisfy such a questioner.
Lord McNally: I believe that the noble and learned Lord is moving on to the slope that leads to a complete national DNA database; namely, that every child born will have his or her DNA profile registered. As the noble and learned Lord has said, such a national database, on which everyone is included, would be a powerful police tool. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord reads the Guardian and other like-minded newspapers as much as the next man.

947
He will know that this development causes others deep concerns about the thought of that kind of power being in the hands of the state.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a fair philosophical question to put. If we are referring to extremes, we should set that against the scene of the police officer kicking down the door and going in with a search warrant. Ultimately, of course the intrusion remains, but it is modified and qualified by the law. The Data Protection Act does provide protections, as does Section 28 of PACE.
I recognise that new technology is worrying, but the best thing to do here is to put the worries out front. The noble Lord used the slippery slope argument and it is there for what it is worth. At present, we are not slipping down the slope, in part because of the vigilance of noble Lords who have already spoken and in part because of the vigilant views of the press. However, I do not agree with the Guardian on every conceivable occasion. That is particularly the case at the moment because the editor is trying to take me to judicial review for not prosecuting him.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble and learned Lord relies to some extent on the Data Protection Act, but my noble friend has advised me that Section 29(3) of the Act broadly exempts data being used for the prevent ion or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord can rely on the safeguards provided in that Act, although I am in sympathy with some of his more general points.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As always, I have listened with great care to the Attorney-General. However, in his reply he did not refer to the main point which I strove to emphasise; namely, that the public authorities which will be given rights under this clause will not be subject to providing the kind of training, discipline and so forth of the police. I believe that the difficult balance which needs to be struck in these matters will he ill struck if, for example, the employees of a local authority—who will not have had any training along the lines given to the police—are allowed to become embroiled in surfing databases for information in cases over which they have control.
For that reason, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, but at this stage, I do not propose to divide the Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wondered whether the noble Lord was about to give the Attorney-General an opportunity to deal with the point I raised as regards Clause 29(3) of the Data Protection Act.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may develop these points. Personal data can be disclosed under the 1998 Act only if the disclosure can be made consistently within the data protection principles, or if one of the non-disclosure exemptions applies, to which the noble Lord referred. In the first case, the data protection rules apply in full. In the second case, rules
948
are eased, but only to the extent that they are inconsistent with the disclosure in question, as covered by Section 27(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act.
Section 29 of the Act provides an exemption to the "non-disclosure provisions" where both the disclosure is for the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and the application of the provisions would be "likely to prejudice" any of those purposes. It operates as a filter on the type of information which can be disclosed and imposes a requirement for a pre-disclosure assessment of the proportionality of disclosing the information. On the advice that I have, it would not justify routine searches or data matching. The data controller would have to be satisfied in each case that, if the data is not shared, matched or disclosed, this would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders. That is something of an expansion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the general proposition that I was putting in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I would normally say that I would carefully consider the noble and learned Lord's reply between now and Report. I am not as trained or experienced in the law as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I doubt that I shall be able to give as much consideration to this issue as I would wish in the time available. All I can say is that we shall, of course, reflect on the point.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may come back, very briefly, on the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. The law to which the noble and learned Lord has referred is so complicated in relation to the powers under this clause—and on this occasion, perhaps, I speak also for those on the Conservative Benches—that this Bill and others like it go beyond the realms of practical workings. They get so contorted with regulations, guidelines, protocols and cross-references to a dozen other Acts that, in practice, they are unworkable by the ordinary policeman, let alone by the ordinary local authority employee. I do not think I have got that point across sufficiently to noble Lords opposite. I believe that the Government need to pay much more regard to that aspect of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131S to 131TC not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 131TD:
Page 73, leave out lines 30 and 31.
The noble Lord said: I can deal quickly with Amendment No. 131TD because it raises a simple point—and one cannot often say that. We believe that it is inexplicable in common-sense terms why. if a citizen has to give his or her consent to the providing of a sample of some kind, he or she cannot at any time thereafter withdraw that consent and see the sample destroyed.
A further common-sense point is that if it is the case that once you give consent you shall not be able to withdraw it, a great many people who might otherwise have given their consent will, on advice—and I can imagine all kinds of interest groups giving this advice—never give their consent to the providing of samples. They will be told, as is obvious, that times and their circumstances may change. Although it is easy for any state to say "If you have nothing to fear you will never want to withdraw your sample", that is much too simple. I urge the Government, in terms of their own legislation, not to insist upon subsection (1D). I beg to move.
6.45 p.m
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 131TE seeks to build on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. It suggests that the person giving the consent should have the provisions of the subsection drawn to his attention in writing before he gives consent. In that way, he or she will fully understand what it is that they are agreeing to.
I accept at once that this may have the effect of putting off even more people from giving their consent, but if the consent is to be absolutely permanent—that is, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is not accepted—people need a reasonable chance to understand this matter, given how complicated it is and given particularly the fact that—although the noble and learned Lord explained it away to some degree—the Data Protection Act does not give quite the kind of broad protection that the noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendments Nos. 131TD, 131TE and 132A are in this group. Amendments Nos. 131TD and 132A will probably not have the desired effect. They do not state that consent can be withdrawn; they simply remove the clarification that, once given, consent cannot be withdrawn.
One of the problems in practice has been that in some geographical areas individuals have been approached on more than one occasion to give a DNA sample. That is an illustration of what sometimes happens in practice. Fundamentally, consent is given voluntarily. The information on the database, once given, can be used only for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime, investigation of an offence and the conduct of a prosecution. We believe that when a volunteer whose fingerprints or samples have been taken consents in writing to the retention, that consent should not be capable of being withdrawn.
One problem is that if an attempted withdrawal is made by, for instance—this is a limited example—someone who is going to be investigated for a crime or may be matched, when does the elimination have to take place? Is it immediately on the giving of the written withdrawal? Is the written withdrawal effective immediately when it is made, when it is received or within a reasonable period of time afterwards? We think that if you, as an individual, have given your
950
consent in writing to the retention of a sample for a limited purpose, you should not be able to withdraw that consent.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said was the spirit behind Amendment No. 131TE. However, if the amendment was accepted, there would have to be parallel amendments to new Section 64 (3AC) introduced by Clause 83 and to the parallel provisions for Northern Ireland in Clause 84.
On this point, we intend to issue guidance to the police to ensure that consent is fully informed, including the acknowledgement that once it is given it cannot be withdrawn. Home Office circular 16/95, which I mentioned earlier, will be updated to address the changes made by the Bill. In the light of those assurances—although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will not find them perfect, but they may be a limited amelioration of his concerns—I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that one of the reasons the power is needed is that people may have given their consent to the taking of their fingerprints during an investigation who may then find that they themselves are suspects and wish to withdraw their consent. The noble and learned Lord believes that they should not have the power to do so. Surely the answer is to say that they should not have the power to withdraw their consent until the investigation is completed. Once the investigation or any prosecution is completed, why should they not have the power then, if they wish, to withdraw their consent?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In many circumstances the investigation will not have even begun at that stage.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I have recently returned from the United States, where I met with representatives of the FBI and discussed with them the whole issue of DNA and its use in the investigation of crime. They rather marvelled at Britain leading the way in the invasion of civil liberties. They found it extraordinary—they looked with somewhat jealous eyes—that we did not have an active civil liberties movement to resist some of the changes taking place in the Bill.
One point that was raised—which I was unable to answer but the Minister may be able to do so—was what happened to samples which were given by victims or a victim's husband, for example, when they were taken for elimination purposes rather like an intelligence screen. In those circumstances, will the samples be returned and destroyed or will they be kept too? Such samples will be obtained with the consent of the victim or members of the victim's family—from a husband, for example, in order to eliminate his DNA.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I return to my earlier remarks. When a volunteer has provided fingerprints or samples for elimination purposes and he or she consents in writing to their retention, that consent

951
should not be capable of being withdrawn. A precondition to the noble Baroness's question is that consent in writing would have to be given. I do not entirely accept the proposition that we have greater intrusive powers in this country than exist in the United States for the investigation of crime. To my certain knowledge, in many areas that is simply not correct.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: In relation to DNA the Bill will take us far ahead of the United States and most other jurisdictions in the world.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That may well be so, but that was not the noble Baroness's first proposition. In any event, it is true that much of the technology and technique of DNA is substantially advanced in this jurisdiction as compared with many continental countries. I draw some comparisons between the successful investigation of serious crime in this country and the lamentable lack of success in many continental jurisdictions.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I return to my question. Is the Minister saying that the husband of a rape victim who provides DNA for elimination purposes will not be able to request that his sample is destroyed after the investigation is closed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The question does not arise because the fingerprints cannot be—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: The DNA can.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Fingerprints and DNA samples are the same in principle. They are not retained unless there is consent in writing to their retention.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Having accepted that the sample would be retained in the case of the husband, will the Minister state whether it will be retained in the case of victims whose DNA is taken with their consent for investigation purposes? Will such DNA be retained and kept on the database without there being any possibility of applying for it to be removed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It cannot be retained unless consent in writing has been given.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Has the Minister considered the human rights implications of coercion—of circumstances in which in the investigation of crime people may feel obliged to co-operate with the police? Has he considered that the whole question of informed consent may come into play and that, therefore, there may be an abuse of the Human Rights Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, we have considered all the human rights implications; otherwise, my noble
952
friend could not have given the certification that is required regarding the Human Rights Act which this Government introduced.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may join in with the duo on the other side of the Chamber. Is not the problem that victims of, for example, rape are almost inevitably bound to give their consent to a DNA sample—probably without considering carefully what they are doing? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I cannot see why, once an investigation is over, the fact that they have given their consent, possibly at a time of emotion when they were first asked to provide the sample, should mean that they should never thereafter be entitled to withdraw their consent. In some ways that places them in a worse position than a person who has not given consent in the first place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obviously not explaining myself clearly. Anyone who volunteers a sample has a choice as to the retention of the sample, consent to which must be given in writing. If the person does not give consent in writing, the sample cannot be retained.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to those who have contributed to this mini-debate. I am also grateful to the Minister. As he anticipated, I am not happy with the response. Although the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others would improve matters a little, there is a principle here. The points raised by others are relevant. This kind of dangerous developing presumption that the state has a right vis-à-vis citizens when it is the citizen who has consented to the granting of a sample seems to me to be altogether wrong. I can say no more than that. At this stage of the Bill, realising that we are rushing towards some sort of doom, I shall not divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131TE not moved.]
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 131TF:
Page 73, line 31, at end insert—
"() Speculative searches must be appropriate and necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime and any data obtained shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose.
() A search will only be appropriate and necessary where there is no reason to believe that the information held by the relevant law-enforcement authority is not accurate and up to date."
The noble Lord said: This was one of the amendments drafted by my noble friend Lord Lester, who alas cannot be present. The amendment was tabled with the intention of carrying out one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which the Government gave general approval. I presume that my noble friend is hoping that the Government will give their approval to his amendment as well.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No—and I wish that I could sit down.

953
There are two considerations. I understand what prompted the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Lester, to table the amendment. We want to have data which are accurate. I repeat what I said earlier. Fingerprints and DNA, subject to appropriate scientific safeguards, are powerful and objective forms of evidence. They remain unchanged for the lifetime of any individual. We can, therefore, ensure that accuracy. We cannot ensure the accuracy of other details, such as a person's address or even his or her name. We cannot discover whether or not someone has moved.
Where information is supplied that links an individual's fingerprints or samples to a crime scene, it has to be considered by the police, together with other intelligence information and evidence, which will provide an opportunity for scrutinising information. If there is doubt about a match, a further evidential sample can be taken.
I am not entirely sure what the first part of the amendment is intended to bring about, but I do not believe that the second part is workable. I do not see how any relevant law enforcement authority will be able to come to a conclusion that some parts of the relevant information are, or are not, accurate and up to date. People regularly change their jobs, their homes and their circumstances. So the proposal is not workable in that way.
The Data Protection Act deals to an extent with the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. There is an obligation under the 1998 Act to ensure that records are accurate. There is a well-established procedure relating to subject access which enables individuals to obtain details of personal information held on a police computer. Therefore, if there is inaccuracy, that is the opportunity to put it right.
Although in this amendment the heart is in the right place, the intelligence has not been sufficiently focused to do away with ambiguity.
Lord McNally: I shall report both the "No" and the final insult to my noble friend Lord Lester. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 83 [Restriction on use and destruction of fingerprints and samples]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 131TG:
Page 74, line 10, leave out "whether"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 132B. These amendments have been grouped with various other amendments, as set out on the groupings list. I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Lester, will be able to take some comfort from the fact that the Minister did not get it wholly right when he signed the statement attached to the Bill. Indeed, we know about that
954
because we have already had to amend the Bill. However, no one is perfect. I have pointed out in the past that half the lawyers in the country are proved wrong every day in the courts. There is always someone on the losing side, as well as those on the winning side. We should always remember that when considering their advice; and not bow down to it too slavishly.
Amendment No. 131TG relates to the definition of crime as set out in subsection (1B)(c). The reference is to the restriction on the use and destruction of fingerprints and DNA samples. Basically, such samples can be used in the investigation of further criminal offences; indeed, not only further criminal offences in this country but also further criminal offences committed overseas. The particular point of my amendment is to say that that is a crime under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
There are many laws around the world with which we would not agree. Moreover, many activities are criminal offences in one country and not in others; indeed, sometimes they are treated more seriously than is the case in the United Kingdom. If the clause is not amended it will allow any crime to be investigated in the manner proposed. My amendment seeks to ensure that a sample can be used only in the circumstances outlined if the crime being investigated in another country would be a crime if committed here. In other words, it must be a matter that we in this country agree should be against the law, and it must be against our law. That seems to me to be a protection that might well be inserted into the Bill. I am rather surprised that the Bill as drafted permits such a wide interpretation.
The other amendment tabled in my name in this group is Amendment No. 132B, which seeks to remove subsection (6) of the clause. The subsection says that if fingerprints and samples that should have been destroyed before the commencement of this Act were not so destroyed, they now do not need to be; and, indeed, can be used in the ways that we have been discussing. That seems to me to be rather extraordinary. Apart from anything else, it is somewhat retrospective. The subsection is saying that if someone gave his consent under one basis—the current basis—but, for some reason or another, the police force in question failed to destroy the samples, that can now be forgotten and such samples can continue to be used. That is retrospection of consent, as it were: it is a matter of someone giving his consent under one basis but suddenly finding that his samples are being retained on a different and wider basis, as we heard when discussing earlier amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that the Government will take these two amendments most seriously. To say that a crime committed anywhere else in the world—that is what it comes to—shall be relevant to the constitution of one or more criminal offences really invokes the most extraordinary amount of uncertainty. Very odd activities are considered to be crimes in various parts

955
of the world. Indeed, I believe that there is one Muslim country in which adultery is still a crime. The Government should be careful about this issue.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Am I right in understanding and that we are debating with these amendments the other matters listed on the groupings list?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. In this group we find Amendments Nos. 131TG, 131TH, 132, 132B, 133, 133A and Clauses 83 and 84 stand part.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I thought that that was the position. Although I have not attached my name of any of the amendments in the group, I wish to make one very small point. Surely what we have here is a classic example of this Chamber being asked to make what is in effect a fairly major change in criminal procedure, without having had the time for adequate consideration.
At present, as regards those whose samples are taken—whether fingerprints or DNA samples—in the process of the investigation of a crime and who are then acquitted or, indeed are not proceeded against, there is a requirement that such samples should then be destroyed. As understand it, the clause would remove that requirement. It states that if the fingerprints or DNA samples have been taken from a person in the course of an investigation, those samples can be retained by the police even if the suspect was acquitted, or not proceeded against.
Can the noble and learned Lord say what, in principle, is the difference between retaining the fingerprints or DNA samples of someone from whom they have been taken as a suspect of a crime but who is ultimately not proceeded against, and taking such samples from any other member of society? It may be right to have the power to take fingerprints from all members of society and to build up such a bank held by the police. However, in this Bill alone it seems to me that we shall have: first, those who in any event had samples taken from them, who were then convicted, and which the police have power to retain; secondly, there will be those from whom such samples were taken during the course of an investigation who are then acquitted and yet the police will have the power to retain their fingerprints or DNA samples; and thirdly, there will be those whose fingerprints were taken and against whom no proceedings were instigated, but, again, the police will have the power to retain such samples.
Finally, as we discussed in the previous debate, there will be those from whom such samples were taken in the course of an investigation, whether as victims or otherwise. It will depend on whether such persons have given their consent in writing when consideration is given as to whether or not they can later be detained.
I repeat: there may be a strong argument for saying that there should be the power to fingerprint anyone in this country and retain his or her fingerprints
956
indefinitely for the purpose of investigating future crime. However, in this Bill, it seems to me that we are in the process of making a major change in matters that may be considered by some to be issues of civil liberty, without proper discussion as to the situation ahead. I hope that this is one of those areas where the Government will agree that further consideration should be given to the arguments put forward before proceeding in the manner proposed.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I support the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in the remarks that he has just made. What concerns me and many others is that we believe we are seeing a creeping invasion by the state. We have here the creation of a national database of the male population—it will, essentially, be the male population—by stealth. If you are creating a national database and you ask everyone in the country to comply, a national debate could take place on the subject. But that is not what is happening. In order to gather as many samples as possible, the Government are now extending the reach of the database; in other words, instead of it just being confined to people who are convicted, it will include samples of people who have given a sample for the investigation of crime in any other capacity. Some will consent to that. However, the worrying point is that they will consent because they want a particular crime to be investigated or they want the best possible investigation of a crime committed against their wives. They will consent—and consent away one of their civil liberties.
I regret that there has not been enough debate on this subject. Indeed, it was not debated at all in the other place. The problem is that once a DNA database has been established, those in authority will be tempted to use it not just to eliminate people from specific inquiries but also to carry out other general searches which might, for example, throw up someone who is related to a suspect or discover an inherited psychological trait related to criminal behaviour. Those are the kind of worries that the general public have about this matter. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to debate whether people are content that this kind of data should be collected to investigate crime. I believe that most people consider that it is a case of other people's DNA. When victims realise that their DNA may also be collected, they may be greatly concerned about that.
Having expressed my general concern about what is happening by stealth, perhaps for good reasons and with good intentions but without enough public debate, I now turn to another area of concern which I raise in my Amendment No. 132 which is included in the group we are discussing. The amendment proposes that we should deal differently with fingerprints and samples of juveniles and young people under the age of 18. If the Government are intent on introducing the measure we are discussing, they should at least give some consideration to the position of young people. All the statistics show that the majority of young people who get into trouble in their adolescence or teens grow up to be law-abiding citizens. I should have thought that most of us believe in giving people an

957
opportunity to make a fresh start, to accept responsibility, to be able to change and to enter adult life without any handicap. I know that the Secretary of State is mindful of the rehabilitation of offenders, particularly young offenders.
Both Canada and France have measures such as the one I propose in Amendment No. 132. I suggest that the fingerprints or samples of young people who commit a crime as juveniles under the age of 18 may be retained, but that seven years after they reach adulthood they should be able to apply for the destruction of the said fingerprints or samples if they have not got into any further trouble. The intention is clear; namely, to enable people to make a fresh start as adults. I believe that we are all familiar with the difference between young people and adults in certain respects. We can assume that adults have knowledge, foresight and a real appreciation of responsibility. Those traits are often acquired with maturity. We should adopt a different measure for those who are juveniles when their samples are taken.
I turn to a further rather serious issue. It is important that a distinction is made between the bar code, which is created from a DNA sample and which is then used for matching purposes, and a sample itself. The bar code can be entered on a computer. That bar code in itself will not tell us much more than is recorded on the computer. It usually comprises what is described as "junk" DNA; that is, DNA which does not inform you about, for example, the presence of genetic diseases. The sample, of course, is very different. If tested in a certain way, it can tell you all kinds of things about the individual from whom it has come. It could tell you about their propensity to certain kinds of illness. Perhaps in the future we shall discover all kinds of things we are not aware of now. A sample may, for example, be able to provide all manner of information, thereby very much invading the privacy of the individual concerned.
The police may well want to use the bar codes for matching purposes to eliminate individuals from investigations. Those can be kept in a database—a computer—but the databank of samples is far more complex and deserves special protection. Reasons that the Government will give for wanting to retain the samples are that a computer may go down and some bar codes may be lost, or, that there may be something questionable about a bar code that has been created from a sample and people may want to re-examine the relevant sample. They will say that there are therefore serious reasons for keeping samples. The Home Office may want to conduct research on such samples. However, the public are entitled to know what kind of research would be undertaken. In consultation undertaken by the Human Genetics Commission the public have expressed real concern about the possible cross-over between databases of information which relates to the privacy of the citizen.
My Amendment No. 133 proposes the creation of an independent body whose authorisation would be required before access to any such samples was permitted. It also proposes that in such databanks all
958
information concerning identity should be coded to make it impossible to identify the people concerned should that information ever fall into the hands of people other than those one would want to have access to such information. It also proposes that,
"Any unauthorised use of DNA samples held on the databank constitutes a criminal offence".
That criminal offence should result not in some trivial penalty but in a prison sentence.
I have important reasons for tabling the amendment. The highly regarded Science and Technology Committee of this House recommended such measures after having studied databases and genetic information. The forensic science body which collects DNA samples has an overseeing as well as a forensic role. There is already some concern that there is too much fudging of its functions and that there needs to be some kind of independent review body to regulate the use of such information. Gaining the public's trust in this whole area of genetics is so important that I urge the Government not to make a rash decision but to consider with great care whether the existing provisions are satisfactory when we are on the brink of a whole new body of science. Carrying the public with government, scientists and all the bodies concerned is important. Maintaining public trust should be foremost in the Government's mind. I commend the amendments in my name.
7.15 p.m
Lord Brennan: The criminal justice system has an inherent tension between the preservation of individual civil liberty and the protection of the public from crime. In creating a balance whereby that tension is fairly distributed between those two considerations one of the most important factors is to preserve the confidence of the public in that criminal justice system.
The provision of evidence by way of fingerprint and DNA sample has the enduring virtue of certainty, as near as science can produce it in those fields. Such proof, therefore, has an inherently important value: first, in the detection of serious crime; and, secondly, where the evidence substantiates it, in the conviction of those guilty of it.
As a lawyer devoted to civil liberty, as many in this House are, I share the concerns about the use to which such information can be put. But in determining my own conclusion I must have regard to the way the public will expect such information to be obtained and used. I give some examples. First, surely the public will say about DNA evidence, "This is the very strongest of evidence. Here, if used, we should find no miscarriage of justice". Just as 50 or 100 years ago, fingerprints obtained their station of importance in criminal prosecutions, so now will DNA.
Secondly, it is not realistic to expect DNA evidence to be used in the detection of middle-range or minor crime. However, the public will expect it to be used to detect the most horrific of crimes: murder, rape, especially against children—a point I raised at Second Reading. Most of the horrific crimes of murder and rape of children about which we read with such shock

959
are often crimes committed by a stranger. The perpetrator comes from a different town, often another part of the country. The victim is often, if not in a rural locality, in a greenfield area; and the ability of the police to detect such crime is very limited indeed. Hence the importance of prosecution material such as DNA samples. I cannot imagine any reasonable member of the public saying that in that level of crime DNA samples, where possessed, should not be used in order to detect the guilty person.
Thirdly, in such serious crimes, especially if committed in tight-knit communities, there is usually a massive response to requests to give DNA samples. People give them and the unspoken motive usually is, "We want to exclude our community from any involvement in the crime". I do not think that this Act will result in a difference of attitude among ordinary citizens who are asked to volunteer to give such samples.
Lastly, the public will say, "If you have samples, if they have been given by consent, how can you possibly justify their destruction if, many years after the event, they can serve to prove somebody guilty of a heinous murder against a child?" I ask that question rhetorically. I would look forward to some very persuasive advocacy which would come to a different conclusion from what the public would expect.
From the standpoint of civil libertarians, I respect the concerns expressed by the speakers so far, and perhaps yet to come. However, I started by identifying the tension. There must come a time in this House when, faced with laws like this which are designed to protect the public, some of us have to swallow our beliefs in the purity of civil liberty and look to the protection of the public, albeit in time to come those important concerns which my noble friend Lady Kennedy has Set out may well call for a complete review of the manner in which we store and use this evidence in a technical database way.
I support this introduction of DNA sampling being kept by consent and used ever after. I cannot see the public saying to this House that on this occasion civil liberties will prevail against the protection of our citizens.
Lord Renton: As we are debating whether Clause 83 shall stand part and the amendments to it, I feel obliged to draw attention to subsection (4) which is very confusing, slightly contradictory and should be reconsidered by the Government. In particular, perhaps I may draw attention to subsection (3AB) which states:
"Subject to subsection (3AC) below, where a person is entitled under subsection (3) above to the destruction of any fingerprint or sample taken from him … neither the fingerprint nor the sample, nor any information derived from the sample, shall he used … in evidence against the person",
and so on,
"or … for the purposes of the investigation of any offence".
960
That is fair enough. But the top two lines of page 75 of the Bill, which have already been the subject of an amendment wisely proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, state:
"a consent given for the purpose of this subsection shall not be capable of being withdrawn".
It is rather odd that if a person has given a fingerprint he can ask for it to be withdrawn; but if he has given his consent to have a fingerprint or a sample taken he cannot ask for it to be withdrawn. There is a contradiction; the Government should attend to it.
7.30 p.m
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support the argument that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. The clause seeks to turn on its head Section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It would treat those acquitted of a crime and those never prosecuted for a crime in the same way as if they were convicted criminals. Merely to state that proposition invites a great deal of inquiry as to what could justify such an extraordinary state of affairs. To create this new category, as it would be, is wholly without precedent, wholly adventitious and truly unprincipled. In this country, we do not have a Scottish system with the intermediate category in the criminal courts of cases "not proven". If we had such a category, some of my anxieties and of others who have spoken today, would be resolved. For the purposes of samples of DNA and fingerprints, it would be straightforward to have those "not proven" cases treated as though there had been a conviction.
No one mentioned today that this change in the law does not come after long and careful consideration, least of all after public debate, but against a backdrop of chaos in the national DNA database. Last year, the Inspectorate of Constabulary did an audit of the national DNA database and produced a report in July which found that over 50,000 samples are kept on that database illegally so that the existing 1984 law is honoured in the breach. On behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may say that it seems an extraordinary response to the fact that this crucially sensitive state instrument—the collection of citizen information—should have been so cavalierly misused. Yet the Government do not respond by saying, "This is dreadful. We'll put this right and it won't happen again"; they seek to make a norm of the present illegality.
In December last year, the House of Lords decided that the illegal use of DNA information for the purposes of apprehending and subsequently seeking to convict a person should not automatically strike down the prosecution. I refer to the case of Regina v B, the Attorney-General's third reference in 1999, when Lord Justice Steyn made a trenchant judgment to the effect that that would not automatically render the use of the DNA information inadmissible, but it would be left to the trial judge to decide in all the circumstances of the case.
Does it all matter? Are noble Lords across the House getting excited about a principle that is of little account? I think not. Ask the police. The Government

961
asked them earlier this year to give voluntary samples to go on the national DNA database. I think that I am right in saying that one third of them are still holding out against that and that a dozen policemen in Gloucestershire are currently being disciplined for refusing to give samples "voluntarily" to the national database. Why would the police of all people be reluctant to give samples? The answer is only too simple: the database is in a chaotic mess. The systems between the police, the courts and the database are in chaos and they are unreliable.
I am afraid that that is not the only reason that those policemen are refusing to submit voluntarily. In 1998, a Mr Easton was prosecuted for burglary exclusively on the basis of DNA matching. Apart from the fact that Mr Easton was suffering severe Parkinson's disease and was incapable of getting out of his house, let alone burgling anybody else's, it turned out that this was a cock-up and that the so-called perfect system was imperfect. The Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the prosecution.
Unfortunately, as we know, systems for obtaining details of convictions of citizens are corruptible. It is almost certain that the DNA database is being used improperly. It is an open secret that one can obtain details of someone's criminal convictions unlawfully. There are people willing to co-operate in that.
How will the issue seem to the ordinary citizen? My noble friend Lord McNally and others have already referred to a sense that the state is getting too big for its boots—too powerful, too intrusive and too all-pervading. The instruments of state intervention and investigation are getting too strong and the citizen too weak. The system is so complicated that a citizen wronged by it will rarely if ever be able to find a way through to the truth.
Hundreds of thousands of young people in this country are already on the database because they have been cautioned for soft drug offences. I am concerned about them and many like them. They will always be on the database. We are talking about other categories of people, particularly young people, who have been acquitted—I stress acquitted—before a court of law of whatever the offence may be, drug or otherwise, but will still be permanently on what many of them will regard as a "Big Brother" database. They cannot even take advantage of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Their convictions will be struck from the record, but never their fingerprints or their DNA samples. It is easy for us in this House to think that they are only the sort of people whom we want to put in prison anyway, but that is not true. We underestimate the psychology of the issue and what a tenuous thread exists between so many citizens, particularly the less fortunate ones, and the instruments of the state, particularly the forces of law and order, the police and the courts.
I do not need to tell the House that a society that does not ultimately rest for its lawfulness on the voluntary, willing adhesion of the vast majority of citizens to its policing and court system is a failing society and not one of which any of us here wants to be part. That is why I question the wisdom of this
962
reversal of the status quo and why I feel strongly that the fairness and reasonableness that underpin the society that we cherish will not be well served by this provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made some thoughtful remarks. He was right that this is a case of all in or convicts only in. There is no intermediate category. Let us have a national debate. Let us ask young people what they think. Let us find out whether my fears and other people's fears are well founded. Let us do what the Canadian Government did—incidentally, they decided not to have this arrangement. The United States Government have set up a commission on the future of the use of DNA. Let us do what the French Government did. Let us not proceed with this measure tonight. As many have said, it is a fundamental issue, going beyond reason and rationality to an aspect of feeling and attitude that is no less important than the purely rational.
On all those grounds, I urge the Government to think again. After a debate, we may come to a conclusion in favour of what they are pressing on us tonight, but this is a classic example of a reform that needs much more thought and time and much wider involvement than we have yet been able to give it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No one has yet mentioned the fact that preserved DNA samples are capable of producing the acquittal of those wrongly accused of serious crime. Is that not an important aspect of what a criminal justice system ought to provide for the confidence of the public?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The answer to that is simple. Any innocent person accused of a crime will readily give their DNA sample. That will do the trick.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It goes without saying that we want people to be able to use DNA to prove that they were not responsible for something. Such DNA as comes from the scene of a crime should be preserved, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about how samples should be kept, from whom they should be taken and whether there should be greater public debate about taking them from people who have not been convicted of crimes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I managed one sentence, which is almost a record, even in this House.
The issue is not as simple or polarised as some people claim or pretend. We are talking about a raft of different propositions. The matter relates to the inquisition into crime, the investigation of crime, the conviction of the truly guilty, and also the acquittal of those who are innocent. DNA is a very important tool in the same way as fingerprints have been over the years.
Let us consider one or two propositions that have been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a question about Clause 83 in his helpful contribution on Clause 83 stand part. He wondered why fingerprints or samples should not be destroyed if

963
a person had consented to the fingerprints or samples being given. However, I made this point earlier. New subsection (3AC) on page 74 of the Bill specifically refers not to a person from whom a fingerprint or sample has been taken but sets out an essential further qualification:
"a person from whom a fingerprint or sample has been taken [who] consents in writing to its retention".
That is utterly different from a situation in which a person simply consents to the sample being taken. He or she must consent in writing to the retention of the sample.
One or two wide questions are raised in relation to storage. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke of a corruptible system. My noble friends Lord Brennan and Lady Kennedy asked how we can be sure that the storage and data bank is safe enough to give us confidence—I believe that that is a fair paraphrase. I believe that those are legitimate questions. I am prepared in the longer term—on behalf of the Home Office—to give consideration to the idea of an independent body holding the DNA samples.
Let us turn to the specific amendments. I have not found any sufficiently persuasive reason to impeach the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Brennan, let alone to test it to destruction. I shall come to one or two specific illustrations when I deal with particular concerns that have been raised.
First, Amendments Nos. 131TG and 131TH attempt to restrict international co-operation, by which I mean our ability to share information with other law enforcement parties—I believe that that would also apply the other way round—to criminal offences which correspond to offences in the United Kingdom. Offences may well exist under foreign statutes that generally conform to offences in the United. Kingdom but where the terminology of the offence is not the same. I do not believe that it would be reasonably proportionate to expect the police in every case of an alleged offence committed abroad to establish whether the same conduct, if committed in the United Kingdom, would have corresponded to an offence here. Obviously the framing of offences and defences varies between jurisdictions.
We believe that these two amendments would bring about an unnecessary restriction on the exchange of fingerprints and samples. In the full evidence given by the Home Office, we explained to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that procedures were in place to deal with the disclosure of information, and we gave an undertaking to monitor the situation.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 132 and 133, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. If approved, Amendment No. 132 would mean that the individual's fingerprints and DNA profile would be removed from the national database if the person in question was below the age of majority when the offence was committed. As I understand it, that would mean that a 17 year-old young man who had committed several murders would be the beneficiary of the removal of his DNA and fingerprint samples from the database. It would
964
mean their removal, even if he were a seriously dangerous molester of young children—I take the example of my noble friend Lord Brennan—and that he had murdered several.
There is an argument for that on the basis that, as my noble friend put it very eloquently, all humans, particularly when young, are capable of change, improvement and redemption. That argument does exist, but I am sorry that it does not persuade me any more than it persuaded my noble friend Lord Brennan; nor do I believe, if we were to take the public point of view on an informed basis, that it would satisfy many members of the public. I would not recommend any of my colleagues to assent to that amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I hesitate to interrupt because I know that my noble and learned friend is anxious to proceed. However, perhaps I may suggest that, through this amendment, I sought to place before the Committee a proposition in relation to young people. If a person, such as has been described by my noble and learned friend, had committed a series of gross crimes, one could easily introduce into the provision an exception whereby, in very serious cases, objection could be made to an application for destruction. Therefore, there would always be a way in which to deal with the very rare cases of juveniles committing atrocious crimes.
As the Minister knows, the number of young people who commit such crimes are exceptionally rare. Therefore, we are talking about the majority of quite ordinary crimes and the circumstances in which young people may give their DNA and be acquitted or may do so voluntarily by signing a consent form. However, such action may be inappropriate, given the likelihood that they will never offend again.
I want to support a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He said that this matter concerns the relationship between the citizen and the state and the erosion of that relationship. It is a matter of particular concern to many people when it deals with young people.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am dealing with the amendment. I remind the Committee that the amendment states:
"Where a person from whom fingerprints or samples are taken is under the age of 18, the fingerprints or samples may he retained"—
therefore, I take there to be no principled objection to the retention of samples—
"but after 7 years from the time when the person reaches his or her majority, and if no further offence has been committed, the person may apply for the destruction of the … fingerprints or samples".
Plainly, this is a sighting shot because the latter part of the amendment lacks all particularity. However, if the sample may be retained, and if it may be retained until the person is seven years post-18 years of age, I hat is not an argument of principle; it is an argument that says, "Let us attend to it in practice".

965
Personally, I would not be willing to vote for such an amendment, even if it were properly couched in terms of who the application should be made to, on what basis, who could object, and so forth. However, I repeat that, if it is right to keep the samples for seven years, the principle for retention in certain circumstances is conceded.
The maintenance of the data bank is dealt with in Amendment No. 133—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble and learned Lord proceeds, I do not believe that he can rest wholly—rather, that he can rest anything—on the argument of incomplete drafting of the amendment. Normally in a Committee stage, the amendment would be taken away and no doubt would be polished and improved for Report stage. That is difficult to do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. However, the provision can be left out of this Bill. It can be given further consideration and brought back on another occasion when the remains of the Bill come before Parliament in the future.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the noble Lord completely misunderstood what I said. I made it plain that I was not making a criticism of the drafting; I used those words because this is plainly a sighting shot. I was not criticising the amendment on that basis. My objection and observation is that if, in principle, it is acceptable to retain samples for seven years, there cannot be a wholly intact principle against the retention in any circumstance.
Personally, I should find it very difficult to say that someone of the age of 17 years and 11 months who had committed gross crimes of the type referred to by my noble friend Lord Brennan should be the beneficiary of the opportunity for destruction of those samples, which are kept as a public protection, whereas a young woman of 18 years and one day would not be. I do not find that logically sustainable.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Would not the argument of the noble and learned Lord be as effective when used to deprive the selfsame triple murderer of the normal protections, including the way in which he or she is handled by the police and in relation to evidence concerning his or her guilt?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not at all; the two circumstances have no comparability. Young people under the age of 18 have particular protections under PACE because of their personal vulnerability. Sample DNA depends on no personal characteristic other than the objective, scientific one that was referred to by my noble friend. If my fingerprint is taken, there may be safeguards about the taking of it, but the fact that I am 17, 18, 65 or 85 does not relate to the scientific, objective value—the probity value—of the fingerprint. That again returns me to the comments of my noble friend Lord Brennan. We should not forget that, provided that the safeguards are in place—I briefly dealt with that in connection with the database and the
966
databank—that approach, curiously, involves much more powerful evidence than the certainty of an identification witness in so many cases or the possible scientific accuracy of a handwriting expert. It provides much better quality evidence. When we cast our criminal justice procedures, we should recognise that.
Noble Lords who have discussed Amendment No. 133 are entitled to the concerns that they have raised. If I may, I shall not go into the details of the present system because I indicated that we are prepared to consider the idea of an independent holding body.
There are further amendments in the group. Amendment No. 133A is a compendious attack on Clauses 83 and 84. We must agree to differ in this regard. I accept that civil liberties questions are raised but an intrusion into my personality or personal life is not necessarily an unacceptable intrusion into my civil liberties. In relation to the European convention, not all the rights are perfect, distinct and discrete. It is an intrusion into my personal liberty to be photographed when speeding in a speed zone of 30 miles per hour. It is in some ways an intrusion into my personal liberty when a CCTV record of my walking along a high street is kept for some time, often by private individuals. Some people say that that involves a balance of judgment that we must accept.
It is true that many young people are deeply suspicious of authority and that people who have been cautioned may deeply resent the fact that their fingerprints are retained. At the other end of the spectrum are the two cases that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips; namely, Regina v Weir and Regina vB. One of those cases was an Attorney-General's reference to the House of Lords. In a judgment that is worth looking at and reflecting on, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, came to certain conclusions about what admissibility of evidence should be. I do not want to over-dramatise the situation but I shall give the stark, implacable facts of the two cases. Many would take the view that if the evidence had been admitted in one of the cases, a rapist would have been convicted, and that if the evidence had been admitted in the other case, the cruel, mindless murderer of an elderly person—he was killed in his own home—would have been convicted of murder.
I am happy to engage in a public debate on that matter. I have a suspicion, which might be deeply unworthy, about which side the public view would fall in those circumstances. Many well informed, decent, scrupulous, civil libertarians may say, "The law is sometimes an ass. Can you do nothing to make it more consistent with what we think a civil society should provide in terms of the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime?"
Neither the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, nor those who are ranged behind his battlements, suggested that there were unworthy motives among those who took a different view and I do not for one moment make such a suggestion about those who disagree with me. There are different views to be had but there is a limit to how much discussion there can be. I believe—I am not

967
alone in this—that the background circumstances that allowed the successful submissions to be made in relation to the cases of B and Weir were not consonant with what a civilised society should afford by way of protection or redress when objective, scientific evidence is available. There are of course cases in which fingerprints are challenged; we all know of them. There are notoriously well-known cases in the United States in which DNA has been challenged. I have constantly put my qualification on this class of evidence throughout this brief debate on where there are safeguards, both scientific and forensic.
Our proposals by way of remedy to a serious gap in the law are in Clause 83. Clause 84 is its sister—or brother—clause for Northern Ireland. I recognise the power and force of contrary arguments and I have listened with great care on this occasion and others. However, there comes a time when we simply have to disagree. If we reach a decision today or tomorrow, that point of disagreement will have been finalised.
Lord Lucas: The noble and learned Lord lays much emphasis on proposed new subsection (3AC) in Clause 84, in which the person who is giving the sample,
"consents in writing to its retention".
Under what circumstances would anyone be well advised to do that? I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a person would benefit from doing so. Giving such consent under such circumstances may be done by failing to inform a person properly and, to some extent, by trickery and subterfuge.
Being on the database puts one in a position that is akin to mislaying a hair sample in the days of witchcraft. One puts oneself enormously in everyone else's power. If a person is known to be on the DNA database, all that one needs to do is to pick up one of his hairs and place it at the scene of a crime. That would be evidence that he was there and it would be extremely difficult for him to disprove that evidence.
The arrangement will put one in an enormously weak position in relation to the state generally, if the state has some reason for convicting one. Any reasonably organised criminal could use the arrangement to secure an incredible amount of power over one. To consent to put oneself on the database would be an act of enormous folly and no adult should be advised to do it. How a juvenile could give such consent I am unsure. Would their parents be asked to sign away their child's future security on his or her behalf? Again, it is not clear.
If one commits a crime and one is on the database, one has let oneself in for it. One can voluntarily give a sample to clear oneself as part of an investigation; one may tick the box, fail to tick the box or do whatever it is that amounts to giving written consent for the retention of one's sample, but one would be extraordinarily ill advised to do so.
I cannot believe that it is proper for the Government to arrange the forms or conditions under which consent is sought so that people will be lulled into
968
giving their consent. The Government should treat the matter with great seriousness. Yes, this will be a wonderful database to have and, yes, we should do everything that we can to ensure that those who commit crimes at all regularly—most crimes are committed by criminals who have committed more than one crime—are on the database. However, the rest of us should not be put in the power of the state or in that of ill intentioned individuals simply because of one moment of community-mindedness. When one is asked by a police officer, "Will you allow us to keep the sample?", one would naturally consent because one could not believe that the police would ask such a thing unless it was in one's interest to consent.
8 p.m
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can test the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If I wish falsely to implicate the noble Lord in a crime, his DNA details do not have to be on a database. I can take his hair and place it at the scene. The police may take his DNA sample and he will be liable anyway. So his witchcraft argument is not persuasive.
The noble Lord asked who would put themselves in that position. I would. If I lived in a small country village where, over a period of years, children had been attacked and murdered, I would not have the slightest hesitation in giving a sample, nor in advising my children to do so, subject to safeguards. Again, that demonstrates the disadvantage of rhetorical questions.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Will all Ministers of the Government put themselves on this database?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have not the slightest idea and nor will I make the inquiry. I do not want to be accused of being a "big browser" or a participant in witchcraft. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked the question and he was entitled to my answer, which I gave honestly and conscientiously as he asked the question.
Lord Lucas: If someone places a hunk of my hair at the scene of a murder, the police will have no idea whose hair it is. They can trace the DNA but will have no idea it is mine. They would need some other reason to place me at the scene to come and ask me for a DNA sample.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are obviously in "Cluedo" now. But if I did put a hunk—or rather, a smaller sample—of hair from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at the scene of a crime, I may well make use of either an anonymous telephone call or an anonymous letter.
Lord Lucas: Then at least there would be a prompting and something which could be brought into question in court as to why the anonymous call had been made and whether it was all a stitch-up. If something of mine is just found at the scene, prima facie that is something which I have to explain.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have a little experience of cases involving DNA. The circumstance which most

969
people postulate when talking about DNA is that a crime has been committed and a sample of DNA has been found at the scene. That is then compared with the samples of convicted people on the database which has been built up over a period of time.
But the reverse can be the case, as happened in a case I know well. A person was arrested on a minor charge and asked to provide a sample of blood. That was tested for DNA. That sample was then run against a database of samples taken from previous crimes. The person was subsequently convicted of rape from 15 years earlier when he was living in a completely different part of the country. There was no other evidence to connect him with the crime. But the certainty of which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, spoke was applied by the prosecution and ultimately by the jury to convict him solely on that evidence.
Certainty is that which is postulated in relation to DNA evidence. But certainty is never claimed by the scientists who give evidence in criminal cases. They say that by operating a mathematical formula, by multiplying various parts of a random piece of DNA by a factor of 12, the chances of a specific piece of DNA coming from another person in the population chosen at random may be as much as 1 billion to one. Those are the sort of odds that are frequently quoted. However, scientists will admit that the chances of that piece of DNA coming from a close relative of the person who is a suspect is as low as two to one. So one can go quickly, because of the mathematics, from two to one to 1 billion to one, and one then arrives at the certainty about which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, spoke.
I am talking about experience and practicality. There is no certainty. But people are now being convicted in this country on the basis of scientific findings. Those findings may be tainted by the manner in which the sample was collected or the manner in which it was stored. It depends on the ability or the integrity of the scientist who carries out the tests—we all know of cases in the past where the integrity of scientists has been questioned. But at the end of the day there cannot be certainty.
The consequences of the proposals are that there will exist in our society people who have been convicted of crime, perhaps at a young age, whose DNA and fingerprints will remain on the database for ever. There will be those who have been acquitted and those who are innocent whose DNA will remain on the database for ever; and so for victims and for those who take part in elimination tests. The rest of the population are nowhere.
In the case of which I spoke earlier when a person's DNA was set against the database, the computer threw up a 15 year-old rape. The fact was that four people in the adult population of this country could have committed that crime. The defence had no idea who the other three people could be because their samples had never been taken. So the one person whose sample was taken for something totally different, in a different
970
town at a different time, finds himself serving a lengthy sentence for rape. That is the danger of the provisions before us.
There has been no public debate on this issue. There has been no detailed discussion so that the people of this country are aware of the limitations—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is not aware of them—of DNA and the fact that it can go wrong. The people of this country are not aware of the various gradations from guilt, to innocence, to victim, of the people whose DNA will appear on the database.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said: the existence of the powers in this Bill place a weapon in the hands of the state that is hugely powerful. If the people of this country believe that certainty arises out of DNA, the possibility of ridding oneself of political opponents, for example, through the misuse of DNA in the manner referred to by the noble Lord really does exist. If that is thought to be far-fetched, let us remember that at this very moment in time there is a leader of an opposition party in a Commonwealth country who today is facing charges brought against him by the regime. Anybody who thinks this is something we can shrug off and say, "It will never happen here", is entirely mistaken. Why, in the past, have fingerprints and samples been destroyed? Because it was realised that if we place this power in the hands of the state, it may well be misused.
It is my view that the public must be involved in this debate. The public must appreciate the issues which arise. The rushing through of these provisions at the end of a Parliament, as is now proposed by this Government, must be resisted from all sides of the Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This debate was founded on a relatively modest amendment to leave out the word "whether". However, it has given rise to a long debate on the principles that lie behind the whole of the business involving DNA. It has tremendously opened up that argument.
I was glad to hear that the rapist mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was convicted at last, after 15 years, even if it took some time to catch up with him, assuming that he did it. I cannot comment on the details of that, but he referred to the possibility of a false certainty in such cases.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, spoke so much about certainty as about high-quality evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that DNA and fingerprints are high-quality evidence. That does not mean to say that they can be treated as certainties.
They are also tremendous investigatory tools when used as set out in these clauses. The fact that 15 years later someone can be picked up in the circumstances described by the noble Lord demonstrates the power of using them as investigatory tools. In the case of the rapist, he could have been one of the other three and not have been in a position to have committed the crime. He may have been in another part of the country or otherwise engaged and so the case may not have been pursued. Those circumstances do not

971
invalidate the fact that DNA is a strong investigatory tool in pointing to one of the four people who may have committed the particular crime, which is of great advantage to the police.
I do not mean to make, although it is difficult not to make, a party political point. At the moment we are not collectively winning the war against crime. All sorts of crimes continue to worry us. DNA evidence provides a valuable investigatory tool and potentially provides quality evidence in court, although it does not provide certainty.
We have to balance that against the principle of policing by consent, as has been raised in the debate. In this country we know that one cannot police except by consent. That is the way in which it works and should work. Anything that undermines that consent is a danger to us and to our whole system and way of life. That is why I wish there had been more discussion before this matter was put on the statute book because I believe that it puts at risk policing by consent.
We do not wish to deny the police a valuable investigatory tool or the courts a valuable tool in assessing guilt or innocence of individuals. However, I seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 131TG.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131TH to 132B not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 83 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McNally: In relation to Clause 83 stand part—my comments refer also to Clause 84—it is not the intention of those on these Benches to divide the House tonight. The Attorney-General gave a detailed response. I am one of his fans. His method of delivery is such that it is usually about 4 a.m. before one realises that he has either insulted or threatened you. However, my brain cells have moved a little faster than usual. About two hours ago he said that he did not want to bring the whiff of the hustings into the debate and then proceeded to do so.
On these Benches we are under no illusions that it will be easy to present the concerns expressed from all parts of the House as a denial of powers to prosecute rapists and murderers. Both the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, played that card very forcefully in their remarks.
If our civil liberties are to be dealt with by saying, "Unless you give us these powers, the people will denounce you", one may as well leave our civil liberties to the editor of the Sun or to those phone-in-and-give-your-views polls that they run so often. This House and this Parliament have other more important duties than simply to listen to the most emotive arguments that can be deployed.
Therefore, I say to the Attorney-General, as I said to the Home Secretary when he delivered a similar threat in the Moses Room, that, if our genuine concerns are to be met, then we should have a much expanded debate in the country—not just one
972
truncated day's debate—before we move ahead. At times I have sat in this House and felt honoured to hear the quality of the debate, but tonight's debate should take place in the country. Tomorrow we shall divide the House and after the Division we shall consider whether these clauses should go forward.
I hope that the Attorney-General will also pause to think because it is not just the Hampstead Liberals who have been asking him to think, but also some of the most distinguished lawyers on the Conservative Benches and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The Government have given her special responsibilities to look at DNA. There have been some serious concerns and I believe that there is a case for a pause for thought. But for the fluke of the outbreak of foot and mouth delaying an election, this Bill would not have seen the light of day anyway, so it cannot be a matter of great urgency. It should be possible to have a national debate and a proper programme of legislation. This evening we have not been convinced by the Attorney-General's eloquence or by his threats.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have said at least three or four times that I recognise perfectly well that other people may have a different view that is conscientiously held. I have made no threats of any sort and I did my best to answer all the points. Of course, there is no threat and people must come to their conscientious conclusion. Not all of the people behind me will do so, but I have said several times, not least in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I recognise that people have different views. This is not a party political matter, but time and time again the question of what Mr and Mrs Joe Public think has been raised. I am entitled to offer my view on what they think, even though I do not live in Hampstead.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Attorney-General has been fair, but there is a difference between what Joe Public, as he calls him, may think in answer to a question in the high street and what Joe Public may think on an issue after there has been a genuine thoughtful debate. Those are different issues. I have more faith in Joe Public than I have in some Members of the Committee.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 133:
After Clause 83, insert the following new clause—
"MAINTENANCE OF DNA DATABANK
(1) All DNA samples shall be kept on a databank with the identity of the persons from whom the samples were taken codified.
(2) The databank shall he maintained and supervised by an independent body whose authorisation shall be required before access to any such samples takes place.
(3) Any unauthorised use of DNA samples held on the databank constitutes a criminal offence, carrying a prison sentence of up to 5 years."
The noble Baroness said: I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for indicating that he will look closely at the idea of an independent body

973
holding the database. That will give great confidence to many people who have concerns. In those circumstances, I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Clause 84 [Provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to s. 83]:
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 9.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) Regulations 2001
8.20 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are important regulations for debate today. The regulations extend the requirements in Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 on those convicted of a specified range of sexual offences. Currently, they are required to register their name and address and any subsequent changes to either of those with the police. They must also notify the police if they spend 14 days or more at another address within the UK.
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 amended the Sex Offenders Act to provide for such offenders to be subject to additional requirements to give notices when they propose to leave and return to the UK. These regulations specify those additional requirements.
The fact that the Act does not require registered offenders to notify the police that they will be leaving the UK has limited the ability of the police to know their whereabouts and consequently their ability to monitor them. Some offenders, when found to have been missing from their registered address, have been able to claim that they were abroad at the time and thus were not in breach of the registration requirements of the Act. The second issue is that the police have not known that the offender, who might pose a risk overseas, has been intending to leave the UK. These regulations before the House will address both those issues.
Part I of the Sex Offenders Act is essentially about relevant offenders notifying the police of certain information. It was not intended and could not properly be used to prevent the offender from travelling. Should there be a justifiable need to do this, other measures are available such as conditions in licences to which offenders are subject if they are
974
sentenced to more than one year's imprisonment. In proposing these regulations, we have had to strike a balance between recognising their potential usefulness to the police for operational purposes and recognising that the Sex Offenders Act is an important measure for protecting the public, but it is not the only one. It is part of a set of measures which link together.
By way of finishing my introductory remarks, perhaps I may say that those offenders registered under the Sex Offenders Act have been convicted of a range of offences. They will include those convicted of the most serious sexual assaults against small children but also those who have committed offences of lesser gravity against adults. However, saying that in no way seeks to understate the distress caused to any victim. In some of these cases, the victims will have been strangers but in the majority they are likely to have been known to the offender. Not all those registered will pose a risk to individuals abroad. Where it is believed that they do, however, these regulations will provide the police with more information about their planned trip abroad.
I should like now to turn to the content of the regulations. There were 14,813 offenders registered in England and Wales on 1st March 2001. The regulations apply to every registered sex offender in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who intends to leave the UK for eight days or more. In order to maintain a common registration regime north and south of the Border, the Scottish Executive intend that parallel provisions will be introduced in Scotland.
The period of eight days has been chosen to reflect both the large numbers of registered offenders and thus the potentially high volume of notifications and to ensure that there is time for the police to take any necessary action resulting from the notification.
The regulations require that every offender intending to leave the UK for eight days or longer must give notice to the police at least 24 hours before he leaves the UK. The Act itself provides that the notice must disclose the date of departure from the UK, the country to which he will travel, or if there is more than one, the first country and the point of arrival in that country. The deadline for making the notification of 24 hours before departure has been specified to allow the police the opportunity to judge whether any further action is necessary, such as notifying the authorities overseas.
The regulations provide for the offender to be required to give additional information about his trip, if he has that at least 48 hours before he goes abroad. This further information comprises the intended point of arrival in each country to which he intends to travel; any carriers with which he intends to travel from one country to another; details of his accommodation arrangements for his first night outside the UK; the date of his intended return to the UK; and the intended point of arrival on return.
The regulations further require the offender to make a fresh notification if the information he has previously notified becomes inaccurate or incomplete at any point up to 48 hours prior to departure.
Many offenders are likely to return to the UK on the date and at the point of arrival previously notified. Where this is the case, they need do nothing further about advising the police of their return. If, however, an offender's return arrangements have changed from those previously notified, or if he did not have any fixed return plans at the time he left the country, he must notify the police of the date of his return and the point of entry within eight days of returning to this country.
The regulations specify that offenders must attend a police station to give the required notices. There are a number of reasons for this. First, offenders may not remember from one trip to the next precisely what information is required of them and the only way of ensuring that they provide what is required is by attendance in person. Secondly, it is important that the required information is conveyed within the timescales specified and requiring attendance in person is the best way of achieving this. A notification made by post may not arrive in time or there may be disputes about whether or not faxes have been sent.
We have also been conducting a wider review of the Sex Offenders Act in order to examine whether there are other aspects of it which could also be strengthened. We will be announcing the start of a period of public consultation on these proposals in due course.
These regulations cover a complex area in which there are no easy solutions. They do not stand alone but add a new element to an existing range of measures designed to tackle the dangers posed by sex offenders and I commend them to the House.
Moved. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, according to an undertaking given to your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, any Minister who is moving regulations which require the affirmative procedure undertakes to make a statement that those regulations comply with the obligations under the Human Rights Act. I have heard no such statement on this occasion.
These regulations are quite intrusive. They do not require simply a statement of the country which is to be visited and the point of arrival in that country, but also the identity of the carriers and, somewhat surprisingly, details of the accommodation that has been arranged for the person's first night abroad. As the Minister has made clear, one of the main purposes of the information is to enable it to be provided to the overseas authorities, in particular the immigration authorities and police.
I accept that the exchange of police intelligence is highly important for the prevention and detection of crime, but that exchange must be subject to limitations under the Human Rights Act; in particular, we must be satisfied that the privacy of a person on the register is invaded only so far as is necessary in a democratic society. In the United Kingdom one consequence of
976
that is that the register is not open to members of the public and the use that can be made of it is strictly limited, and very properly so.
The European Union Select Committee, of which I am a member, has made a close analysis of the various conventions between the members of the EU which regulate the powers of Europol. Those conventions prevent the exchange of information with countries outside the EU where that information may he used in breach of human rights. I ask the Minister how we are to be satisfied that this information is to be exchanged only in ways which recognise the human rights of people on the register. Those on the register have human rights along with those who are not on the register. There is no limitation expressed or, as far as I can see, implied within the terms of the regulations. Would we be prepared, for example, to exchange information with the immigration authorities or police in countries where that information is not kept as secure as it is in this country? Would we be prepared to supply information to a country where the police regularly used violence and torture against people suspected of paedophilia?
These are important questions which make it doubly important that the Minister should be able to state unequivocally that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act. I hope that, on the basis of legal advice that the department has obtained, the Minister is able to confirm that the regulations do comply with the Human Rights Act. If not, I believe that this is a very serious matter and that in certain respects the regulations may well be found to contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord who raises a fundamental point. If I was remiss in not indicating in my opening contribution the compliance of the regulations with the Human Rights Act, I apologise to the House. I take this opportunity to confirm that the regulations are compliant with that Act. I emphasise that the regulations are not about the exchange of information about the offender. The regulations are concerned with information that the offender is required to notify to the authorities; in other words, the regulations make no changes to existing police powers but merely require that the individual concerned indicates to the police—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the point is not that the regulations make changes to police powers but that they make changes to police information which can be passed on in a way which makes it possible for it to be used in breach of human rights.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand the important point that the noble Lord makes. Under the regulations the information required is about travel and not any other aspect of the individual concerned. That information will be conveyed to other authorities only when it is consistent with the requirement to ensure that any offender is not likely to put at risk an individual in another country. The circumstances

977
would be limited. I take on board entirely the point that the noble Lord makes. It would be quite wrong for information to be conveyed to regimes that might perpetrate unjustified actions against a United Kingdom citizen that would not be countenanced in this country; nor should we be compliant with such actions being taken elsewhere. In assuring the noble Lord once again that all aspects of the human rights legislation have been taken into account in the drafting of these measures, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001
8.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the troubles have left Northern Ireland a sad legacy of organised criminality. As the Prime Minister has said, everyone in Northern Ireland deserves to share in the benefits of peace. Organised crime is a threat to the fabric of society; it thrives on extortion, fear and violence. The draft legislation before us today is an important measure in the Government's strategy to meet the threat from organised and serious crime.
The police and other agencies involved in law enforcement have done a great deal to tackle organised crime during the past 12 months. There have been notable police successes against counterfeit goods and illegal drugs, as well as action against fuel and tobacco smuggling by Customs and Excise. In Northern Ireland the problem is exacerbated because of the links between organised crime and paramilitary groups. Just over half of organised criminal groups known to the police are either associated with, or controlled by, loyalist or republican paramilitaries.
Last September the Government established the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland. The task force recently published a threat assessment which makes it clear that fighting organised crime will be a long struggle and demand constant innovation and development by the law enforcement agencies and government. The task force recognises that organised crime is a multi-faceted problem which demands different answers from different agencies working closely together. Criminals look for new ways to prey on society, avoid detection and conceal their illegal gains.
The strategic priorities for the Organised Crime Task Force in this year include targeting money-laundering activities and seizing the proceeds of crime. The measure before us today is another element of the Government's strategy to pursue the proceeds of crime and is an example of our flexible response to an ever-changing criminal threat. By preventing criminals
978
profiting from crime and removing the profits of those who have committed crime in the past, not only do we create a powerful deterrent to criminality but we make it harder for organised criminals to commit further crime and sustain themselves through financing new initiatives. Equally, by recovering the proceeds of crime we provide reassurance to ordinary people who no longer see criminals flaunting their ill-gotten wealth. The money recovered can be used for the benefit of the whole community.
Noble Lords will be aware that currently public consultation is being conducted on the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill published in March. The draft Bill, which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, contains measures to improve the recovery of illegally obtained assets. The structures envisaged in the Bill take special account of the needs of Northern Ireland.
Another element in our strategy to pursue the proceeds of crime in Northern Ireland is the draft Financial Investigations (NI) Order that is now being considered. That amends the main legislation for tackling criminal finance in Northern Ireland—the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order of 1996. A key provision of the 1996 order was the introduction of powers for the appointment of a financial investigator to assist the police in carrying out investigations into the proceeds of crime. The very extensive powers of financial investigators are set out in Schedule 2 to that order. Among them is the power to issue a general bank circular for the purpose of identifying accounts held by named individuals.
The powers in the 1996 order are in addition to the normal powers of investigation available to the police. They are used only in selected cases, and only following a determination of a county court judge that the appointment of a financial investigator could substantially enhance the investigation.
Experience of operating the legislation has shown that it works well. Between August 1996 and December 2000, financial investigators were appointed in 28 cases. During that period, 23 general bank circulars were issued, resulting in the identification of over 1,200 previously unknown accounts in Northern Ireland connected with people under investigation.
However, experience has also shown that there are parts of the 1996 order that need to be adjusted and strengthened. The draft order before us contains a number of practical proposals for improvement which have resulted from discussions with and between law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland. There are five main provisions to the order. First, Article 3 enables Customs and Excise officers to apply for the appointment of a financial investigator to assist them with investigations into the proceeds of crime. That power is currently available only to the police. The article also permits court-authorised customs officers, like their police counterparts, to issue general circulars to financial institutions and solicitors.
Secondly, Article 4 provides financial investigators with the same powers of access to material under a production order as are currently available to the

979
police. It also provides that any application for disclosure of documents relevant to a response to a general solicitor's circular will be on notice to the relevant solicitor, thereby ensuring that any issues of legal privilege can be determined by the judiciary.
Thirdly, Article 5 effectively extends the range of financial institutions to which a general bank circular may be issued. At present, a general bank circular can require those institutions involved in "banking" in the narrow sense—that is, banks and building societies—to identify accounts held by a named person. However, we recognise that there is a trend in money laundering away from using banks and building societies towards greater use of securities, futures, options and insurance markets. Article 5 therefore provides that in future such circulars may be issued to institutions providing a much wider range of financial and insurance services—effectively services subject to the 1993 Money Laundering Regulations. These include investment firms, insurance companies and other institutions in the regulated financial sector.
Fourthly, Article 6 creates the power to issue a general solicitor circular. In future, investigators will be able to issue a circular to all or any firms of solicitors asking them to indicate whether they have acted for a named client in respect of certain matters, relating mostly to property and assets. That is an entirely new means of helping investigators in Northern Ireland to establish the beginnings of an audit trail in search of the proceeds of crime. But it reflects similar powers in other jurisdictions. Where a specified person is identified as a client, as well as providing the name and address, which is the limit of the current obligation imposed by the 1996 order, the solicitor will also be obliged to provide limited information about the client which is in his possession. That will essentially involve identifying the nature of the transaction; that is, whether the transaction involved land, a business and so on.
That power will be particularly helpful in tracing land transactions in the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Not only are there two systems for the registration of land in Northern Ireland, but the registration of title is not at present generally compulsory. Moreover, any records regarding ownership of land are kept by reference to the property rather than the owner.
Fifthly, Article 7 introduces an exception to the standard period within which a prosecution of a summary offence should be brought. At present it is six months after the offence was committed. The exception is in relation to summary proceedings for an offence of failing to provide information or of falsifying it. For such proceedings, the time limit for prosecutions will be three months from the date on which sufficient evidence to prosecute becomes available or 12 months from the commission of the offence, whichever is the later. That additional latitude may be needed in cases where a person has purported to comply with a requirement of a financial investigator but it is later discovered that the compliance was deliberately inadequate.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the consultations the Government have conducted on their proposal for the draft order. The proposal was laid before Parliament on the 21st November 2000. We invited the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider it. We took the opportunity to copy it for comment to organisations with an interest in the policy area. The Northern Ireland Grand Committee debated the proposal on 22nd March. A statement summarising the responses to the proposal, and a further statement of the change made as a result of these, has been laid before Parliament along with the draft order.
The proposal was received with broad approval. A majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly supported it. However, a number of concerns have been expressed. Questions have arisen about the civil liberties of people who might be affected by the new powers, whether innocently or otherwise. Others had concerns about the potential implications of the order for the confidentiality of the solicitor/client relationship and for legal professional privilege.
I confirm that, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the Government's view that the provisions included in the draft order are compatible with the convention rights. The Government acknowledge that the powers available to the authorities to pursue the proceeds of crime are already far-reaching. The draft order augments these powers. So we must take care to ensure that these new measures are necessary, but no more than necessary, to meet the challenge posed by serious criminals.
Although we recognise the importance of the principles of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal professional privilege, the rules on client confidentiality and privilege do not extend to protect items held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose. The duty of confidentiality is not absolute. Solicitors throughout the UK are already obliged to report suspicious transactions to the police or the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
In accordance with law, and as necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime, public authorities can make incursions into many of the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. The rights of individuals have to be balanced against the needs and the rights of society in general. That is why we made sure that appropriate safeguards were in place to protect individuals.
Perhaps I may give a number of examples: first, the powers will continue to apply only to investigations into the proceeds of serious crime; secondly, the police, and in future Customs and Excise, will have to be able to persuade a county court judge that the use of these special investigatory powers is justified in each case; and, thirdly, the information which may be sought under a general solicitor circular is limited only to what is necessary to establish an audit trail. If the investigator requires more detailed information he must apply to the court, which can determine any issues of legal professional privilege. The value of these safeguards should not be underestimated.
In addition, we will bring forward a revised code of practice under the order. In doing so, we shall consult fully with the Law Society, and indeed with all interested parties, to ensure that the revised code reflects their experience and expertise in the implementation of the new procedures that the draft order will require.
I believe that the draft order will provide the police and Customs in Northern Ireland with the new powers they need to make essential inroads into the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The draft order is a tough but measured response to a very real threat to our society. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
8.49 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the full and clear way in which he has presented the order to the House. He covered two key matters referred to by my honourable friend, John M Taylor, on 30th April 2001 in the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place. There my honourable friend referred to solicitor/client confidentiality, to which we clearly are a little sensitive. The noble and learned Lord has assured us that the Government have taken notice of that issue.
My honourable friend was also concerned about the legality of the proposed legislation in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the noble and learned Lord's words today I assume that the Government have had another look at the matter, taken fresh advice and confirmed that this is safe in the light of the human rights legislation.
The Law Society of Northern Ireland supports the order. As the noble and learned Lord said, the level of crime in Northern Ireland is serious and is getting worse. New actions and new ideas are needed. I sincerely hope that the order will move the position forward. I am sorry that we have to go on having special legislation of this kind for Northern Ireland. The Law Society of Northern Ireland hoped that this would soon become United Kingdom law as opposed to Northern Ireland law. We started the ball rolling in 1996 with our order. It has clearly been successful. I am delighted that the present Government are expanding it. I hope that the order before the House will be even more successful. We support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, one can hardly say that one welcomes the order as it is a rather sad comment on the state of affairs in Northern Ireland. However, one appreciates the need for it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I shall refer to Article 6. As many noble Lords will know, solicitor/client relationships in Northern Ireland can sometimes be problematic in a particular way that is not normally common in the rest of the United Kingdom. I therefore
982
particularly welcomed the noble and learned Lord's statement that there would be further consultations with the Law Society of Northern Ireland in establishing the code of practice. That is a delicate area which needs to be sensitively probed with those who are experienced in the ways of the law and in professional relationships. That apart, we accept the need for the order to pass.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting (Subtitling) Order 2001
8.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order revises the percentage set out in subsection (3)(a) of Section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, which the Secretary of State is empowered to amend, after consultation with the Independent Television Commission, under subsection (1)(a) of Section 21 of the Act.
The order increases the minimum percentage of programmes that must be accompanied by subtitling for the deaf on digital terrestrial television services from 50 per cent to 80 per cent. Broadcasters are required to achieve that target by the 10th anniversary of the date of commencement of the provision of each digital terrestrial programme service, the first of which started in November 1998.
The intention to increase the percentage was announced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 29th January this year. That was the result of a review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, sign language and audio description services on DTT. A report on the review was published on the same day and a copy has been placed in the House Libraries.
We know that digital technology has great potential for opening up new opportunities for each and every citizen and we aim to ensure that all groups can benefit from it. Access for all—able-bodied people and people with disabilities alike—is essential. People with disabilities will be able to gain substantially from the new and sophisticated services that digital technology can offer; services like home banking, home shopping and access to the Internet. Television services, including news, current affairs and entertainment programmes, are valued by people with disabilities, including those with sensory impairments. That is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport undertook the review I mentioned a moment ago.
It began with officials discussing the issues with consumer groups, major broadcasters and the ITC, to gauge initial reactions. A consultation paper followed in July, to which 36 responses were received and carefully considered. Having taken all those responses into account, Ministers concluded that the target for the provision of subtitling on DTT programmes, which will be of benefit to at least 8.7 million people in the UK who are deaf or hard of hearing, should be

983
raised from 50 per cent to at least 80 per cent. The order we are debating today, which was approved in the other place last Monday, will achieve just that.
As I mentioned earlier, the minimum target does not have to be achieved until a DTT service reaches its 10th anniversary. The first such service began on 1st November 1998 and, therefore, in view of the time that will elapse before even the longest established digital service will celebrate its 10th birthday, we believe that it is perfectly reasonable for the increased target of 80 per cent to apply to existing services in the same way as to services which have yet to emerge.
The ITC has the power to set interim targets. Those begin at at least 5 per cent for the first year and rise by 5 per cent each year to reach the existing 50 per cent target by year 10. All channels are meeting, and in some cases exceeding, these. The ITC will issue a revised code with new interim targets once this order has been made.
It has been noted, and questioned before, that the statutory targets for subtitling, signing and audio description do not include advertisements. As is the case with other programming requirements in broadcasting legislation, advertisements are specifically excluded from the definition of programmes in subsection (14) of Section 20 of the 1996 Act. That said, many advertisers already see the benefits of voluntarily providing the service. After all, it is in their interest to get their message across to a potential market of 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing people. Although the ITC does not monitor the level of subtitling in advertisements, it has advised the DCMS that about 50 to 60 per cent of advertisers currently subtitle advertisements voluntarily.
We are keen to achieve a level playing field across all delivery platforms. That is why we also intend to extend the statutory targets—for subtitling, signing and audio description—on DTT to digital cable and digital satellite services. Primary legislation is required and we hope to introduce a draft communications Bill, to include this provision, early in the next Parliament.
For some time now the Government have been encouraging, these broadcasters to increase the amount of subtitling they voluntarily provide on their digital services, and some of the more established channels are providing a good service. Indeed, several of them exceed the existing interim targets despite a low audience share. But we believe that minimum statutory requirements need to be imposed for progress to be made.
We want to ensure the maximum practicable amount of subtitling provision. Some groups think it should be 100 per cent. In introducing the debate on the draft order in the other place last week, Janet Anderson referred to a question asked in this House recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, along the lines of, "If the BBC says it can achieve 100 per cent, why can't the commercial channels?" The BBC has no statutory requirement to provide a subtitling service but, following the recommendation of the Davies review panel on the future funding of the BBC, the corporation accepted that on its new digital
984
services, it would aim to achieve 50 per cent of programmes being subtitled in the next five years and 100 per cent by 2009.
My answer to a similar question, put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, recently, was as follows:
"We need to strike the right balance between practicability and benefit. During the consultation exercise that preceded the Government's recent announcement of the review, concerns were expressed, including by the ITC, that 100 per cent subtitling on digital terrestrial television was not a feasible target…It would be extremely difficult and expensive to subtitle all live programmes, late-running programmes and late-delivered material, such as promotions between programmes. There is also a danger that the financial costs to the smaller channels might result in them leaving the DTT platform…The 80 per cent target is challenging but achievable and is in line with the analogue target for 2004"
We must always look to improved technology in signing to increase the figure. If that becomes possible in the future, we shall certainly look to do that.
In conclusion, in my view the draft order is compatible with the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
9 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome and support the order. It will also be very much welcomed by the 5 million deaf and hard of hearing people who regularly use subtitles and the t million who depend upon subtitles in their viewing of television. The potential number of users is even higher as there are, as has been said, about 8.7 million people in the UK who are deaf or hard of hearing. The target set in this order is not as high as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People had hoped, but I note that it warmly welcomes the order and recognises that this is a very important step forward. I thank the RNID for its helpful and pertinent briefing.
It is right as a matter of principle to ensure that as much broadcast material as possible is subtitled. After all, everyone loses out when hearing impaired people do not have the chance to participate fully in society. The media, particularly television, are largely responsible for forming the cultural reference points of society. The programmes that we watch on television and video are very much the topics of everyday conversation at home and at work. Subtitles and signing mean that hearing impaired people can keep in touch. Limited access can leave them culturally excluded and socially sidelined. It is important that we should be able to enjoy viewing television together as a group of family or friends, some of whom may have hearing impairment, and then be able to discuss the finer points of the programme afterwards.
We welcome the progress that the industry has made since the 1996 Act came into force and we agree that it is now time to go further. As the Minister pointed out, the 1996 Act provided for the extension that we are now considering and for consultation with the ITC. We all welcome the fact that various main terrestrial

985
channels have accepted the new 80 per cent target. Channel 3 is already exceeding the target and BBC 2 has made great efforts.
The Minister mentioned that the Government intend to include cable and satellite television under the future communications Bill. We agree that the time is right to do that. I understand that Sky has already enthusiastically endorsed the target and has made significant progress towards it. We look forward to taking matters further through primary legislation at the earliest opportunity.
The Minister said that 80 per cent, not 100 per cent, was set as the target because some digital terrestrial television programmes are difficult to subtitle: in particular, news programmes and live broadcasts present problems. Those who do the subtitling for such programmes are lucky if they get even a few minutes' advance notice of the script and have to work at breakneck speed. They do an excellent job. It is true that live subtitling is more complicated and expensive than pre-recorded programmes, but it is equally true that many live programmes have an immense significance. Indeed, this is precisely why they are broadcast on a live basis. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a high proportion of live events, such as the State Opening of Parliament and the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, should be accessible to the whole nation.
We should strike a balance between practicability and benefit, but it is right that we should exceed 80 per cent as soon as that is appropriate. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People is right to campaign hard on this matter. We need to press the matter further. At the same time, it is important to take into account the circumstances in which the industry has to operate.
I note that the RNID briefing makes reference to the low level of subtitling of advertising on television, a point mentioned by the Minister. At present, there are no statutory requirements for advertisements to be subtitled on digital terrestrial television. The ITC has estimated that about 50 per cent to 60 per cent of advertisers currently subtitle voluntarily. It seems surprising that advertisers are prepared the ignore the potential market of up to 8.7 million who have some level of hearing loss. I hope that they wake up to this mistake very soon.
We welcome and support the order. It is an important step forward, although we will want to make further progress in due course.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when one is campaigning and in the process of putting pressure on the Government to make improvements, and the Government bring forward an improvement from 50 per cent to 80 per cent, it would be churlish to do anything other than welcome it. However, there is always the caveat that one wishes for something better. The problem in this respect is that the major player in public service broadcasting has said that it can take
986
subtitling to 100 per cent. That is something which hovers over this issue, and will do so for the foreseeable future.
Most of the arguments on this subject have already been rehearsed. We are not so much having a debate today as an ongoing dialogue. Basically we want to see the figure increased because at present a large percentage of the population find themselves excluded from something which is supposed to be for the mass of the population. It is that simple. I hope the Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that television companies exceed the 80 per cent figure.
I agree with virtually every word that has been said. However, it has been pointed out to me by the RNID briefing—I do not pretend that I would have spotted this myself—that if 80 per cent of programmes are to be subtitled, how will we choose the 20 per cent of programmes that are not to be subtitled? We could exclude all music programmes, for instance, but do the Government accept that there are different kinds of deafness and different kinds of hearing problem, and that the cultural contents of programmes are different—for instance, youth programmes have a different musical background from other music programmes? If we use that kind of criterion to choose the 20 per cent, we may well exclude some people from a major part of the social interaction which public service broadcasting is supposed to encourage.
The RNID suggests that the exclusion of programmes should be carried out simply on the basis of those with the lowest viewing figures. That would be a case of making a bad law. I have probably got that wrong, but never mind. If we get to that situation, we must know why a programme is being excluded. If we can achieve that, we shall be on a good path. I shall continue to apply whatever pressure and nudges I can to the Government to try to reach the figure of 100 per cent—or at least as near as damn it—but basically it would be churlish to say anything other than, "Well done, but we hope that you do better soon".
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords and with the RNID in warmly welcoming the draft order, which increases the requirement for subtitling for the digital terrestrial television service from 50 per cent to 80 per cent within 10 years. It is a victory for common sense. Unless we take steps to ensure that the needs of sensorily impaired people are accommodated in the digital age, as the Government have done in the draft order, we shall find that new technology serves only to increase the sense of exclusion felt by deaf and blind people rather than to diminish it.
I listened carefully to the Minister's arguments, but it is disappointing that the Government are reluctant to ensure that DTT channels match the BBC's voluntary target of a 100 per cent subtitling provision. The arguments advanced by the ITC, based on financial cost and feasibility, appear weak. Subtitling is now cheap to provide at only £400 per hour of programming. The cost will be further reduced over the next few years, and there is the increasing number of repeat programmes. Moreover, the rapid

987
development in voice recognition technology should make it possible to cope with the problems of late-delivery programmes raised by the Minister.
I understand that the ITC plans to review whether Channel 3 and Channel 4 could exceed the 80 per cent target. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify when, this year, the ITC will start and complete the review. An increase to a target of 100 per cent would be extremely welcome.
Will the Minister clarify the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; namely, what guidance is given to the ITC in deciding which programmes can be excluded from subtitling? At present, decisions appear to be based solely on assumptions as to the subjects that interest deaf and hard-of-hearing people. That can lead to all the dangers of patronising decision-making. I join with the RNID in asking the Minister to make sure that clear guidance is given, so that the process for making exclusions is transparent and is based on objective criteria.
Finally, I join with other noble Lords in giving the draft order the warmest welcome and support. I thank the Government for introducing it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have responded to the order in such a positive way. I am grateful in particular to those who have highlighted the support for the order that has come from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. I did not quote from the letter, of which I, too, have received a copy, but I do not need to since its 'views have been made clear.
Let me make clear, because this is the main thrust of the contributions that have been made, my strong belief that, as technology advances, it ought to be possible to increase the target from 80 per cent—perhaps not to 100 per cent but certainly to a higher figure than the one that is presently proposed. Eighty per cent is the figure that the ITC has arrived at as being realistic under the existing circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, points out, improvements, in particular in voice recognition technology, will not only make it possible for late-delivered programmes to be subtitled where it is not physically possible for that to happen at present, but will continue to reduce the cost of subtitling.
Under those circumstances, in a relatively short period—certainly within the next 10 years—the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, of the choice of the 20 per cent of programmes that are not subtitled will no longer be relevant. We are working towards a situation in which, wherever it is physically possible to provide subtitling, we shall seek to require that there should be subtitling. Therefore, there will not be criteria such as the lowest viewing figures or whether a programme is thought by some outside body to be the kind of thing that people with hearing difficulties will or will not be interested in.
I was asked specifically about the ITC review on analogue. A seminar will be held on 14th May for broadcasters and hard-of-hearing groups and I hope
988
that progress will be made at that stage. As to the specific issue of exclusions in the interim period, in the drafting of the communications Bill we are looking to providing guidance on that issue on the face of the Bill. In the light of the general welcome for the order, I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act and Meaning of Collective Investment Scheme) Order 2001
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 10th April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this modest but worthwhile order extends a degree of consumer protection to investors in limited liability partnerships (LLPs) by amending the Financial Services Act 1986. It applies only to that Act for the moment We shall, of course, take steps to ensure equivalent protection before the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 comes into force at the date described as "N2", which we have undertaken will be before the end of November this year.
Limited liability partnerships were created under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. They are corporate bodies without a share capital. The Act came into force on 6th April. The important point for the purpose of this order is that it will be possible to structure LLPs in a way that management is separated from ownership. This means that membership of an LLP can be bought and sold separately from the underlying business and its assets. These membership interests could be traded in the way that shares of a typical company are traded. We have acted to deal with trading in pooled investment interests.
The emergence of a new investment market is a possibility and not a certainty. But there is some interest in this possible development. Without this measure any such investment market would be unregulated, given that LLPs do not fall within any of the definitions of "investments" or "investment business" in Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act. We wish to provide a degree of consumer protection to ensure that dealing in membership of an LLP is a regulated activity under the 1986 Act.
The effect of the order is that the definition of a "collective investment scheme" in the 1986 Act will he extended to include LLPs. Therefore, to the extent that they function as collective investment schemes, LLI's will become subject to the same requirements of the regulatory regime as are applicable to other existing collective investment scheme structures. In practice, this means that anyone who sets up or winds up a pooled investment LLP will generally need to be authorised under the Financial Services Act. If an LLP is a collective investment scheme, it will need to be authorised itself. As the operator of the scheme, its

989
assets will be controlled and traded by it on behalf of the underlying investors, as is the current position with an OEIC (an open-ended investment company).
An advertisement for the issue or sale of an LLP interest, which will be an investment advertisement, must be issued by or approved by an authorised person. However, the issue of an advertisement for new "partners" in a purely commercial or professional firm organised by an LLP should not be an investment advertisement.
There are restrictions on the promotion of unregulated collective investment schemes—these largely prohibit promotion to unsophisticated investors. Those prohibitions will apply to pooled investment LLPs. Firms currently engaged in setting up or operating collective investment schemes will be familiar with those requirements. Advisers will be familiar with the boundary questions that will arise in determining whether or not a firm is a collective investment scheme, as the same tests will be applied.
No additional regulatory costs are imposed on firms using the LLP structure, as opposed to other existing collective investment scheme structures used to undertake investment business. I want to emphasise that not every participation in an LLP is brought within the scope of financial services regulation by this change. That is not our intention, and it is not what the order does. The order merely provides that,
"limited liability partnerships are capable of being collective investment schemes".
The order addresses the situation where the right to take part in an LLP is packaged and held out as an investment. The process of a partner joining or leaving a working partnership, that has chosen to take advantage of the LLP Act and is structured as an LLP, will be unaffected by this order. This is because the order only does what it says: it allows LLPs to be collective investment schemes. It does nothing more. That is why I described it as being "modest". In particular, it says nothing about the process whereby members join or leave a business. The Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 governs these matters.
Some people may ask whether LLPs might be able to structure themselves so that, at one at the same time, they are able, first, to trade in their membership interests; and, secondly, they do not fall within the core definition of "collective investment scheme" in Section 75 of the Financial Services Act. If they are able to do this, it is asked: are they not unregulated? Similarly, is the order before the House of no assistance? The answer to that conundrum is as follows. Any LLP that is structured in such a way that non-working partners are able to trade in their membership interests will fall within the core definition of "collective investment scheme" under Section 75 of the Financial Services Act.
Where an LLP wants to obtain investment capital, it has a number of choices, which the order does not limit. In some professions the rules of the relevant professional body may limit those choices and might preclude the creation of what I could call "investment participations"; that is, for example, the case for
990
solicitors. They can, of course, raise investment capital through the issue of debentures. But, if that is allowed, an LLP that seeks to create and market investment opportunities—that is, turning itself into an investment business—will be subject to investment regulation.
It is certainly not our intention to restrict the development of LLP businesses. We do not believe that this order will do so. However, we shall be able to keep this under review. We have a further opportunity to look at this when we legislate to bring in these protections under the Financial Services and Markets Act later this year.
It has been suggested—it was suggested in another place—that regulation akin to that of shares would be simpler. We considered that option. But in both economic and management terms LLPs are much closer to partnerships than companies with share capital, and the tax and regulatory framework generally looks to the respective partnership rules. This approach has the advantages of practicality and simplicity and of being built on an existing, widely understood regime.
The approach in the wider LLP legislation is to tax them in the same way as partnerships, and (at least in the default provisions in the LLP regulations) to set up a membership agreement which looks more like a partnership deed than articles of association of a company.
Adjusting the definition of "share"—which was what was suggested—would have the effect that every business organised as an LLP would be subject to some regulation (investment advertisements, prospectuses, advice and so on), whether or not the LLP was for investment purposes. This is the position with companies but not the position for partnerships (general and limited). This strikes us as over-regulation, given the expectations that the LLP structure is most likely to appeal to businesses currently structured as partnerships.
While it might have been possible to produce a way out of these difficulties that would have further complicated the issue. We considered the other alternatives of leaving them outside the regulatory structure altogether and creating a wholly new type of investment within the scope of the Financial Services Act (with the same result on advertising as adjusting the definition of share). I hope that I have made clear why those options were not pursued.
The benefits of the order are essentially precautionary. Without this measure there would be risks of investor difficulty or losses, but these are risks we think it is right not to expect investors to run as the sums involved could be substantial.
Of course we attach real importance to protecting investor confidence in the wider financial system (which any widespread problems undermine) and this change will contribute to that. In my view this order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10th April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]. (Lord McIntosh of Haringey).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advisory Centre on WTO Law (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvalerose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement establishing the Advisory Centre on WTO Law which was signed by the Secretary of State for International Development and presented to Parliament in May 2000 (Command Paper 4721).
The Advisory Centre on WTO Law will be located in Geneva and will be independent of the WTO. It will provide free or low cost support to WTO developing countries pursuing cases through the dispute settlement mechanism. The centre will assist developing countries to make use of the dispute settlement procedures, an area where developing countries are at a particular disadvantage compared to larger trading nations. The centre will also offer seminars on WTO jurisprudence, general legal advice on WTO law and an internship programme for officials.
The agreement establishing the centre includes provisions (Article 10.1) requiring members to give the centre legal capacity, in particular the capacity to contract, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property and to institute legal proceedings. The draft order will enable the UK to give effect to these provisions once the agreement has been ratified and enters into force. The draft order will confer only legal capacity on the centre and will not result in any privileges and immunities in the United Kingdom for the centre or its staff. Similar legal personality has been granted to other international organisations in the past. for example, the International Jute Organisation based in Dhaka, the International Natural Rubber Organisation in Kuala Lumpur and the International Copper Study Group in Lisbon.
The final deadline for entry into force is 30th September .2002, but the centre's members have informally agreed that this should be brought forward to the earliest practicable date so that the centre will be able to offer its much-needed services as soon as possible. Entry into force requires only 20 signatories to deposit their legal instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, a threshold which is likely to be passed before the end of this month in fact. Where United Kingdom ratification is critical is in meeting the second criterion for entry into force: the receipt of 12 million dollars to fund the centre's operation (6 million dollars of multi-year contributions from developed country members of the centre to cover start-up and running costs during the first five years and 6 million dollars for its long-term endowment fund). Once the UK instrument of ratification has been lodged with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is acting as depository for the agreement, DfID will be in a position to release the first tranche of its £1.2 million multi-year contribution which will meet this second threshold.
992
I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this modest, non-controversial order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear way she presented the order to the House. We welcome in principle establishing the advisory centre on World Trade Organisation law. We are also pleased to have the opportunity today to follow up the short but detailed debate that was held in another place on the order. It is important that we have had time to scrutinise the draft order as that is the proper job of your Lordships' House.
This order is timely, with the heated debate on globalisation and with so many unruly demonstrations around the world. The "Immunities and Privileges" title of this statutory instrument is provocative in itself—enough to make any rebel demonstrator over-excited. It is all that they would abhor even without, as mentioned in another place, the frivolous suggestion of parking ticket fines for diplomats.
We do not intend to oppose the order. However, I should like to pose a few questions, some of which were left unanswered in the other place. We agree with what was said in the speech of the Director-General of the WTO in January of this year—that the one major priority is to bring the developing and the least developed countries more fully into the WTO. This is a step along the way. For the agreement to enter into force, two conditions have to be met: the deposit of the legal instrument of ratification/acceptance by at least 20 signatories; and the presence of 12 million dollars of financial contributions reflected in these deposits, consisting of 6 million dollars for the endowment fund and 6 million dollars of multi-year contributions by developed country signatories. Thirty days thereafter the agreement enters into force.
Indeed, as of 21st March 2001, the preparatory committee agreed on the nominations for the management board of the centre, going so far as to invite the management board to start recruiting the executive director in consultation with the signatories while they await the deposit of the few remaining instruments of ratification, one of which is that of the United Kingdom. The agreed objective is to appoint the selected candidate for the post of executive director in the joint meeting of the constituent General Assembly and the management board so that the director could start up the office immediately afterwards.
Financing of the centre raises some interesting questions. Can the Minister help us by telling the House why the United States and EC countries such as France did not pay anything? Is any pressure being put on those countries to contribute? The European Community has been a member in its own right since 1st January 1995. What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to Brussels concerning that lack of commitment?

993
It has not been made clear whether we have paid 1.25 million dollars, whether that is part of the endowment fund to be paid in instalments over five years or whether it is part of the required deposit that accompanies the ratification process. Are we putting the money in now, or by 30th September 2002, or when we deposit our instrument of ratification? I presume that we shall pay immediately. If not, we shall be out of sync with the other countries, which pay from 30 days after the 20th country has ratified. At present, it appears that we shall not be in the first 20. All that I seek is clarification on the timetable for the UK's contribution to the centre.
Annex 1 to Command Paper 4721 says that we intend to make a contribution of 1.25 million dollars to the annual budget during the first five years. It shows that we are not contributors to the endowment fund. Eight members of the WTO have each contributed 1 million dollars to the fund. During the debate in another place, the Minister said that the Government hope to do the same. That would make our contribution a considerable 2.25 million dollars.
In due course, the General Assembly will be requested to approve, as part of the financial regulations, the opening of a technical expertise trust fund which will be available to developing countries and economies in transition and to members for the part financing of technical expertise for the preparation of an underlying technical dossier. The trust fund is to be funded by donor governments and inter-governmental organisations only. Will that contribution be over and above the endowment fund contribution, or is it included in the payment? Are we being asked to approve an open-ended spending commitment or are there limits to our contributions? I raise the issue only because I notice that the centre is to be self-financing in the sixth year of its existence. To finance its regular activities after the first five years, the centre will draw on revenue generated by its endowment fund and user fees charged for the legal services in dispute settlement proceedings. The centre will be able, under strict conditions, to attract voluntary contributions from governmental and non-governmental donors for specific purposes that are not related to actual dispute settlement cases, such as training and internship programmes. Those voluntary contributions sound like open-ended spending commitments.
The immunities and privileges naturally do not concern parking fines, as the organisation will be based in Geneva, although there are meters there, too. What are the immunities and privileges? On whom are they being bestowed? Why does this institution have to be based in Geneva, where building costs and salaries are very high? With all the modern technology, why is a site in a developing country not being considered?
That leads on to an important question that Mrs Cheryl Gillan asked in the other place. We have recently passed legislation that highlights the exclusive poverty focus of the payments made from DfID. We are not sure that the 1.25 million dollars to be paid over the next five years meets the criteria laid out in that
994
legislation. Will the Minister reassure the House that there are no tensions between the legislation and the payment, which appears to be for lawyers' accommodation and fees? The aims and objectives set out in the legislation are correct, but they have tied the Secretary of State's hands. Will the Minister reassure the House that the organisation is included in the legislation and that there is no lacuna into which the payment and that activity of the department fall? The payment is for lawyers and administrators and does not fulfil the poverty focus. No such assurance was forthcoming from the Minister of State, John Battle. I reiterate: will the Minister reassure the House that there are no tensions between the legislation and the payment?
We support this initiative. As I said earlier, we do not stand in its way. However, if the Minister is able to respond, we should like these few important points to be answered.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall be brief. The order and the setting up of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law seem to us to be an admirable way in which to provide practical help to the developing world. Speaking for myself, I can see no reason whatever why the centre should not be in Geneva, which is, after all, where a great deal of expertise is concentrated in fields of this type.
I have only one query and it is an entirely frivolous one. Why does paragraph 2 of the order, which seems to be simply a statement of existing fact, appear in that part of the order rather than as a recital to it?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have responded to my introduction to the order. I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not manage to cover them all, especially given the lateness of the hour. However, I shall certainly write to her if I leave any unanswered.
She started by commenting on what the director-general said about the centre. It is welcomed very widely. At the signing ceremony, the former director-general of the WTO, Renato Ruggiero, also stated that the centre was one of the best and most constructive proposals in international economic relations that he had seen in a long time. I believe that we can all go along with that.
The noble Baroness asked about the position of the United States. She also mentioned France, which has not contributed money. As I said, all states appear to support the initiative. However, at present and for their own reasons, the US and France have opted not to become members of the centre. The US traditionally prefers to focus on trade development initiatives through bilateral means. However, it is possible that a number of countries that have not been at the forefront of the initiative will show more direct support nearer to the trade ministerial meeting at Doha which is to take place later this year.

995
The noble Baroness asked some detailed questions about the payment made by the United Kingdom and about what would happen to that money. I have a large amount of detail on that matter. First, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that we did not contribute to the endowment fund. The agreement recognises a need for both endowment funds to reinvest for the long-term sustainability of the centre and for multiyear contributions, which can be budgeted towards medium-term running costs.
The UK funds have been welcomed as multi-year contributions because the endowment facility is already fully subscribed and donations have exceeded the minimum requirement. Multi-year contributions are crucial to the centre. The predictability of funds for the first five years will help the centre to use its budget effectively and efficiently. Multi-year contributions also represent an effective use of UK development budget resources because funds are not released in advance of need.
I turn to the questions of when instalments are due, how they will be paid and to whom. Once the agreement comes into force, which will be 30 days after all the instruments have been deposited, the UK will be invoiced for its contribution and our money will be paid to the ACWL itself—that is, the advisory centre—which is independent of the WTO. The fund will be managed by the executive director of the ACWL. The details of instalment amounts will be an internal matter for DfID. There are likely to be five instalments of £250,000, which will be transferred annually.
I hope that that has answered the main thrust of the noble Baroness's questions. I agree with the point made about Geneva by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We both say, "Why not?". I also point out that Geneva is an excellent location for such a centre for advisory international legal expertise. It was therefore a natural choice and I am not aware that grave disagreements were expressed by any interested parties.
I do not believe that I have covered all of the points that were raised by the noble Baroness, but I shall write to her, send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and for good measure put a copy in the Library.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
9.41 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 85 to 88 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Functions of the Authority]:
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 133 B:
Page 79, line 11, at end insert—
"() to determine the curriculum for police training:"
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I state at the outset that I shall not move the other amendments that are grouped with Amendment No. 133B.
I begin by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of our police, particularly against the background of evermore difficult and complicated—some would say politically correct—circumstances. I also freely acknowledge that other noble Lords, including, most notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, are much better qualified than I am to address these matters.
I turn to the amendment, the purpose of which is straightforward. It would give to the central police training and development authority the function of determining the core curriculum for police training. In the unlikely but conceivably desirable event that politicians were obliged to submit to some sort of formal training, they would, I suspect, be somewhat aggrieved to have their core curriculum set by, for example, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I do not anticipate that the Minister will accept the amendment—that is not surprising in the circumstances—but I would be reassured if he could confirm for the record that it is categorically the Government's intention to receive appropriate and adequate consultation with all interested parties, such as the Police Federation and ACPO, on the substance of the core curriculum.
The Minister will be aware that I have several concerns about ICT training for the police but I do not intend to weary the Committee on that matter—it would inappropriate to do so at this time. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No.:133B relates to the Government's intention to introduce a core curriculum for police training. Its purpose wall be to establish national standards with a view to improving operational effectiveness.
I can reassure the noble Earl that the content of any curriculum will be developed in consultation with the main stakeholders within the police service and the Secretary of State. There has already been extensive consultation on these matters. I can report to the Committee that this provision met with universal agreement. We are happy with the results of that consultation and are delighted that it has worked as well as it has. We shall continue to consult both on the core curriculum and qualifications. I am happy to confirm also that stakeholders will include those organisations which represent the police service at all levels.
Our simple argument is that Amendment No. 133B is unnecessary. We are already consulting and shall continue to consult. We seek to establish a broad consensus on the content of the core curriculum but there will be a power to prescribe as set out in the legislation. That power will ultimately rest with the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Northesk: I am extremely grateful for the confirmation and reassurances the noble Lord has given to the Committee. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Regulations for police forces]:
[Amendments Nos. 133C to 133E not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 103 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Transitional arrangements relating to Authority's establishment etc.]:
[Amendment No. 133F not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Vice-chairmen]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 133G:
Page 86, line 1, leave out "one or more" and insert "not more than two"
The noble Lord said: We have now moved on to the next part of the Bill which deals with police authorities. Clause 105 deals with vice-chairmen.
We are not against the background and the principles of what is being suggested in this clause, but it provides that there can be an infinite number of vice-chairmen. It seemed to us that an infinite number was rather a lot so Amendment No. 133G suggests "not more than two" and Amendment No. 133H, more controversially, suggests that there should be only one. The other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I remind Members of the Committee that I chair the North Yorkshire Police Authority and am a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities.
Clause 105 gives official recognition to the role of vice-chairmen and I want to explain my concerns in relation to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Police authorities are small bodies. Most have only 17 members. Six authorities have 19 members and the new Metropolitan Police Authority has 23 members. However, given the size of most police authorities and the areas they cover, each and every member undertakes a considerable workload. That workload is constantly expanding as we try to achieve best value; to respond to new duties under the human rights and race relations legislation; and as we seek continuously to improve the local policing services and make them more responsive.
As chairman of a police authority, I can testify to the enormous demands and obligations that that position involves. I simply could not cope without the help and support that I receive from the vice-chairman of my authority. I fully understand why two vice-chairmen are needed to carry out the business in authorities with much bigger populations. The amendments tabled by
998
the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would prevent that, as they state that police authorities can have only one vice-chairman, except for the Metropolitan Police Authority. If the MPA can be free to decide for itself the number of vice-chairmen it needs to operate effectively, I wonder why Parliament seeks to impose restrictions on the other 42 authorities.
The authorities themselves are best placed to decide how to go about their business, so I oppose the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I do not want one problem to be resolved by creating another. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her determined work. As the chair of a police authority she carries out a tremendous job. I know from having long conversations with her that, from her perspective, it is essential to share some of that burden with a vice-chair. While her police authority may not need two, she may occasionally benefit from having a second vice-chair.
We have provided for that in the legislation for the Metropolitan Police Authority and, like the noble Baroness, I completely concur with the argument that in certain police authorities—for example, those that may be geographically large or those that are large in terms of their population base and where there is much activity for the authority to undertake, partly under delegated powers to their chair or vice-chair—it is valuable to provide the facility of having not just one vice-chair, but two.
I also agree with the line of argument that says that the decision as to whether to have one or more vice-chairs of an authority is probably best left to the police authority itself. For those reasons we oppose the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, suggested that because the authority is small, it should have more vice-chairmen. That appears to be an odd argument. The Minister referred to the "vice-chair". Fortunately the Bill does not, otherwise there would be quite a number of amendments. I appreciate that that may come from the background of the Minister, but I am glad that, presumably, the Home Secretary has nevertheless insisted that the Bill should refer to "vice-chairmen", which seems to me to be the more appropriate term.
The effect of Amendment No. 133G is that any police authority may appoint not more than two vice-chairmen. It is true that Amendment No. 133H, which is an alternative, suggests "a vice-chairman", but we were flexible to that extent. In the circumstances, I shall be flexible to the extent that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133H to 133K not moved.]
Clause 105 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 134:
After Clause 105. insert the following new clause—
"POLITICAL BALANCE ON POLICE AUTHORITIES
(1)In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Act (balance of parties on council to be reflected in appointments to police authority), for the words from "the members for" onwards there shall be substituted "in the case of the members for whose appointment it is responsible, the proportion who are members of any given party—

(a) where it is a council that is responsible for their appointment, is the same as the proportion of the members of the council who are members of that party; and

b) where it is a joint committee that is so responsible, is the same as the proportion of the members of the relevant councils taken as a whole who are members of that party."

(2) In paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 2A to that Act (which makes corresponding provision for the Metropolitan Police Authority), for the words from "the members for" onwards there shall be substituted "in the case of the members of the Authority who are members of the London Assembly appointed under this paragraph, the proportion who are members of any given party is the same as the proportion of the members of the London Assembly who are members of that party"."
The noble Lord said: This amendment clarifies the process of appointing councillor members of police authorities. Councils or joint committees are required under the Police Act 1996 to reflect as far as possible the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among members of the council or councils. The amendment will require them to take into account the overall composition of the council or councils taken as a whole, including councillors who are not members of political parties. They will be required to appoint councillors to the police authority in proportion to the composition of the council or councils as a whole.
As such, it corrects an anomaly left by the Humberside judgment. A number of Members of the Committee made firm protestations on the point at an earlier stage of the Bill. I reflected carefully on those comments and, while it does not benefit in any way, shape or form my own political party in local government, nor for that matter the political parties of other Members of the Committee, it seems to me to be right that we try to reflect more accurately the balance of political forces in the various local councils which comprise part of the membership of police authorities. I hope that the amendment will be welcomed. I am sure it will be. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is sometimes thought that those who support political parties are motivated solely by electoral considerations and calculations of party advantage. Therefore, it is proper to record the fact that I support the amendment. Indeed, I am sure it will receive support from Members on all sides of the Committee. That consists solely of the representatives of the political parties currently engaged at this point in a crucial general election, the outcome of which is extremely uncertain. The Cross-Benchers, who might
1000
be thought roughly to be the equivalent of the independent members of county councils, benefit from the passage of the amendment, which I support.
Lord Renton: I confess to the Committee that I have had a great deal of experience of this matter. I suppose it began back in 1934 when as a member of the Bar I prosecuted in a criminal case in Kent on behalf of the Kent police. In later years, I undertook judicial work in Kent, Essex and London and finally as Recorder of Rochester and then of Guildford. Later as a Queen's Counsel, I prosecuted in a number of murder cases. I have always admired the political independence of police authorities. They never seemed to be motivated by party advantage or considerations.
Although I was a supporter of the Government who passed the provisions in the 1996 Act, which the amendment will amend, I have grave doubts. Therefore, I say, "All right, let us accept the amendment because it merely continues an idea that was introduced in the 1996 Act, but if it is found to be unenforceable, let none of us worry".
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I, too, am delighted that the Government have listened and finally brought forward the amendment. I thank them most warmly The recent High Court judgment would have prevented any independent councillor from serving on a police authority. Clearly, that would have been wrong. It would have meant that the views of those local electors who voted for independent councillors could not be represented on police authorities.
This is a small but critically important amendment. It will return us to the status quo which prevailed before the recent court ruling, which we all call the Humberside ruling. It has been urged on the Government not only by the Association of Police Authorities but also by the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association and others. I, too, commend it to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 108 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 111 [Funding by NCIS Service Authority]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 93, line 14, at end insert—
"(1A) Before making a determination under section 17, the Secretary of State shall have consulted—

(a) those who he considers represent the interests of police authorities in England. Wales and Northern Ireland:

(b) those who he considers represent the interests of officers of police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland;

1001

(c) any other persons whom the Secretary of State may determine,

on—

(i) the considerations which he is minded to take into account in making the determination;

(ii) the objectives which he has determined for NCIS; and

(iii) other such matters as he may determine in order to inform the consultation process, including his assessment of the relative balance of funding, objectives and priorities which he is minded to determine for police authorities in England and Wales."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 135 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 to 138. The provisions of the Bill radically alter the governance and funding of the two national police squads. When the squads were set up as recently as 1997, the clear aim was that they should be fully integrated within the tripartite structure which shares responsibility for policing between local and national interests. Two important steps are to be taken which increase central government control over the squads and considerably loosen the ties of local accountability: the reduction in the number of police authority representatives on the service authorities which oversee the squads and the move to fund the squads by direct government grant rather than, as at present, through local levies on police authorities.
I am sure that all members of the Committee recognise the important contribution that both squads make in fighting serious and organised crime at national and international level, but they also have a crucial role to play at local and regional levels in supporting and assisting local police forces. The levy system of funding had its difficulties but it at least provided an opportunity for debate about the balance of investment in local and national policing. However, if we move to direct central funding, decisions about the squads' priorities and funding levels should not be taken in isolation but in the context of the wider policing picture.
The other part of my amendment deals with consultation. I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply to my letter of concern about this matter. The Government have offered to consult on a voluntary basis but still do not wish to make this a statutory obligation. Discussions about how a non-statutory consultation process may work have so far not persuaded me that this is a sufficient safeguard. Statutory consultation will encourage greater transparency of government decisions about the funding of national and local police efforts, help government to strike the right balance in reaching those decisions and recognise that local police authorities and forces are key stakeholders in that debate and decision-making process. I believe that these amendments are important. They put scrutiny back into a vital policing service, and I urge the Minister to rethink his position. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister was kind enough to send me a copy of the letter which he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I was reassured by that letter.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Changes contained in the Bill to improve the funding of NCS and NCIS are vital. NCS and NCIS are right at the forefront of the fight against crime. They must be supported by an efficient and effective funding system if they are to drive forward the fight against high-tech crime, drug-trafficking, paedophilia and other forms of serious and organised crime. NCS and NCIS are major players internationally as well as at national level, and the need for international co-operation to combat crime continues to increase in importance.
We must move away from the parochial funding system that currently serves to divert attention away from the two services' operational and strategic priorities. The two directors-general of NCIS and NCS and the chairman of the service authorities support the need for improvement to the funding mechanisms to maximise the two services' operational effectiveness. We believe that the current funding system, which involves giving money to police authorities and then taking part of it away to fund both services through the levy, has proved to be divisive. A direct funding method will better enable NCIS and NCS to focus on working strategically with their partners to tackle serious and organised crime.
We do not believe that statutory consultation is necessary under the new arrangements. However, as has been confirmed, discussions are under way with the Home Office officials, NCIS, NCS and the stakeholders. The discussions include APA and ACPO. The aim is to maintain links between the two services and their partners by ensuring a robust non-statutory consultation, perhaps with greater flexibility. Nevertheless, the important elements of accountability are there and in place. I am happy to make that a matter of public record. As the noble Baroness said, we have had an exchange of correspondence. I had hoped that that would provide the necessary reassurance to all sides of the discussion.
I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. We believe that we have put robust measures in place. They certainly have satisfied the services. It is important that we now move to a voluntary and flexible form of consultation that will be of continued importance as, over the next few years, these important central services continue to develop their expertise.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I omitted to mention Amendment No. 138A, which is grouped with the amendment. I apologise to Members of the Committee for that omission. I ask why in future are the Scottish authorities not to be consulted about the appointment of the Director-General of the NCIS?
Scottish, English or even Welsh people present may think it inappropriate that someone called Johnny Cope should be standing up for Scotsmen. I should say that General Sir John Cope was the only chap that

1003
Bonnie Prince Charlie beat at the battle of Prestonpans. The Scots later wrote a rude song about it which I shall not quote to Members of the Committee. So far as I know the general was no relation of mine, but the name has stuck because of the song.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot match that anecdote. The Government believe that there is no need for Scottish Ministers to be consulted twice during the appointment process for the director-general of NCIS. The process of appointing the director-general provides that the Secretary of State decides whether to approve the list of eligible candidates prepared by a panel of members for the NCIS service authority.
The intention is that the panel will interview the candidates and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. He is obliged to have regard to the recommendations and also to consult the Scottish Ministers before making the appointment. That ensures that the views of Scottish Ministers are taken into account before the appointment is made. The intention is that the Secretary of State will consult Scottish Ministers regarding the list of eligible candidates as well as concerning any recommendations made by the service authority.
I can tell Members of the Committee that the Scottish Executive is entirely content with the new appointment. process for the director-general. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I hear what the Minister says. I am still very disappointed by his response. The issue is about transparency. Although the 1997 Act provides for consultation, it does not say how the Secretary of State determines the size of the slices that go to these two very important bodies. If one does not have people watching and scrutinising what goes on then we shall be in deep trouble. We still do not know the right type of investment between national and local policing. However, the hour is late. I have no wish to keep Members of the Committee longer on a matter which may seem somewhat opaque to some people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Funding of NCS Service Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Appointment of NCIS Director General]:
[Amendment No. 138A not moved.]
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clauses 117 to 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Chief superintendents]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 102, line 40, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply removes a redundant reference. That is all I have to say on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sure that the Minister is well advised in what he said but it seems odd that subsection (6), which appeared to protect the conditions of service of some of our police officers, should be knocked out of the Bill. Are the conditions of service of these police officers to be affected by this amendment to Section 50(6) of the 1996 Act? During a change in the structure of the police service the conditions of service should be preserved.
Lord Renton: As my noble friend has pointed out, if a person is appointed before the coming into force of the Bill and the conditions of service of that person are questioned, a good deal of uncertainty could arise. The individual may be the person who suffers. I share with my noble friend Lord Cope a doubt about the omission of this subsection.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is essentially a technical amendment. It will have the effect of removing a reference to Section 50(6) of the Police Act 1996, which is no longer needed as Clause 125 no longer makes any amendment to Section 50(6) of the Police Act 1996. I hope that makes some sense to Members of the Committee opposite. It is simply a technical matter.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Will the conditions of service of a police officer appointed before 1996 be adversely affected without subsection (6) if the amendment is carried? Will the conditions of service of someone appointed to a rank after 1996 but before the passage of the Bill be adversely affected if the amendment is carried?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There are no implications for conditions of service. Conditions of service are preserved and are unaffected by the removal of this reference.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 126 [Inferences in police conduct proceedings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 126 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We move to a matter which seems, to my noble friends and me and, for that matter, my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, to be of a wholly larger consequence than some of the amendments we have discussed in the past few minutes.
Clause 126 is about police conduct proceedings. I refer to circumstances where a police officer is up for a disciplinary offence and not a criminal offence, when he appears, like all the rest of us, before a court of law and answers to a charge. The standard of proof in a disciplinary offence is, of course, considerably lower than it is in a criminal court, and yet this clause seeks

1005
to insert into police conduct proceedings the idea that inferences may be drawn from a failure to mention a fact when questioned or charged. That is something with which we have become familiar—I hope that we are all supportive of that idea so far as concerns the criminal law—but police conduct proceedings are a different matter.
Our police officers are among the most supervised people in this country and, much wider than that, in most other countries. In the first place, they are answerable to the law of the land—no one is more answerable to the law of the land than police officers—and when the law of the land changes approximately 12 times a year as a result of Home Office Bills, as it does at the moment, it takes some keeping up with. Police officers are answerable to their police authorities and to all that that represents; they are answerable to the Police Complaints Authority with regard to individual complaints about their conduct; and they are extremely answerable to both Parliament and the media. It is noticeable that policemen, along with vicars and politicians, find that the slightest deviation from what is regarded as normal conduct is seized on by the newspapers and the rest of the media in a way in which the conduct of other members of the population—such as the editors of newspapers and journalists—is not.
The police are among the most supervised and scrutinised of individuals as they carry out their work. In these circumstances we should be extremely careful about the way in which we allow police disciplinary proceedings—necessary as they are—to be conducted. As I say, policemen are subject to the law of the land. They occasionally find themselves on criminal charges as a result of their activities in the course of their duties if they stray over the border—it is quite right that they should—but disciplinary proceedings are less than that. I, for one, am extremely unhappy about Clause 126 and I do not think that it should stand part of the Bill, particularly as the Bill has been introduced at such a late stage. This matter has not been discussed in another place; it has not been discussed anywhere. Unless it is discussed in less than 24 hours, when we have Report and Third Reading all collapsed into one, this is the only time it will be discussed. This is not the time at which we should introduce Clause 126.
Lord Renton: At first, I was mystified by the clause. I could not understand why it was needed or what it would do. So I turned to the Explanatory Notes, and there I learnt a little more about it. However, they are rather peculiar in the way in which they express the Government's intention.
The notes state that the clause,
"Amends section 50 of the Police Act 1996 to enable regulations made under that section to provide for Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Order Act 1994 to apply in a modified form"—
what on earth is a "modified form"?—
"to procedures leading to a sanction being imposed on a member of a police force".
1006
The notes then state:
Such regulations would allow a modified caution".
I may be terribly ignorant, but I have never heard of a "modified caution". Cautions are cautions. They are not "modified" cautions. The notes go on to state something that does not need to be stated because it applies throughout our administration of criminal law:
"If the officer then chooses to remain silent, the tribunal at the subsequent hearing will be able to draw inferences from this".
In all criminal proceedings, if the accused decides to remain silent he either has a right to remain silent or, if he has no such right, inferences can be drawn anyway. I share with my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley an uneasiness about the proposed new subsection.
Lord McNally: I automatically gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because a correspondent told me recently that the noble Lord originally sat in the other place as a "National Liberal". Therefore, it was with deference and in the hope that he may one day rejoin us that I showed him that courtesy.
We, too, share the concerns expressed. This is yet another example of the dangers of this Bill going through "on the bounce". It would be interesting to know from the Minister what consultations have taken place with the various grades of representation of the police services. As has been pointed out, the Bill introduces an imposition on serving police officers that needs a great deal of consideration. I do not know whether it will apply to other services, such as the fire service and the Armed Forces. It moves from the criminal to the disciplinary in a way that needs full thought and some consideration before we should allow it through.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This clause amends Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 to enable the Secretary of State, by regulations made under that section, to provide for the application of Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994 (inferences from silence in criminal proceedings) to proceedings in cases of alleged misconduct by police officers. The regulations would also introduce a revised caution—which I believe is what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was referring to—to be given when the officer is notified of an allegation of misconduct, similar to the caution given in criminal proceedings.
The proposed new caution will warn the officer:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in proceedings under these regulations".
If the officer chooses to remain silent, the tribunal at the subsequent hearing may draw inferences from it.
The clause removes an anomaly and brings the regulations on police conduct into line with those in criminal procedures where the new style of caution was introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

1007
The Home Affairs Select Committee, in its report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures in March 1998, proposed this change on the basis that it would go some way towards addressing concerns over the use of "no comment" interviews in police discipline investigations. The committee's proposal requires primary legislation because the provision in Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 cannot currently be applied to police conduct proceedings by statutory instrument. Section 39 of that Act enabled the Secretary of State by order to apply Section 34 in a modified form to discipline proceedings in the Armed Forces, but there was no equivalent provision for proceedings in police discipline cases.
Noble Lords have asked whether there has been any consultation on the matter. I can advise the Committee that consultation on the clause took place through the Police Personnel Procedures Working Group. At that stage, the police staff associations were, I am advised, entirely content with the proposal. It is obviously the case that some of the associations have had second thoughts over the matter. That is perhaps what has generated a great deal of attention and interest in the issue at this late stage. However, as I said, there has been consultation. The proposal has been around for some time. It is our view that this, if you like, equalises matters somewhat and brings the concept into line with criminal proceedings.
As a Minister who has some responsibility for police discipline matters and one who has to review the findings produced by tribunals where there is an appeal to the Home Secretary, I can envisage some circumstances in which the inference of silence could have a most important bearing on quite serious allegations. The current position in police conduct proceedings is that an officer can refuse to answer any questions when interviewed. In normal civilian employment cases, an employment tribunal would be free as a matter of course to draw adverse inferences following a refusal to answer any question or questions. This provision, which implements the report of the Home Affairs Committee, preserves a limited right to silence, but there is no reason that it should go farther than the right in criminal proceedings. We believe that that is both right and appropriate. For those reasons, we are determined to resist the removal of this clause from the Bill. We believe it to be a most important clause.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the Minister persists in that view, I shall have to issue a caution—it will not be a modified caution—with regard to tomorrow's proceedings. I have two immediate questions for the noble Lord. First, can he tell us what the intended modifications referred to in the clause will be; and, secondly, to which cases will such modifications apply? It is patent that the provision will not apply to all cases; otherwise, there would be no reservation in the clause. It is also obvious that it will apply with some sort of variation from the normal criminal procedure.
1008
We should have some indication, at least in outline, of the modifications that the Government have in mind and the cases to which they will, or will not, apply before we pass this provision. The Minister referred to parliamentary proceedings. I do not know what proceedings will follow to enable us to consider what the modifications are to be and to which cases they will apply. I should be grateful to hear from the noble Lord what such proceedings will be.
With regard to the National Liberal Party, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that that party amalgamated with the Conservative Party a good many years ago. Whereas it is true that my noble friend did stand originally as a National Liberal, his party amalgamated with the Conservatives in the same way as the remains of the Liberal Party (after the National Liberals left them) subsequently merged with the Social Democrat Party, which ultimately became the present party. That seems to me to have been entirely satisfactory. We are extremely glad to have received the support of my noble friend over so many years.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clauses 127 to 129 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Requirement to give reasons for granting or continuing bail]:
On Question, Whether Clause 130 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We are unhappy about Clause 130. It seems to shift the onus on to an accused person to justify his or her liberty before they have been convicted. Under the Bail Act 1976 it is quite clear that it is for the prosecution to persuade magistrates that there are exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify a curtailment of the assumption of liberty. As I say, we see absolutely no reason to reverse that onus which, if I may say so, seems to be a tendency these days on the part of the Government.
The notion that magistrates must justify their refusal to deny bail is without warrant. It follows the trend exemplified in the Football (Disorder) Act where, if a Bench of magistrates does not impose a banning order for a football-related offence, it must give reasons for so doing. Our feeling is that, apart from the principle involved, the reasons that magistrates will give, if they are forced so to do, will very likely become formulaic. What use will that be to anyone? We believe that this is an indirect attempt on the part of the Government to lean on Benches to do the Government's general bidding in terms of adopting a more severe approach to their criminal function. For those reasons we do not wish to see Clause 130 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support my noble friend. The Bail Act 1976 complies with Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial".
That has been the subject of some jurisprudence in the European Court of Human Rights. It was decided in the case of Wemhoff v Germany that a person charged with an offence must be released pending trial unless the state can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his continued detention. The Committee will note that the onus is on the state to justify continued detention with relevant and sufficient reasons. In the case of Clooth v Belgium convention caselaw emphasised that objections to bail must be specific and must be supported by evidence rather than generalised assertion.
In the light of that interpretation of Article 5.3, I fail to see how the proposed clause can possibly comply with the convention. As my noble friend pointed out, what is likely to happen is that the decisions that are taken by magistrates will probably be compliant decisions in the sense of a "box ticking" approach. My noble friend referred to a formulaic approach. That is the kind of thing that will happen unless a duty is put upon the court to analyse the competing strengths of the arguments of the prosecution and the defence and to come forward with a reasoned judgment as to why bail should be refused in a particular case.
However, that is certainly not what happens at the moment. A person who is arrested and is taken to a police station can be detained and bail may be refused by the custody sergeant. Any objections to bail, and the basis for the objections by the police, are outlined at that stage. But then the arrested person will be brought before the magistrate on the following day. There a lawyer will appear with a file which the police have put together containing the police summary of facts and the police reasons for objection. The lawyer concerned will have no opportunity at that stage to consider the merits or otherwise of the file that is placed before him by the police. The matter will be dealt with on a very summary basis. There will be no room for an adversarial argument in which the case for the continued detention and the case for granting bail will be assessed.
That is the reason why the Bail Act 1976 placed the presumption of bail on to the statute book. As my noble friend said, this provision undermines that basic principle which is in accordance with the European convention. Consequently, I support him in objecting to the clause.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This clause simply requires a magistrates' court to give reasons for granting bail in cases where the Crown has argued in favour of withholding bail.
The courts are required by Section 5(3) of the Bail Act 1976 to give reasons when refusing bail to any defendant who benefits from the presumption to bail
1010
in Section 4. At present, there is no requirement, other than in cases where the defendant is charged with homicide or rape, for the courts to give reasons for granting bail in cases where the Crown has argued that one of the statutory exceptions is present. This clause will require courts to give reasons when granting bail in these circumstances, just as they are already required to give reasons when refusing it. The presumption to bail will not change; nor will the grounds on which bail may be withheld.
The aim of this clause is to achieve an objective which I believe is generally welcomed within the criminal justice system: the securing of greater transparency in decisions reached and in this instance bail decision-making. We believe that this will assist the police and the CPS in making their objections and greatly enhance public confidence in bail decisions, because the reasons for those decisions will be made plain.
We disagree that the presumption to bail will be undermined. The presumption to bail will not change; nor will the grounds on which bail may be withheld. The court will have to consider any prosecution submissions on bail. The measure is simply to ensure that these are publicly stated, publicly understood and publicly recorded.
For those reasons, we believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill. We think that it will project an important step forward in ensuring that the public have greater confidence in the system and that there is transparency and accountability.
Perhaps I may add this rider since convention rights have been raised. We believe that the duty to give reasons for bail decisions is very much in the spirit of Articles 5 and 6 of the convention and in the department's view is compatible with convention rights.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, can he elucidate his claims that the giving of reasons after the event will somehow help the police and Crown Prosecution Service?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If it is a matter of public record, then it will help the police and the CPS understand the thinking behind that decision. If at some point in the future the question of bail arises again, it will enable them perhaps better to perfect their objections. I think that that is an important point and worthy of their consideration.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Remands and committals to secure accommodation etc]:
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 105, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: It was drawn to my attention after Second Reading that several non-governmental organisations were concerned about the clause. The National Children's Bureau approached me, hoping to discover the likely consequences of the clause.
Since I tabled the amendments, the Minister has kindly written me a helpful letter explaining that 4,190 children and young people each year would be caught by the clause and would be placed in the secure estate. Some 200 of them would be placed in Prison Service accommodation. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that means young offenders' institutions or other such places.
This is a matter of great concern and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. Perhaps the Minister can also tell us whether there was an opportunity to look at the issue closely in the other place.
My particular concern is that the improvements that the Youth Justice Board has wrought over the past few years and the existing good provision for children in the secure estate will be undermined by the large increase in inmates that will follow the implementation of the clause. If the secure estate is swamped by such a large increase, the children in it will be handicapped, its purpose of reforming work will not function and the risk to public safety will he increased by the hardening of juveniles in prison.
According to NACRO, 25 per cent of young people at Feltham young offenders institution were taking crack cocaine and there was a woeful lack of any service to meet the need to get them off that horrific drug. An extra £24 million is to be spent on providing places for the new children and young people. Perhaps that could be better spent on working with the existing young people and providing them with the services that they need.
In addition, experienced practitioners are concerned that children who do not pose a serious threat to the public will be remanded into secure accommodation. For example, if a child steals a loaf of bread while on bail, that could be an imprisonable offence if it is the last in a long string of similar offences. I ask the Minister to consider improving the clause by making sure that children are put on remand only when they are a risk to the public. In other words, will he ensure that the degree of seriousness is always considered?
Other options such as mentoring, special fostering and local authority secure accommodation often prove effective. The Home Office has found that the expected rate of reoffending among young people who had been sent to Shelbourne House in south London was 13 to 14 per cent less than among those who had been through the prison system. There are other options. Home Office figures show that 67 per cent of children coming out of Medway secure training centre reoffered within 20 weeks. NACRO has found that reoffending rates can be as high as 88 per cent. In those circumstances, we should favour other options for the sake of the young people and for the sake of the public at large. In addition, they should not be sidelined by Clause 131.
The Minister has kindly written to me with answers to my questions. However, for the record, can he say how many extra juveniles per year are expected to be placed within secure establishments as a result of Clause 131? Will that number be in addition to the 400
1012
new places which the Youth Justice Board has arranged for the next four years? If not, can he say where the extra children will be held? Paragraph 390 of the Explanatory Notes estimates the cost of tagging and remand to be £29.1 million. Can the Minister say what proportion is attributable to remand criteria alone? Do the estimates include the running and capital costs? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Stern: I support the points made by the noble Earl. I, too, am concerned about the great increase in the incidence of locking up children, more and more of whom are of a younger age. This is not the time to go into the world-wide consensus that children should be locked up only in exceptional circumstances.
I know that the Government are familiar with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international provisions. However, it appears that the proposal to remand into custody children as young as 12 for committing a string of imprisonable offences tips the balance between protecting the public and preserving the humane and proper treatment of individuals too far against the treatment of those individuals.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister of Article 17(1) of the Beijing rules on juvenile justice administration, which states:
"Deprivation of liberty shall not be imposed unless the juvenile is adjudicated of a serious act involving violence against another person or persistence in committing other serious offences and unless there is no other appropriate response".
Perhaps I may also remind the Minister that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that measures taken against children should consider the interests of the child first. It may be in the interests of the child to lock him up in a secure training centre or in Feltham young offender institution. However, I do not believe that that is likely to be the case.
The imprisonable offences for which bail may be denied could include stealing sweets from a shop, stealing tins of drink and breaking windows—the type of behaviour in which children sometimes engage when they are in great distress. I want to ask the Minister why we are doing this. What benefits does he see in locking up children as young as 12? Why have the Government made no effort to define "seriousness" beyond a string of imprisonable offences? How many children will be affected? We understand that we are talking about 4,190 children per year. Is the Minister happy to lock up that number of children every year? Where are they to go? And could the cost, which I understand will be £24 million, not be more appropriately spent?
I end by putting my support for this amendment in context and by saying why I decided to keep the Committee here at this time of night for a few more minutes. I read in the newspapers the story of a 17 year-old boy called Kevin Henson, who was remanded into custody in Feltham young offender institution. Kevin had been going off the rails since he

1013
was 14 when his mother died of cancer. He took up drinking but did not get the help that he needed. He got into crime and ended up remanded in Feltham. He wrote a note that said:
"I want to be with my Mum",
and he hanged himself.
When I read about that case, I thought, "Is the best that we can do with a deeply distressed young person to lock him up in Feltham?" I felt guilty that that was the best that we could do and I decided that in future I should do what I could to make it clear why we should not consider locking up so many distressed children. Tonight is such an opportunity and I am glad to support the noble Earl's amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I, too, support the amendment. I hear sighs from the Front Benches because we are dealing at this late hour with the topic of children in custody. I am sorry if this is taking up time. All I can say is that the situation is a source of shame to this country. What is so different about British children that they need to be locked up when children in Holland and other parts of Europe do not have to be locked up in similar numbers? Why are our children different? Is it that our system and approach are different?
In the early 1990s, I chaired a commission of inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform. I again hear a sigh from the Front Bench—I am sorry that the Minister finds it tiresome to talk about young people.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not find it tiresome to talk about young people. As it happens I have a very young family and I enjoy talking about young people. I should prefer it if the noble Baroness refrained from making personal observations. Actually, I am quite tired.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I am sorry that the Minister is tired. However, this is a serious subject.
The commission that I chaired included some of the most impressive professionals that one could find in public life. It included the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is now the president of the Liberal Democrats. He was then involved with the Police Complaints Authority and a sitting magistrate, and he was very knowledgeable on the subject of young offenders. The commission also included: Alan Levy, a QC specialising in children's law; Roger Gray, the criminologist and broadcaster; and Dr Irene Vizard, one of the leading child psychiatrists in this country. There were many people on that commission but we made our recommendations with one voice. We were profoundly concerned about the way in which custody—particularly remands in custody—took its toll on young people. Our experience was that increasing the number of child prisoners had a hugely deleterious effect on children. Children's experiences of custody were horrifying.
In the years just before our report there had been several suicides in Feltham. In the past 10 years, 30 children committed suicide in young offender
1014
institutions in this country. In 1998–99, there were 944 incidents of self-harm—children felt so distressed by the conditions of their custody that they harmed themselves. Bullying is also a serious issue in those institutions. Despite the best efforts of all involved, prison service staff had no background in childcare or welfare and their priorities were inevitably focused on containment and the security of the institution. For children and young people there was no such thing as a neutral experience of prison custody. Separation from their families, friends, home and community had a very deleterious effect on them.
Our report stated that we have to try to reduce the number of young people in prison, but we have seen an escalation in those numbers. It is estimated that the proposals will involve an increase of 4,000 in the number of children in custody. That is not an appropriate way in which to contain children. The Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended that we avoid doing so at all costs. Therefore, I say to those who are drafting this Bill and putting it before Parliament that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, issues arise that need to be dealt with. To remain silent is to condone the containment of children in this way. Many of those children are actually in custody for offences which derive from their own disturbed backgrounds, and what they really need is help.
Three years ago, in different circumstances, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked, "How much imprisonment can a society afford? What shall we have to go without in order to have such a large percentage of people made dependent on state funding?" But the numbers are increasing and all the evidence shows that it is damaging to children. I ask that the Government think again about these measures because of the cost to all of us as a society. There must be a different way.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask whether she feels that it is impossible to comprehend a situation in which Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons is able to certify a young offender institution as being unfit for the receipt of further juvenile offenders for their own safety?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: That question is best answered by the Minister, who is aware of the criticisms of young offender institutions made by the chief inspector. He will be able to answer better than I.
Lord McNally: We on these Benches support Amendment No. 140 and are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for bringing it forward. It is another illustration of the folly of rushing through this legislation. The answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, lies at the hustings. The Government were clearly hell-bent on being able to boast various measures dealing with yobs, hooligans and thugs, and all the other Sun-friendly terms describing young people. The result is this rushed, ill considered Bill.
It is late and I am sure more than just the Minister are thinking of their beds. But if this Chamber is to do its duty, particularly its duty to children, we must have

1015
pause for thought. The idea, particularly after some of the recent reports of the appalling conditions in young offender institutions, that the solution is to send even more young people away almost beggars belief. I make no apology for quoting from the briefing from the Law Society. It states:
"The issue of how children are dealt with in the criminal justice system is a matter that has been under review and subject to considerable reform over the last few years. Intervention, in the shape of referral orders and parenting orders to divert the child from the criminal justice system, is part of long term strategy to reduce re-offending and pilots on referral orders are underway in different sites in the country. The treatment and care of children, whatever their offending history, is a sensitive matter and should be subject to public scrutiny and debate prior to legislative change. Unfortunately, the Bill simply proposes that a child's offending behaviour can in itself be sufficient to remand to secure accommodation even where the public is not at risk".
Ministers should take that kind of criticism of this measure on board and pause even at this stage, not least because of the criticisms made this evening from well informed, influential and committed people on the Cross Benches.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, quite reasonably asked me to re-address my question to the Minister, and that I do.
We have heard this evening some extremely well informed contributions in relation to these amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, told us that a quarter of all youngsters at Feltham are on crack cocaine. That is a quite horrifying statistic. What conceivable benefit to a young offender, let alone to society, can there be in sending a young person to such a place with the near certainty that he or she will be subject to temptations and to opportunities that they may not have experienced outside? Therefore, is it not practical to consider placing a stiff requirement in the legislation that would prevent that?
With regard to Amendments Nos. 141 and 142, which exclude the second alternative of putting a young offender into secure remand, namely,
"to prevent the commission by him of imprisonable offences",
I consider that the case has been unanswerably made that paragraph (a) is sufficient. We should simply be concerned about circumstances in which it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm so that such a remand takes place and so that the second limb is implicit within the first limb, except in those cases where it is not necessary for a person to be remanded securely; namely, the re-commission of what may be considered to be offences of a minor order.
11 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened with considerable interest, and no little concern, to what has been said in support of these amendments, which have rightly been moved in a spirit of concern by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is a well-intentioned series of amendments. Ultimately, I am not convinced by the quality of the amendments, nor do I believe that they acid substantially to what we are attempting to achieve in terms of the criminal justice policy, in terms
1016
of the way in which we approach the juvenile estate and the proper concerns about the way in which we treat juveniles in the criminal justice system.
The amendments will have the effect of leaving current law on the criteria for the secure remand of juveniles as it is. That means that a juvenile aged 12 to 16 years may be placed on secure remand only if he or she has been charged with a grave offence, or has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation and has been charged with, or convicted of, an imprisonable offence alleged or found to have been committed while so remanded. In either case the court must also be of the opinion that only a secure remand will be adequate to protect the public from serious harm.
The amendments collectively are defective Amendment No. 140 would remove from the Bill the new criteria that would al low courts to remand into secure detention 12 to 16-year olds who repeatedly commit imprisonable offences while on bail or on remand to local authority accommodation.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 would remove the new additional and alternative condition that the court must be satisfied that only a secure remand would be adequate to prevent the young offender from committing further imprisonable offences.
The Government believe that courts should have the additional option of placing on secure remand young people in that age group who have a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while on bail. However, there are clear safeguards. The court must also be satisfied that only a secure remand would either protect the public from serious harm from the youngster or—this is new—prevent the commission by him or her of further imprisonable offences.
We are not talking about minor offences. These are potentially serious offences which if committed by adults would attract a term of imprisonment; serious thefts, criminal damage, serious assaults and so forth. It is important that courts have the option of placing youngsters who repeatedly commit such offences in secure detention. It allows the courts to stop a serial juvenile offender from walking free from court and committing further offences.
Is it not the case that we often hear about such cases and read about them in our newspapers? Yes, perhaps we even read about them in the Sun from time to time. That is not to mean that we want to appeal to base instincts but the issue is a serious one and it frustrates the criminal justice process. Such cases can cause great offence and suffering to local people, local communities and the youngsters' families. At present, the law appears powerless to stop it and to do so quickly.
In saying that, we do not argue that any offending on bail would justify a remand into secure detention. The clause confines the new power to imprisonable offences. That would, for example, catch the kind of case we come across all too often where the young bail bandit commits a string of thefts and burglaries while awaiting a further court appearance. When during the past couple of years I have been around and about

1017
talking to representatives of crime and disorder partnerships I have heard that story in many of our towns, cities and communities. People simply want relief from it and they are looking to government to provide it. I do not believe that we can walk away from that issue.
Most importantly, the new clause will require courts to consider all the possible options before deciding whether to remand the child or young person into secure accommodation. There is a significant range of alternatives to custody and our Government have a record on that of which we can be proud. We are trying to provide a range of alternatives and we have strengthened them so as to ensure that community-based sentences as an alternative can be used whenever and wherever possible and appropriate.
In conclusion, we would expect the courts to use the power where it is appropriate and right to put such youngsters into secure remand—but only as a last resort. The clause has been deliberately designed in that way.
Comments have been made about the statistics and I shall clarify the matter for the record. We estimate that about 4,000 children and young people would be caught by the extension of the secure remand criteria. That does not mean that the population of children and young people in secure establishments will grow by that number each year. In order to provide for that, we would need to provide about 370 additional secure places; 200 of those within the prison service estate and 170 in other parts of the juvenile secure estate. Allowing for the 200 places which we expect to become available from within the prison service juvenile accommodation, we estimate that Clause 131 will require a net addition of 170 places to the estate. That is over and above the 400 new places which the Youth Justice Board already plans to make available over the next four years.
The cost is of the order of £29.1 million a year. Of that, roughly £24 million is attributable directly to Clause 131. We envisage that the additional places will be provided in secure training centres under contract to the Youth Justice Board and funded like the present establishments through annual payments covering operating costs and the costs of the capital employed.
In government, we have been trying to improve the quality of education and training in the youth estate. We aim to provide a range of activities, including full education, training courses, physical education and, importantly in this regard, offending behaviour programmes which I argue will get to the root and tackle the causes of offending and, importantly, reduce the risk of re-offending. It will begin to enable such young people to lead a better life outside the institutions.
Under the order, those under school leaving age are required to receive a minimum of 15 hours' education per week, and all young people are required to spend at least 10 hours a day out of their cells with at least 30 hours per week engaged in purposeful activity. We are
1018
a long way towards achieving those objectives which we believe will improve the quality of support and encouragement that is given to young people.
Like many members of the Committee, I am very concerned about young people in our society. I have a young family. I spend a lot of time visiting the secure estate and the way in which we regard young offenders. The Government believe that there is a good deal more to do in that policy area but that, where essential, secure accommodation should be made available, and this part of the legislation provides for that. Therefore, we must resist these amendments, ultimately in the best interests of those whom they are designed to serve.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the Minister sits down, can he inform the Committee how many young people and children will go into young offender institutions, if any? Perhaps none will do so. However, can the Minister say how many of the 200 or so who enter the prison establishment go into young offender institutions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I said that we would provide 170 places in other parts of the juvenile secure estate and 200 within the prison estate. Obviously, I shall consider the noble Earl's point further, but I believe that that answers his question.
The Earl of Listowel: I am very grateful to the Minister for his full response to my amendments and questions. I shall think carefully about what he has said. I should like to make two further comments. First, the Minister pointed out the important work undertaken by the Government to improve the situation of young people in prison. I visited Feltham recently and saw the impressive improvements to the juvenile section at that establishment. The Youth Justice Board is doing good work in mentoring and other matters, to which I referred earlier. One point that has been raised with me is that mentoring and specialised fostering can be very effective in dealing with young people on bail who are problematic. Another point raised with me is that 67 per cent of young people who come out of Medway secure training centre reoffend within 20 weeks. Would the £24 million be better spent on promoting those schemes whereby young people are dealt with before they enter prison? In an ideal world, if we had decent prisons where children were treated humanely, perhaps that would be the right place for them, but we know that at present that is not so.
Secondly, one must be careful not to allow extreme cases to make bad law, which is a remark that I have often heard in this Chamber. I am aware that there are some appalling incidents. I am assured that the kinds of measures that I have described can be very effective in reducing offending and bringing wild children under control. I shall consider very carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]
Clauses 131 to 138 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 161, line 22, at end insert—

"Title and reference

Extent of revocation

The Police and Criminal." Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I 12))

Article 64(4)

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 143 is a minor amendment to the repeal schedule to the Bill. It repeals Article 64(4) of the PACE (Northern Ireland) Order. It is consequential on the amendments to that order made by Clause 84 of the Bill. It parallels the entry in the repeal schedule relating to Section 64(4) of PACE which is consequential on Clause 83 of the Bill. I fully and frankly admit to the Committee that in error it was omitted from earlier drafts of the Bill. The amendment simply remedies that omission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 112, line 18. leave out "37" and insert "(Permitting use of controlled drugs on premises)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 112. line 29, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: Clause 139(8) limits the extent of Clause 127 to Great Britain. Clause 127 provides for pensions for members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. Policemen attached to these bodies for a period of service continue to "clock up" their pensions. The words "Great Britain" limit the provision to the mainland, which excludes Northern Ireland. Clause 139(6)(e) appears to contradict that matter to a limited extent. Nevertheless, I ask why the RUC is apparently being discriminated against in the matter of pensions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We do not believe that there is any reason to depart from the normal practice when dealing with provisions which amend existing legislation. In this case the Police Pension Act 1976 extends to Great Britain. Clause 127, which amends
1020
that Act, should therefore continue to extend throughout Great Britain as currently provided for in Clause 139.
The devolved administrations have been consulted about the terms of Clause 127, including its extent. However, as primary legislation on pension matters is a reserved matter, there is no difficulty in our passing appropriate primary legislation on the point. The making of the necessary regulations would be entirely a matter for Scottish Ministers.
The noble Lord raised the position of RUC officers. Perhaps I should make it clear that NCIS is an organisation that extends throughout the United Kingdom. Clause 127 does not, as drafted, on the face of it extend to Northern Ireland. That appears slightly odd. However, I can assure the Committee that that does not cause any great difficulty. That is simply because we are ensuring that a small number of officers on fixed term appointments who may, before appointment, have worked in any UK police force are able to be members of a pension scheme. That pension scheme gives them the same benefits as they would have had had they not joined NCIS.
The pension arrangements applying to police officers with all UK forces are the same, although covered by different regulations and, in the case of the RUC, different primary legislation. It makes no practical difference under which regulations they are covered; the key is that NCIS will be responsible for paying the pension on retirement and that the pension should be calculated on the same basis as it would have been in the absence of a transfer to that organisation. It is not a question of discrimination. The point is covered. We understand the issue raised by the noble Lord. The clause simply ensures that the current provisions continue over.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Under Clause 139(6), Part 6, so far as it relates to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, covers Northern Ireland, whereas the rest of Clause 127—the provisions relating to the National Crime Squad—do not cover Northern Ireland. The Minister has given assurances that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not be discriminated against. Many of us would take it extremely ill if the RUC were discriminated against in this way. However, in the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o' clock.

  Forced and Bonded Labour
  Forced and Bonded Labour
  Internet Use
  Internet Use
  Directives 98/34/EC and 98/48/EC
  Directives 98/34/EC and 98/48/EC
  Local Loop Unbundling: Contracts
  Local Loop Unbundling: Contracts
  Broadband Uptake
  Broadband Uptake
  Universal Banking Services
  Universal Banking Services
  Newbridge-on-Wye: Proposed Biomass Power Plant
  Newbridge-on-Wye: Proposed Biomass Power Plant
  Electric Power: Sources
  Electric Power: Sources
  World Trade Organisation: New Round
  World Trade Organisation: New Round
  Employment Appeal Tribunal Determinations
  Employment Appeal Tribunal Determinations
  Rural Post Offices: Broadband Data Transmission
  Rural Post Offices: Broadband Data Transmission
  Phthalate Plasticisers
  Phthalate Plasticisers
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Farmers: Price Stability
  Farmers: Price Stability
  Swine Fever: Payment Scheme
  Swine Fever: Payment Scheme
  Rare Breeds and Hefted Sheep
  Rare Breeds and Hefted Sheep
  Food Imports by Travellers: Control
  Food Imports by Travellers: Control
  Public Service Quality
  Public Service Quality
  General Election and Government Business
  General Election and Government Business
  Letters Placed in House of Lords Library: Publication in Hansard
  Letters Placed in House of Lords Library: Publication in Hansard
  Broadband Roll-out
  Broadband Roll-out
  PRISMA Research Project
  PRISMA Research Project
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Millennium Dome Sale:Consultancy Fees
  Millennium Dome Sale:Consultancy Fees
  Rural Schools: Broadband Data Transmission
  Rural Schools: Broadband Data Transmission
  Civil Court Judgment Enforcement Review
  Civil Court Judgment Enforcement Review
  Peers' Allowances
  Peers' Allowances
  Global Health Report
  Global Health Report
  Northern Ireland: Air Sea Rescue
  Northern Ireland: Air Sea Rescue
  UFOs and MoD House Journal
  UFOs and MoD House Journal
  Sunken Warships
  Sunken Warships
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak : Cost of Military Assistance
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak : Cost of Military Assistance
  Army Pay
  Army Pay
  Submarine Flotilla Repairs
  Submarine Flotilla Repairs
  Former Yugoslavia: Misappropriated Assets
  Former Yugoslavia: Misappropriated Assets
  Chechnya: Displaced Persons
  Chechnya: Displaced Persons
  Mr Bernard Connolly
  Mr Bernard Connolly
  Kurdish Community in Northern Iraq
  Kurdish Community in Northern Iraq
  EU: Enhanced Co-operation
  EU: Enhanced Co-operation
  Adviser on Crime: Meetings with Prime Minister
  Adviser on Crime: Meetings with Prime Minister
  Diabetic Prisoners
  Diabetic Prisoners
  Community Punishment Orders
  Community Punishment Orders
  RSPCA
  RSPCA
  Police Authorities: Age Limit
  Police Authorities: Age Limit
  Postal Votes
  Postal Votes
  Demonstrations, 1 May: Cyclists Helmets
  Demonstrations, 1 May: Cyclists Helmets
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Pollution from Burning Carcasses
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Pollution from Burning Carcasses
  Roads: Litter Clearance
  Roads: Litter Clearance
  Gulf Stream Effects
  Gulf Stream Effects
  Transport Projects: Streamlining
  Transport Projects: Streamlining
  Business Improvement Districts
  Business Improvement Districts
  London: Transport and Education Spending
  London: Transport and Education Spending
  Public Sanitary Facilities
  Public Sanitary Facilities
  Uniform Business Rate
  Uniform Business Rate
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Help from Charities
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Help from Charities
  NHS Commissioning Arrangements
  NHS Commissioning Arrangements
  Inspection of Non-animal Imported Food
  Inspection of Non-animal Imported Food
  Inspection of Food from EU
  Inspection of Food from EU
  National Diabetes Week
  National Diabetes Week
  Wheelchairs
  Wheelchairs
  Herbal Remedies: Traditional Medicines Directive
  Herbal Remedies: Traditional Medicines Directive