Sitting of 19 November 2001

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

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What further plans he has to encourage the police and other responsible bodies to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour and disorder in communities. [13339]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): The Government are determined to tackle antisocial behaviour, such as loutish behaviour, vandalism, graffiti and all its other manifestations. Local crime and disorder partnerships must tackle antisocial behaviour with their local crime strategies. Each partnership has been asked to appoint a co-ordinator to tackle antisocial behaviour. We want partnerships to make use of the full range of measures available to them, such as antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that unfortunately, although we have given the power to those
    2
    partnerships, we have not yet devised a method of presenting them with the will? We recognise that the key to improving the quality of life of many of our citizens is to get rid of antisocial behaviour, so does he have plans to introduce a league system to ensure that those partners, particularly the police, are monitored in connection with those important measures?
    Mr. Denham: We have every intention of publishing information about which areas have used antisocial behaviour orders and which have not. We shall look closely at the strategies drawn up by crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which are meant to come into place next April, to ensure that they have given proper emphasis to that aspect. My hon. Friend is right to say that Parliament has made several tools available to local partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour, and that where communities are still facing that problem yet those tools have not been used, people have every right to ask why not.
    Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware of the work of the Bexley community safety partnership? I was one of those who might have thought that this was a sociologists' make-work exercise, but the partnership has done a tremendous job, particularly on the Ellenborough Road estate. If the Minister wants the opportunity to study somewhere where a partnership is working effectively, he need travel no further than the borough of Bexley.
    Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing his local experience to the attention of the House. He is right: where every part of the local partnership is working together, and where there are agreed procedures for acceptable behaviour contracts and for amassing the evidence for antisocial behaviour orders, as well as the use of other methods, that has a real impact on the problems that people face. If I have the opportunity to visit Bexley, I will undoubtedly do so.
    Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the positive take-up of parenting orders as one

    3
    approach to tackling antisocial behaviour. Where they have been piloted they have been successful. Most Members recognise that developing effective parenting skills that enable parents to take responsibility for their children who are committing offences plays an important part in a sustainable approach to reducing juvenile crime. Does he support the idea of broadening out parenting programmes so that all parents, whether their children are in trouble or not, have the opportunity to access those programmes, and young people and their parents can develop better skills and prevent the reproduction of juvenile crime from one generation to another?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right about the effectiveness of parenting orders. The Government want extended support to be available to parents to assist them with a job that most people find a challenge at times. We shall certainly look into his idea and see if there are ways of taking it further.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not realise that what the Opposition predicted would happen when the Government were introducing antisocial behaviour orders—that they would prove far too bureaucratic to be heavily used—is exactly what has happened? At the time, the Government predicted that there would be thousands of orders. Can the Minister explain why so far there have been only about 300, and chief executives of local authorities and senior police officers are tearing their hair out over the wholly unnecessary bureaucracy associated with ASBOs?
    Mr. Denham: One of the difficulties is that some people irresponsibly perpetuate myths about antisocial behaviour orders. In areas that have made little use of them, the belief that they are difficult and bureaucratic is far greater than in the areas that have made effective use of them, often as the pinnacle of a series of measures designed to tackle such problems. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and in the not-too-distant future we will publish research evaluation that shows that if people are properly organised at local level they can make effective use of antisocial behaviour orders. Moreover, as I hope to make clear in answer to a subsequent question, there have been more antisocial behaviour orders than the most recently published figures suggest. I hope to clarify that later this afternoon.

    Oakington Detention Centre
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What future role he envisages for the Oakington detention centre. [13340]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Subject to the outcome of the appeal to the House of Lords, we intend that Oakington will continue to operate on the basis of detention in order to maintain our capacity to make speedy decisions in about seven to 10 days. We therefore propose no changes to its purpose or operation.
    Mrs. Campbell: May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend's review of asylum, immigration and the voucher system? Will the change of name, from detention centre to secure removal centre,
    4
    change the nature of what happens at Oakington? Will the jobs of the people from the refugee legal centre who work at Oakington be safeguarded under the changes?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is not our intention to redesignate the Oakington facility as a removal centre. It is our intention to maintain the legal services, which were, incidentally, responsible for taking us to court in the first place. I congratulate those concerned on nearly, but not quite, doing away with their jobs. Their jobs will remain and will follow the same pattern as at the moment, which has helped us enormously in providing speed and clarity in dealing with applications. Some 99 per cent. of initial claims are refused and, after adjudication and the initial appeal, only 5 per cent. are found to have been justified. The legal provision is helping us to achieve credibility and speed in dealing with applicants.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Home Secretary agree that the first 10 days of any asylum application are the most critical? Will he therefore confirm that the best possible legal advice and help will be made available at each and every induction centre?
    Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Member is aware, support and advice are given immediately through the voluntary organisations. We have taken steps to ensure that those giving advice are properly registered, so that checks are made on the quality and nature of the advice. That ensures that the money provided from the public purse, as well as that provided by those seeking asylum, is not abused.

    Asylum Seekers
    Paul Farrelly: Whether asylum seekers whose applications have taken longer than six months to process are entitled to apply for permission to work. [13341]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): Under the terms of the employment concession, adult asylum seekers can apply for permission to work if their application has been outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it. Once such permission has been granted, the asylum seeker is entitled to take employment.
    Paul Farrelly: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The partner of one of my constituents, Angela Giray, was refused permission pending an appeal against the refusal of asylum. It is distressing when the situation is confused, and both employers and asylum seekers are confused. Could the Minister outline what measures she will take to ensure that people are better aware of the rules in future, given the recent changes?
    Angela Eagle: There has been no change, and none is intended, to the employment concession. Any individual asylum seeker who is concerned need only check with the authorities to see whether he or she has been given permission to work. It is also an offence for employers to employ an asylum seeker who has no such permission.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister agree that the only reason why permission to work is a major issue is the 40,000-plus backlog in the system?

    5
    Does she accept that my constituents in Eastbourne are not filled with confidence by the Government's belated conversion to the need to set up more centres to deal with asylum seekers when Home Office Ministers are consistently unable to tell me how many asylum seekers currently reside in my constituency?
    Angela Eagle: We can say how many asylum seekers reside in the hon. Gentleman's constituency under the national asylum support service dispersal scheme, but he will be aware that his local authority runs the interim scheme that preceded dispersal and so may be able to help him. We do not have national figures available by constituency that take account of the pre-1999 scheme and the NASS dispersal scheme. I wish that we did, and we are trying to compile them, but we can give him only the figures that we have.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that it depends on how we define "work"? Will she commend the interesting work of Time Banks UK with regard to paying refugees and asylum seekers in time currencies so that we can truly value their worth in this country?
    Angela Eagle: Once people have been granted refugee status, they are certainly available to work. However, I reiterate that if all asylum seekers were to work, that would be a big pull factor which would encourage more people to apply for asylum in Britain. At the same time, we are more than happy to encourage those who are in the middle of the asylum process to do voluntary work, if that is what my hon. Friend is talking about.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Notwithstanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about the backlog of some 40,000 cases waiting to be decided, does the Minister agree that it is deeply worrying that more than 300 people have been kept in detention for more than 100 days? Will she address that issue as a matter of priority?
    Angela Eagle: I can announce that we have successfully taken all asylum seekers out of detention at Cardiff prison, as I undertook to do following a recent Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced our intention to ensure that no asylum seekers are kept on remand in prison by the end of January. It is important to realise that some asylum seekers are detained because it is thought that they may abscond or be about to be returned to their country of origin, and that some of them are in prison for other reasons, such as criminal offences. There will always be a reason to keep a certain number of asylum seekers at particular parts of the process in detention, and I do not apologise for that.
    Kevin Brennan: Are any of the asylum seekers currently held in prison ever likely to be granted permission to work? I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that Cardiff prison has been cleared of asylum seekers as a result of the commitment that she gave in the Adjournment debate organised by my hon.
    6
    Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The fulfilment of that pledge is well ahead of time.
    Angela Eagle: I accept my hon. Friend's congratulations on that matter. On his first point, people often spend small amounts of time in detention, while we establish their identity, for example. It is difficult to generalise about whether anyone who has been in detention while we establish their identity may then have a valid claim for refugee status and end up working. That may well be the case, but the figures as we collect them do not allow me to give my hon. Friend detailed information.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does the Minister accept that the policy of accommodation centres will have failed hopelessly if it takes as long as six months to process the applications of asylum seekers?
    Angela Eagle: The key to the success of our asylum changes is how quickly we can manage to get an individual from the beginning of the process to the end. The longer that takes, the more difficulty any system will have.
    Mr. Letwin: I suppose that I should say that I am grateful for that answer, but as we have not received one, I would be even more grateful if we did. Meanwhile, can the Minister guarantee that the accommodation centres will provide doctors, lawyers, immigration officials and adjudicators? They are needed on the spot if decisions are to be made in a lot less than six months.
    Angela Eagle: I can guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation centres will be the focus of all the help that is appropriate to give asylum seekers—on legal, health, education or training matters—as they go through the process.

    Victims of Crime
    Mr. Mark Francois: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the victims of crime. [13342]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): The Government are committed to improving support and services for victims of crime. We have already made good progress, and work is continuing to ensure that the needs of victims are given the priority they deserve.
    Mr. Francois: Ministers will be aware that it is important for victims to feel that those who have committed crimes against them are likely to be caught and punished. To that end, what progress is being made with delayed Home Office IT projects such as the crime recording system and the custody and case preparation system, for which many police forces are still waiting?
    Mr. Bradley: Clearly, the use of technology is essential in improving the efficiency of the court and sentencing processes and in ensuring public confidence in the criminal justice system. We have made great strides in supporting victims through the introduction of the witness

    7
    support service within the courts. That will be backed up by good technology and we shall continue to roll out the programme in the years to come.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that sometimes the numbers on victims of crime are largely inaccurate, especially on crimes such as antisocial behaviour—the "lesser" crimes—because although people try to report crime, often the telephone is not answered promptly at police stations? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to examine that matter, so that police forces are set targets or are inspected to ensure that they respond quickly to members of the public? That would also help to restore confidence in local police forces.
    Mr. Bradley: It is absolutely essential that there is public confidence in the whole criminal justice system, and I shall certainly undertake to look at the issue raised by my hon. Friend to see whether we can ensure the maintenance of a prompt response when the public contact the police.
    Simon Hughes: The concerns of victims are obviously central to the sentencing process and to reform of the criminal justice system, on both of which the Government have been or are holding consultations. Is the Minister minded to propose any further increases in the rights of victims or their representatives to take part in the court process? Can he confirm that the planned legislation on sentencing and the proposed review of the courts system will be introduced in the next Session and that neither of them will be introduced in the remaining part of this Session?
    Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have just completed the review of the sentencing framework proposed by John Halliday, and the consultation on the Auld report on the courts system is currently under way. It is certainly our intention to introduce legislation on both matters in future.
    We should not forget that we are already making progress to support victims. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in October this year, we brought in the personal victim statement, which allows victims to recount to the court the circumstances of the crime committed against them, so that the decision makers are aware of the views of victims at every stage of the criminal justice process.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems for victims of crime in south Lancashire when the police fail to answer the phones. Will he hold discussions with the chief constable on reversing the decision to answer phones centrally and ensure that calls from victims of crime are answered much faster?
    Mr. Bradley: I shall certainly look into the issues raised by my hon. Friend. We want to ensure that there is a good response from the police so as to maintain public confidence in the service that is being provided. We shall
    8
    look closely at the matter and if my hon. Friend would like to write to me with the details, I shall certainly consider it further.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: While the Minister is thinking about the victims of crime, will he bear it in mind that the level of burglaries in Sutton Coldfield has risen during the past year alone by more than a third—by 34 per cent? How long will it be before burglaries in Sutton Coldfield are back to the same level as when Conservative Members last sat on the Government Benches?
    Mr. Bradley: Under the British crime survey, it is my understanding that burglary has fallen during the last period. As a former resident of Sutton Coldfield, I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about any increases in particular areas. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.
    Caroline Flint: What discussions has my right hon. Friend held with the Lord Chancellor's Department about communities which are victims of crime—especially incidents of antisocial behaviour? I am concerned that often the courts do not take such issues seriously, and do not award penalties to the perpetrators which reflect the gravity of the impact of crimes that affect the wider community rather than an individual victim.
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is right. From my constituency experience, I know that the effect of antisocial behaviour has an impact not only on particular neighbourhoods or streets but on the whole community. It has a dramatic impact on the community's view of the criminal justice system. We have to ensure that measures such as antisocial behaviour orders not only tackle the problems in a particular vicinity but send a message throughout the area that we are not prepared to tolerate behaviour that undermines the integrity of our local communities.

    Minor Offences
    Tim Loughton: What discussions he has had with magistrates regarding downgrading of penalties for minor offences. [13343]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): The Home Secretary regularly meets and corresponds with members of the magistracy to discuss a wide variety of issues, including sentencing.
    Tim Loughton: That is very informative, but does the Minister endorse the new guidelines that are being given out by the Judicial Studies Board to youth courts to downgrade as many low seriousness offences as possible to a penalty of only conditional discharge, together with Lord Woolf's advice to consider halving the sentences that magistrates give to less serious criminals? What message does the Minister think that sends out to the 130,000 people arrested last year for offences of criminal damage, graffiti, shop lifting, car vandalism and making obscene phone calls—let alone to their victims?
    Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman does not quote precisely from the guidelines. We have to ensure that the

    9
    sentencing framework, which is currently under review, suggested in the Halliday report ensures that the offences introduced meet the crime, that custodial sentences are used for those crimes that warrant them and that we have tough and effective community sentences for crimes that warrant such measures. We have to ensure that the right people are put in prison and the right people serve in the community to ensure reparation and rehabilitation and to stop reoffending. We also have to ensure that the guidelines are applied consistently across the courts, so that the public can understand and have confidence in them. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in such issues, so I shall read with great interest his submission to the Halliday consultation.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one young person in my constituency has been arrested 76 times in a matter of months? Do not the courts very often let down such young people by not treating seriously those offences, which are repeated time and again? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that that causes real frustration to the public and to the police involved in serious cases such as that? Will he convey that message to magistrates when he next meets them?
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. As John Halliday made clear in the report, we have to ensure that action is taken to try to stop persistent offenders reoffending. We need a sentencing framework that ensures not only that that can be the case, but that those people who are determined to flout the law in the way that my hon. Friend describes receive the punishment that they clearly deserve.

    Police Retention
    Tony Baldry: When he expects to meet the chief constable of the Thames Valley to discuss retention of police officers. [13344]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): The Home Secretary has no immediate plans to meet the chief constable of the Thames Valley police. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that, since April this year, officers and rejoiners appointed to the Thames Valley police on or after 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowance have benefited from a new allowance of £2,000 per annum. In addition, the starter home initiative will help around 170 officers to buy first homes in the next three years. Both those measures will help not only recruitment but retention.
    Tony Baldry: While I thank the Minister for that answer, may I ask a question of which I have given her notice? Are not Thames Valley police officers in the worst of all possible worlds: their cost of living, including housing, is high, yet they do not benefit from the allowances paid to Metropolitan police officers? Metropolitan police officers receive an annual London weighting of £1,773, an extra London allowance of £1,011 and a further London allowance of either £1,000 or £3,327, depending on when they join. In other words, a Metropolitan police officer, doing exactly the same job as a Thames Valley police officer, can be £6,111 a year
    10
    better off. It is not surprising that the Thames Valley force is losing officers—they are joining other police forces in the country, where their pay and conditions are better.
    Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman says, the current differential between Thames Valley and the Met for recruits is about £4,000 a year. That reflects the different pressures that those forces face in terms of recruitment and retention as well as other factors. He will also know that the Police Negotiating Board set the pay differentials for recruits to those two forces and that the police arbitration panel rejected the claim by the staff side on the board for additional allowances for all forces. At the same time, the panel endorsed the two levels of allowance—£2,000 and £1,000—for the two groups of forces around London. In the tribunal's view, the respective allowances reflect the different circumstances and pressures that those forces face.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister appreciate that people in Bracknell and elsewhere in the Thames valley will see her responses as hopelessly complacent and out of touch? Let me try to explain to her once more that the Thames valley is stuck between the Met, with its high salaries, and areas further away from London where there are lower house prices. Consequently, we are not getting the right level of retention, and people in the Thames valley are suffering. Will she now answer the question properly?
    Beverley Hughes: That is a bit rich from a member of the party that scrapped the housing allowance. As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the issues facing different forces—the pressures on recruitment and retention and other factors such as the relative cost of living—have been assessed by the Police Negotiating Board and reconsidered by the tribunal. The tribunal decided that the levels of the allowances were right, given those pressures. It is up to the Police Negotiating Body to consider any further changes.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Minister agree with the previous Minister with responsibility for the police, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)? He told the House:
    "The number of people leaving"
    the service
    may be taken as an indicator of morale."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 63W.]
    What conclusions, therefore, does she draw from the answer given to me on Friday by the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs—that non-medical resignations from the police force have risen by 75 per cent. in the Thames valley and by 27 per cent. overall in England and Wales under this Government? Figures also show that officers spend only 17 per cent. of their time on patrol, so what is the cost—in terms of rising crime, public concern and taxpayers' money wasted on training—of the crisis that clearly now exists in police morale?
    Beverley Hughes: That point is true, to the extent that the wastage rate in Thames valley is somewhat higher than the national average. It is about 2.4 per cent. compared with a national figure of about 1.1 per cent. The wastage rate in the police service across the board is very

    11
    low compared with that in other occupations, and that reflects the additional allowances in that area, terms and conditions and the £1.6 billion of extra resources that the Government have put into policing over three years, precisely to enable the police to do a better job for people in our communities.

    September 11
    Tom Brake: What the estimated cost to the Metropolitan police is of increased security measures being undertaken following the events of 11 September. [13345]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Government greatly appreciate the immediate response of the Metropolitan police authority and service after the terrorist attack in the USA on 11 September. There has been a great deal of speculation as to the additional costs to the Metropolitan police of the increased security measures. We have set in train a process for the detailed assessment of the additional resources deployed. We are actively considering these and hope to make an announcement in the next few weeks.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the concerns expressed by some borough commanders about their ability to continue policing locally because of the commitment that they are having to make to key locations in central London. He will also be aware of the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked on 22 October about the estimate of the rising costs involved in that.
    Will the Minister confirm exactly when the report on the additional costs will be produced? Will he also tell us what additional financial assistance will be forthcoming for the Metropolitan police authority to cover those additional costs? How many additional specials will be provided as a result of the additional funds; and what impact will all that have on rising street crime in London?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Commissioner has informed us that in the immediate aftermath of 11 September there was a desire on his part to reassure people by moving substantial numbers of police officers to areas that were perceived to pose the greatest threat. The chair of the authority, the Commissioner and the Home Secretary have had a number of meetings and are aware of the need to make absolutely sure that the situation is rebalanced.
    If I were able to give the hon. Gentleman the figures for which he asks, I would do so. There are the immediate costs of the aftermath of 11 September to consider, and the ongoing level of security that is needed is being assessed. As I said, we hope to be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks.

    CCTV
    Dr. Vincent Cable: How many applications to his Department for closed circuit television funding have been rejected in the last two years. [13346]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): Under round one of the initiative, 354 funding applications worth a potential £63 million were successful and 382 were unsuccessful. Under round two, 332 funding applications worth about £106 million were successful and 449 were unsuccessful.
    Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware of the great frustration in communities like mine because, having been encouraged to put forward well designed and badly needed applications for CCTV funding, they are being turned down by rigid financing rules that require local councils to carry the full current costs of the schemes? Will she speak to the Treasury, which I suspect is the source of the problem, about introducing more flexible arrangements to enable more councils to have that valuable initiative implemented in their areas?
    Beverley Hughes: As all hon. Members know, CCTV schemes are very popular, both with local authorities and, indeed, with local people. As I said in my answer, a total of 738 applications have been successful under a scheme that has put £170 million into CCTV initiatives as part of a crime reduction programme.
    Although the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Richmond upon Thames submitted proposals under round one—unfortunately, none was successful because there were higher priorities and better bids—no proposals were received from it under round two. I understand his disappointment—but if authorities do not bid, they do not get.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that some CCTV systems that are successful in central areas have pushed criminality out on to estates and into outlying areas? Will she give careful consideration to the Eastfield area of Scarborough? The community there desperately wants CCTV but does not seem to be able to get hold of the right people in the local council to push that initiative forward. What is the best way of doing that on behalf of the local community? [Interruption.]
    Beverley Hughes: As one of hon. Friends says, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) has done precisely that.
    We have received anecdotal reports of displacement, which is an issue in some schemes but not in others. We are evaluating 17 of the current schemes to determine their effectiveness across the board. Indeed, one of the questions relates to whether crime is displaced to areas without cameras as a result of CCTV. On my hon. Friend's more general point, we are reviewing the entire crime reduction programme and I shall let him know of future initiatives.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the CCTV system being launched in Witney on 14 December and congratulate all who have been involved in getting the project up and running? Does she agree that it will give welcome relief to many shopkeepers and newsagents who have had their windows smashed and suffered from petty crime? Will she confirm that small towns, like many in my constituency in west Oxfordshire, will continue to be encouraged to bid?

    13
    Finally, will she try to find ways to encourage multiple retailers, which benefit greatly from CCTV schemes, to help to fund them?
    Beverley Hughes: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman endorses the initiative and the finance that the Government have made available to provide what local people and retailers want. I am pleased that his area, albeit represented by him, has been able to benefit under that scheme. In addition to funding the CCTV initiative, the Government have introduced extra funding to help small retailers to remain in their areas, particularly where there is high crime, because their remaining is important for the local economy.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the use by the police and local councils of antisocial behaviour orders. [13347]
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on antisocial behaviour orders. [13350]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): As a result of a recent exercise by the Home Office and the police, I can inform the House that the total number of antisocial behaviour orders issued up until the end of September this year was 466, an increase of more than 180 on the previous figure. It is clear that the orders have a significant role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. A review of their effectiveness will soon be completed, and we will be looking at measures to enhance their use.
    Mr. Rammell: My constituents are concerned about antisocial behaviour by a minority, which is a scourge on our community. Does the Minister accept that there is frustration because, despite the welcome increase in the use of antisocial behaviour orders, they are not being taken up as quickly as they should be? Has he considered Ipswich council's piloting of the acceptable behaviour contract with persistent young offenders, which I believe could be a way forward on this issue?
    Mr. Denham: Yes, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be going to Ipswich tomorrow to see that scheme in action. In many parts of the country, antisocial behaviour orders have proved most effective as part of a well integrated system that includes a lower level of warning measures, such as acceptable behaviour contracts, so that a young person heading towards an antisocial behaviour order is in no doubt of the consequences of continuing their offending behaviour.
    Mr. Hepburn: I welcome that answer, and I agree that antisocial behaviour orders are effective, but we need more of them. Is the Minister aware that it takes a police constable an average 100 hours to enact an order? Will he try to cut down on bureaucracy not only to increase the use of orders but to get PCs on the beat, where they should be?
    Mr. Denham: As I said, the research that we will publish in the not-too-distant future does not back up the argument that there is impenetrable bureaucracy and that
    14
    time is wasted in enacting the orders. None the less, I accept that the extent to which people are organised locally makes a difference to the time taken to get the necessary evidence to the courts. I can assure the House that we are open to every practical suggestion to streamline the orders further and to reduce the amount of time and effort required to enact them.
    Bob Spink: Will the Minister visit my constituency so that he can see for himself the nightmare that youth crime is creating for residents in Canvey Island, Tar Pots and Thundersley Common? Does he accept that the best way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to get more police officers on the streets, which means that the Government must provide more resources and reduce bureaucracy? They should also introduce the two IT schemes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) referred earlier.
    Mr. Denham: The good news is that this Government are providing the resources, which means that police numbers are rising. We will achieve record police numbers in the next 18 months, and during the lifetime of this Government the number of police officers in England and Wales will exceed 130,000.
    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, as we get those record police numbers, we must make the most effective use of their time. The research that we recently published showed that 47 per cent. of a police officer's time is spent in the station rather than out on patrol duties, and we have set up a taskforce headed by the chief inspector of constabularies, Sir David O'Dowd, to consider ways of tackling the bureaucracy that is diverting police officers from doing the job in the way they want to do it.
    Chris Grayling: Is the Minister aware that, despite the contribution that antisocial behaviour orders can make, antisocial behaviour of the kind found in my constituency, especially Ashtead and Stoneleigh, can be tackled only if the police have proper sanctions to use against the offenders? The police in my locality have discovered that because they can take little practical action against young offenders there is a certain "I don't care; you can try it on with me, but you can't touch me" mentality among those youths. Something needs to be done to give the police real sanctions that they can use against juveniles when they step out of line.
    Mr. Denham: I agree that the police need to be able to take effective action. However, I am pleased that innovative work by the police in areas like Wrexham and Islington and pioneering initiatives such as acceptable behaviour contracts show that if there is close working between the police, local authorities and other agencies, it is possible to give clear warnings to young people about the consequences of their actions. It is important that the police be supported effectively by magistrates; the Lord Chancellor addressed that when he recently spoke to the Magistrates Association about the need to enforce ASBOs.
    Judy Mallaber: On 1 November, after threatening police with a home-made firearm in a neighbourhood in my constituency following a domestic dispute in Codnor, Mr. Steven Dickson was shot dead by

    15
    an officer of the Derbyshire police armed response unit—the first fatal shooting by Derbyshire police since 1977. That is being investigated by the Police Complaints Authority according to normal procedures, but it is obviously a tragedy for Mr. Dickson's family and stressful for the police involved.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that police and bystanders must be protected in such incidents and that the person with the firearm may need to be stopped instantly? However, what progress has been made in investigations of the availability of an effective non-lethal weapon which can avoid loss of life while giving proper protection in firearms incidents?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend has raised a very important issue. The whole House will accept that the job of armed police officers is extraordinarily difficult; judgments have to be made, sometimes in extremely short periods, which can have tragic consequences if they are wrong in either direction.
    My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of non-lethal alternatives to firearms. We are close to completing the second phase of work by chief constables and the Northern Ireland Office on those alternatives. We hope that a report will be published by the Northern Ireland Office in the near future, paving the way for a more detailed analysis of factors to be taken into account, of the full medical effects, and of the technologies that look most promising, because they can incapacitate people quickly without fatal consequences. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that work in that important area is progressing urgently.

    Crime (Slough)
    Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of recent trends in crime in Slough; and if he will make a statement. [13348]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Home Office does not publish statistics showing total recorded crime below force level. However, thefts of vehicles fell by 7.2 per cent. in the Slough basic command unit in the 12 months to March 2001; domestic burglary fell by 1.4 per cent. in the same period.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am sure that the Minister is aware that in every other category, crime increased in Slough. Is he aware that those units of Thames Valley police force with a devolved system of management have fewer resources to deal with crime than other units? Will he promise to seek an early meeting with the new chief constable of Thames Valley, when he is appointed, to ask what he will do about the fact that the area that I represent, which has the highest crime in Thames valley, has the fewest resources to deal with it?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am aware that my hon. Friend is discussing these matters locally, that she has raised them with the director of crime reduction for the area and also with her local commander, and that she has asked that the issue of the allocation of resources be taken up with the chief constable. As I have a constituency not dissimilar to hers, I am aware of some of the arguments, and she is no
    16
    doubt aware that the allocation of resources within the police force area is an operational matter and one for the chief constable.

    Internet
    Charlotte Atkins: What action the Government are taking to protect children using the internet. [13351]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): In partnership with industry, the police and children's charities, we have established a taskforce on child protection on the internet. With those partners we share the aims of making the United Kingdom the best and safest place in the world for children to use the internet, and of helping to protect children the world over from abuse fuelled by criminal misuse of new technologies. Backed by the taskforce, a public awareness campaign on internet safety will be launched next month.
    Charlotte Atkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. In light of the Channel 4 news report on the Internet Watch Foundation, does my right hon. Friend consider that self-regulation is working, and should the IWF be more accountable?
    Mr. Bradley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government work closely with the Internet Watch Foundation and keep its work under review. As a result of lobbying by a number of parties, including the Government, the board of the IWF revisited and revised its policies on 15 November. The result is a recommendation to all internet service providers serving UK customers not to host news groups which the IWF identifies as regularly containing child pornography; to prepare, in consultation with interested parties, a list of news groups which have names that appear to advertise or advocate paedophile content or activity; to draw up a code of practice covering the conduct expected of ISPs that subscribe to the Internet Watch Foundation; and to initiate a discussion concerning the size and composition of the board, the selection process for members and any other matters of governance. The Government welcome the internal review and look forward to seeing the results later this year. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in such matters, will watch progress closely.
    Norman Baker: Every hon. Member will welcome any steps that the Government can take to protect children using the internet and to clamp down on paedophiles who seek to abuse the internet, but will the Minister reflect on the powers that he and his colleagues seek to give themselves today under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which will allow the Government to monitor and secure data from all internet communications, in pursuit of any crime, including shoplifting and vandalism? In the balance between civil liberties and protecting individuals, have not the Government got it slightly wrong?
    Mr. Bradley: The Government take child pornography extremely seriously. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, first, that what is illegal offline is illegal online, and we must be diligent in monitoring that. Secondly, we are carefully

    17
    considering the current offences associated with sex offences, particularly "grooming", to see whether we should introduce a new offence of intent to meet a child for the purpose of committing such an offence. We must monitor such matters closely. Internet developments are extremely important. We must ensure that children can safely use the internet, because of its great benefits for them, but we must also ensure that they are protected. We intend to do so by means of the sex offences review and other matters that we are examining through the Internet Watch Foundation. We will continue to work closely with the industry to protect our children.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the easiest ways to protect children might be to get the industry to provide software that would be available to parents to monitor automatically what was going into their own machines? I have grave reservations about self-monitoring. It is clear that children can be lured into chat rooms quite unwittingly, and the danger needs urgent assessment.
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clear public awareness of the dangers of the internet and chat rooms is crucial. That is why we are launching the public awareness campaign and will continue to work very closely on education programmes in our schools to ensure that young people are aware of the dangers. On the point about software, programmes are being developed, including so-called walled gardens, which enable limitation of internet use so that parents can be confident that their children are using it safely. We will continue to look closely at how the programmes are developed and to ensure the absolute priority of the Government in this area, which is to protect children.
    Michael Fabricant: While I welcome the Government's initiative regarding chat rooms and news groups, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that it is not the role of Government to control the output of websites? Censorship is not their role. As he correctly said, software packages are currently available to enable parents to ensure that their children do not look at unsuitable websites. Does he agree that the Government could be even more proactive in advertising and promoting this issue to parents, educating them on it and ensuring that they are made aware that the software exists?
    Mr. Bradley: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman reads my previous comments, he will see that I have already covered many of the issues that he raises. I repeat that we must ensure the protection of our children while they are using the internet. Any new ideas or initiatives that he feels to be appropriate for the internet taskforce will be considered. The taskforce is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), and is a combination of the industry, users and all people involved in the area. We will consider closely any plans that he proposes.

    Community Police Centres
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What plans he has to continue the community police centres pilot schemes. [13352]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): The aim of the pilot scheme in Swale was to provide a central means for members of the public to bring non-urgent and non-criminal inquiries and problems to a single point and have them resolved. The Government encourage schemes such as this, which is an excellent example of a joint partnership between Departments that improves public access to meet the needs of local communities. It was funded via a successful joint invest-to-save bid by Swale borough council and Kent police, and decisions on continuing with such schemes lie with local partners.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Perhaps he, like his predecessor in the Home Office, will pay a visit to the area and see the system. I point out that, where there are police headquarters and borough council headquarters, it is very confusing for people to know which one to go to—something that he should perhaps bear in mind in relation to future funding. Furthermore, has he considered widening the scheme to include neighbourhood watch and housing benefit, so that there is one centre in the local community to which people can go with real problems?
    Mr. Denham: Local initiatives of this sort are very much for local partners to identify. I would certainly welcome local initiatives that try to bring together a wider range of local government services, police services and others in one place. In addition to trying to co-locate services physically, as I understand was done in Swale, it is important for police and local authorities to co-operate on internet-based access and telephone call centres.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Keith Simpson: What measures he has taken since 11 September to co-ordinate emergency planning in the United Kingdom in the event of a major terrorist attack. [13353]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With my responsibilities for chairing the Civil Contingencies Committee, I have been leading a comprehensive review of how contingency plans can be updated. We are taking all necessary and sensible steps to make sure that the country is well protected to handle all eventualities, including any major terrorist attack. Those steps will be building on the extensive work already in place, including the work done leading up to the millennium. They include the work being undertaken by my right hon. Friends the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs and the Minister for Local Government, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who have been leading resilience and contingency planning groups dealing with matters both nationally and in London, and with chemical, biological and radiological problems.
    Mr. Simpson: In the event of a large-scale terrorist attack on London or one of our other large cities, who would be the operational commander co-ordinating the emergency services?
    Mr. Blunkett: As with the attacks on the mainland by terrorists based or operating in Ireland, the police are in charge of co-ordinating and leading the response. Once
    20
    the plans are in place, they will work with all emergency services. I am proud of the work of our emergency services in responding over many years to a variety of eventualities.

Orders of the Day

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  [Relevant, documents: First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, on the Anti- terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, HC351.
  Second Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2001–02, on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, HL Paper 37/HC 372.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, a timetable motion has been tabled on which we shall vote later, at least under the deferred procedure. So many hon. Members wish to speak that you have felt it necessary to impose a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. There is genuine anxiety about the timetable. Will you consider not putting the Question on the timetable motion unless and until the Home Secretary makes a statement to explain why two days are deemed sufficient?
  Mr. Speaker: If the motion is on the Order Paper and is moved, I must put the Question.
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Second Reading debate and the vote on the timetable, we will consider a motion, which has an hour and a half for debate, on whether to support and agree to this country's derogation from article 5 of the European convention on human rights.
  Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) wrote to the Leader of the House to ask whether discussion of the derogation could wait until we had completed our consideration of the Bill. That would enable us properly to consider the need for the derogation. This afternoon, there is a debate in the House of Lords about whether such consideration should happen at the end of the Bill's passage through both Houses.
  May I, through you, ask a Minister to explain whether the Government are willing to accept that logical proposal? If they are, we would not have to spend a lot of time today arguing about whether to pull out of an article of the human rights convention when it may be rendered unnecessary by Parliament amending the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: That matter could be explained during the debate that we are about to hold.
  Before we proceed, I point out that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was right to say that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  3.33 pm
  The Secretary, of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I thank all those—my advisers, officials and hon. Members, including my ministerial team—who have worked so diligently with me on the Bill. I should also like to put on record my thanks to the members of the
  22
  Joint Committee on Human Rights and of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for their speedy and diligent work.
  It would be useful to deal with the question that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked about the derogation from article 5 of the European convention on human rights. We believe that it is sensible to seek the consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords because unless Parliament agrees to clauses 21 to 23 and associated provisions, which relate to detention, the need to seek a derogation from article 5 under article 15 will not arise. It is therefore sensible to have the provision in place. It will fall automatically if Parliament does not consent to the clauses that I mentioned.
  Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall, but I want to make a little progress afterwards. Obviously, I shall then give way to hon. Members.
  Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for being as courteous on this matter as he has been throughout the proceedings so far. Will he reconsider the issue that he heard me raise earlier, and with which he has partially dealt? Does he accept that, by virtue of the order that the Government laid last week, there is a 40-day period within which the order is the law. At the end of the 40 days, it will lapse if Parliament does not agree to the proposal in both Houses. Given that the Government have the cover that they seek, is it not, in a sense, an abuse of the judgment of both Houses to assume that they will agree that the Bill should remain as it is, when there may be ways—following the Human Rights Committee's proposal—in which it could be amended to avoid derogation? In that case, the Government would not need the decisions of both Houses, the 40-day period would lapse in the normal way and the Government would not, to put it crudely, be putting the cart before the horse on a hugely important national and international legal obligation.
  Mr. Blunkett: The 40-day period stands, but we do not agree that there is an alternative way of proceeding that would be acceptable to the Government; if there were, we would propose it. This issue will be the subject of the debate today, and of subsequent debates here and in the House of Lords. On that basis, we are seeking the consent of the House on derogation.
  Circumstances and public opinion demanded urgent and appropriate action after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Many parliamentarians understandably demanded caution, proportionality and a response that would last for the future. Over the five weeks following the attacks, in which thousands of men and women lost their lives, it was the Government's task to appraise the measures that would be necessary to close loopholes and set aside anomalies that had developed over many years in existing legislation.
  We therefore took our time in preparing the statement of 15 October, which laid out precisely the kind of measures that I am proposing this afternoon. I make no apology for having taken another five weeks to come to the House with these measures, which required consideration. Given the

  23
  need to put in place safeguards that could be required any day and at any time, I do not believe that 10 weeks is a hurried period.
  It is important to recognise that, in the first few weeks after 11 September, the emotional response to what had happened—the sight that people beheld and the hundreds of public service workers and volunteers who lost their lives trying to save the lives of others—could have evoked an immediate and, I would have thought, universal call for even more draconian measures than those that I am accused of introducing. It would have been wrong to do that. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but it was understandable that the United States Government sought to pass their Patriot Act by 26 October, which they did and it has now received the signature of the President. It was appropriate for us to be more circumspect, and to bring to the House what we consider to be proportionate and reasonable measures.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman made the point that he has taken 10 weeks to contemplate the contents of the Bill. That was indeed right. Given that it was necessary for him to take 10 weeks, does he understand the anxiety in this place that we are being asked to pass the Bill—all 114 pages and 125 clauses of it—in two days beyond today? Surely that cannot be right.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not absolutely certain that the length of the debate and the scrutiny given to a Bill are one and the same thing. The length of the debate and our scrutiny of it depend on the availability of time to deal with the aspects of the Bill on which there is genuine disagreement. Disagreeing with something on which there is general approbation is entirely different. It seems to me that the time available in this House and the House of Lords will be used effectively and rightly to scrutinise those proposals that have already received public attention and on which there has been considerable comment.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the time set aside for consideration in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading is roughly equivalent to four Committee sittings. Is that a proper way to deal with this most important legislation, the significance of which he has underlined, given that terrorism and other such Bills were considered for much longer? The Bill contains the embryo of five Bills.
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept that it contains the embryo of five Bills. The measures are coherent, they deal with a threat of a particular nature, they were laid out on 15 October with one or two exceptions—Opposition Members pressed us on those, including that in respect of corruption—and they are before the House for agreement. If there were no emergency, if there had not been a terrorist attack and if there were no danger that not passing the Bill by the end of the year would put us at risk, I would not be introducing it in the first place.
  Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way once more, but then I must make progress so that we do not lose time for the debate that Members want. We must get on to arguing about the content.
  Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a fourth time so early in his speech.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) complained about the lack of parliamentary time to discuss the Bill following the 10-week gestation period. It was published only towards the end of last week, but it will complete its Commons stages by the beginning of next. That allows only a week for outside bodies to concentrate on its terms and lobby those in the House who are interested in its content and implications. Although the Home Secretary may be right that he spent 10 hard weeks drafting the Bill, surely those outside the House should have rather longer than a week to lobby Members and the Government on its content and effect.
  Mr. Blunkett: But the debate has been going on for 10 weeks, and the detail was laid out on 15 October.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Not the detail of the Bill.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am being substantially heckled by my hon. Friend. Does he want to intervene?
  Mr. Fisher: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary. Surely he appreciates the distinction between the principles that he laid out on 15 October and the detail of the Bill. We are expected to scrutinise and pass law, and that law is based on the wording of the Bill. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, outside bodies have only a week in which to consider the Bill and advise us. Surely the Home Secretary accepts the historical precedent that when the House acts quickly, it seldom acts wisely.
  Mr. Blunkett: I have no intention of getting into conflict this afternoon, but, if I might say so, I had not noticed that the past 10 weeks were free of detailed comment by a range of lobbying organisations and individuals. [Interruption.] Yes, about the Bill, the nature of its content, the statement of 15 October and the work undertaken by the Human Rights Committee and the Home Affairs Committee over the past week, including detailed evidence given to them by the very groups to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred. Those groups clearly had a handle on the principle and the detailed substance of the Bill, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), and I were questioned in detail in those Committees on that content. The idea that people have been deprived of knowledge of the details or implications of the Bill does not bear thinking about.
  I have certainly learned one thing. I believed that lobby groups and those connected with the law understood the existing provisions more fully than proves to be the case.

  25
  I shall try to deal with that this afternoon, because what the Bill seeks to do is build on what is already there rather than transform or overturn it. If there is any confusion in the minds of those giving advice or lobbying Members, I hope that we shall be able to end it during the days ahead.
  Mr. Llwyd: As a legal challenge to the Bill is highly likely, will the Home Secretary elaborate on his definition of a public emergency, and also explain why the United Kingdom is the only country subscribing to the European convention that considers such an emergency to exist?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall deal with the second point during my speech. I am well aware of the differences that exist not merely within countries that are signatories to the convention, but across the world. However, the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the article 15 provisions gave us precisely the power to act in circumstances envisaged by those who drew up both the European convention on human rights, as approved in 1953, and the European convention on refugees, as approved in 1951. They foresaw circumstances in which it would be necessary to take action to derogate—to suspend temporarily—a particular article or clause, in order to be able to act in a particular way to respond to what was happening. I am positing that the circumstances of 11 September and its aftermath are such that they warrant immediate action.
  An article in The Times on 15 September stated:
  "Despite fine promises and emergency legislation, Britain is still home to hundreds of extremists who have made this country one of the centres for the violent transnational network that inspired and encouraged the barbarism in New York and Washington."
  That is just one of hundreds of statements that have been made over the past 10 weeks about what people perceive to be the situation in our country. Again and again, people—including people in the United States—have illustrated the real dangers that exist, and it is on that basis that I shall spell out today why we felt it necessary to act.
  Let us recall for a moment not just what happened on 11 September, but what has happened since. Let us recall the interviews given and the video recordings made by bin Laden and the al-Qaeda group, which have spelt out their determination not simply to threaten once, but to threaten the civilian populations of the United States and those working with it. It is for that reason that we are proposing measures allowing us to take rational, reasonable and proportionate steps to deal with an internal threat and an external, organised terrorist group that could threaten at any time not just our population, but the populations of other friendly countries.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that many people who are obviously appalled at what happened on 11 September believe that the answer is not to suspend traditional legal rights such as the right of access to courts in this country, but to use the criminal law against those planning or perpetrating criminal acts? Many people are deeply disturbed about this piece of emergency legislation, and believe that it will be no more effective than the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. Peace eventually came to Ireland through a political process, not a legal process.
  Mr. Blunkett: I would take my hon. Friend's appeal more to heart if it were not for the fact that we are
  26
  debating use of the very machinery that the House agreed, in 1997, to ensure that the legal process is followed and legal rights exist. I think that fundamental misunderstandings have arisen among lobby groups and others because of that point.
  In 1997, the House unanimously passed the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which established the commission. I would be interested to know whether any hon. Member would like to use their comments in debates on that legislation to contradict me now on this legislation. Does anyone wish to intervene? No hon. Member from either side of the House voted against that legislation, which was subsequently approved by the other place. It was approved not only because previous practice had been judged not to accord with the level of human rights that was needed and accepted at the end of the 20th century, but because, in November 1996, the then Government had lost the Chahal case, which considered the acceptability of the process being used to eject people from the United Kingdom.
  It was adjudged in the Chahal case that there had been improvements in the process, such as use of the three wise men and women, but it was also held that the process for ratifying the Home Secretary's power of certification for removal was not acceptable because the power infringed article 3 of the European convention on human rights. That is the nub of the issue. There is also no disagreement that the previous Government would have introduced the 1997 Act.
  After the Chahal judgment, therefore, the House passed a measure that effectively provided judicial review of the Home Secretary's right to certificate the removal of an individual who is not a British national, but who is judged to be endangering national security or whose presence is not conducive to the public good.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment, but I should like first to deal with what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our proposals.
  The question for hon. Members is, what did they think that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the judicial process would do? What cases was the commission to hear? Was it to hear cases in which there was judged to be a risk, or cases in which the presence of an individual was not conducive to the public good and the Home Secretary had heard evidence from the security and intelligence services and was prepared to act? The answer is yes; the commission was established to consider precisely those types of case. Nevertheless, the very judgment that led to the commission's establishment was the one that held that article 3 precluded us from sending people back to their death, to torture or to degrading treatment.
  The current situation, therefore, is that evidence may be adduced by the security and intelligence services, the Home Secretary may believe that he or she is correct to issue a certificate and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—SIAC—may judge that that belief is correct, but the Home Secretary cannot deport that person because of the risk to the person's life. That is, and has

  27
  been, the situation. The difference now is that we want to ensure that people cannot continue to conduct or organise terrorism from this country.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment, when I have finished making this point.
  The issue for me to decide is whether I should seek an opt-out from the European convention, arid then to opt-in again by using, I think, article 58; to say that individuals should be released although we have evidence which SIAC is prepared to uphold that warrants detention; or to seek to hold those individuals.
  It is the third choice that we are putting before the House this afternoon. If we were prepared to derogate, or if I were prepared to sign a certificate to send someone to their death because no third safe country was available, we would not be introducing the measure in this form. We are doing so precisely to avoid that eventuality. That is why—you will forgive me for mentioning this, Mr. Speaker—I have been slightly depressed over the past day or two about how the case has been put, and how some in the media who know better have sought to mislead those who have no reason to know better because they were not present, did not see and could not read about the steps that led to the establishment of SIAC precisely to deal with the circumstances that I described.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman places great weight on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Surely he should remind the House that under the Act that established that commission, it is entitled to withhold from the detained person particulars of the reason why he is detained. Furthermore, the Law Officers of the Crown can appoint a representative for that person who is expressly stated not to be responsible to the persons whose interests he is appointed to represent. That is not a very good safeguard of rights.
  Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may make a judgment about whether that is acceptable to him, but it was acceptable to the whole House in 1997. Following a challenge in the courts in the case of Mullah Rehman, the Lords judged five weeks ago that both the process and the threshold of evidential base were acceptable and in line with what the House intended when it passed the Act unanimously in the first place.
  David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall in two seconds—but first I shall answer the second element of the question.
  The person who is adjudged to be a risk has the right to take on a legal advocate of his own. When the case reaches the point at which evidence is presented by the security and intelligence services the delivery of which—this is why SIAC was established—would put at risk the operation of the security services, and those working with them and for them, often covertly, an advocate from a list of advocates is provided, as in 1997 the House judged should happen, to allow evidence to be presented and the
  28
  case on behalf of the person charged to be heard and properly dealt with legally. Then a right of appeal on a point of law to both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords is provided in similar circumstances and with similar rights
  David Winnick: I take the view that in all circumstances the powers that my right hon. Friend is taking are necessary. I am not happy—no one could be—about what is happening, and I work on the assumption that several people have been allowed in who should never have been allowed in. Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us who take that view are, despite his comments, worried about the lack of judicial review? If we introduce measures that no one likes, and people are to be locked up for reasons that we believe are justified, some form of judicial review—apart from what my right hon. Friend has been explaining—is all the more necessary, and its existence would make me much happier.
  Mr. Blunkett: We would have to return to anything that the House decides about extradition or asylum issues more generally. All that we seek to do in the Bill is to make clear what SIAC and the Lords believe to be the case. In the cases that have gone to SIAC since the Act was passed four years ago, judicial review has not been sought, because the operation of SIAC has been judged to constitute a judicial review of the Home Secretary's certification. That is the issue that we are dealing with and that is why SIAC was seen as a substantial improvement on what existed previously.
  The issue this afternoon is whether it is right that we should hold people in circumstances where we cannot transfer them to a third safe country, where the country to which we originally sought to transfer them does not have extradition agreements and therefore where their lives would be at risk, or whether we should release them into the community. At issue is an enhanced risk, post-11 September, which we believe warrants our taking that difficult but balanced and proportionate step. In doing so, we will ensure that the House will annually reaffirm or otherwise the measure on detention. In any case, the derogation has a five-year life and is automatically a sunset clause.
  I also wish to make it clear that we do not think that a debate of one and a half hours would be adequate should we have to seek reaffirmation of the provision under the affirmative procedure and, with the agreement of the Leader of the House, we would seek to provide a more extensive opportunity for debate.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My question is not intended to be pejorative, because I am genuinely interested in the answer. Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a sea of difference between SIAC being used to deal with issues of deportation—with all the problems that SIAC has as a review body—and its being used to review decisions to incarcerate and imprison, indefinitely, without trial and, indeed, without charge? If evidence exists against the people about whom we have heard, why are they not being charged and tried in this country?
  Mr. Blunkett: If the evidence that would be adduced and presented in a normal court were available, of course we would use it, as we have done in the past. We are

  29
  talking today about those who are adjudged to have committed, organised and supported and helped those involved in terrorism worldwide in the circumstances of 11 September. Those who drew up the European convention and the refugee convention could not have dreamt of the act that took place on 11 September, but they did envisage some act of that kind that would at some point require us to be able to take the necessary steps. That is why I am using article 15 to derogate from article 5, rather than seeking to withdraw altogether. If evidence could be presented that is not subject to the parameters that I laid out a moment ago, it would be used. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a barrister and, as a non-lawyer, I always listen carefully to those who are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Airy-fairy ones?"] I listen carefully whether they are airy-fairy or not.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: What about SIAC?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am coming to SIAC. It was the establishment of SIAC and the judgment in the Rehman case that upheld the threshold required and the nature of the way in which the evidence should be presented that answer my hon. and learned Friend's question. The House accepted, and the House of Lords agreed, that in some cases the nature of the evidence from the security and intelligence services will be such that it would put at risk the operation of those services and the lives of those who act clandestinely to help them if that evidence were presented in normal open court. That is the measure of the proposals this afternoon.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Can my right hon. Friend explain more about the way in which SIAC will operate in cases where he is making a certificate relating to articles 1(f) and 33.2 of the refugee convention, which do not simply cover people suspected of international terrorism? How do his comments about article 3 and returning people who may face the death penalty relate to clause 34, which the Home Office's explanatory notes say provides that, in considering whether those articles apply, there is no requirement to consider the threat to life or freedom of someone who is removed from the UK?
  Mr. Blunkett: Clauses 33 and 34, while being separate from clauses 21 and 23, are related to them. Let us consider the example of someone who is picked up on suspicion of being involved in or engaged in terrorist acts while in transit through one of our airports. The moment they are picked up and there is the intention to remove them, they then claim asylum and the rights that go with it in terms of having their case heard through the asylum process. To be able to adjudge that in those circumstances the substantive case for asylum is not heard is to acknowledge the circumstances of the detention of someone who was about to leave the country or go about their business in another way without actually claiming asylum, who is then using the asylum machinery precisely to get round the existing law. That was debated immediately after 11 September because a case at Gatwick illustrated the problem.
  Following the consultation on extradition, we will be able in the Extradition Bill to deal with these matters more extensively, where extradition powers exist; however, where they do not, we have to be able to deal with the circumstances that we are discussing today. This is our
  30
  home—it is our country. We have a right to say that if people seek to abuse rights of asylum to be able to hide in this country and organise terrorist acts, we must take steps to deal with them.
  The underlying question is whether this measure is necessary. Is there really an issue arising out of 11 September that warrants us taking such steps? That is the fundamental question raised in the media and, in effect, raised here this afternoon.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way, but let me answer the question. I have posed one, so I think that I will answer it.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent the weekend in Ottawa with colleagues from across the world. He was engaged, rightly and effectively, in getting 183 countries to affirm that they would establish what we have established—a terrorism finance unit—as a way of co-operating and getting to the bottom of the most careful and clandestine networks the world has known. My right hon. Friend spent the weekend encouraging people from 183 countries to do that not because there has not been a new threat but because the threat has increased dramatically. That is not merely because people acted as suicide bombers, flying planes into the World Trade Centre, but because they have openly declared that it is open season on all of us. They want to destroy our lives, our liberty, our values and our way of life. If 10 weeks makes such a difference in terms of perception, I despair of our being able to hold in our mind the gravity of what we have been dealing with and the threat that exists. The question is whether, proportionately and cautiously, we should take steps to protect ourselves.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome the legislation that my right hon. Friend is bringing forward. After 11 September, it is probably long overdue. Does my right hon. Friend find it bizarre—as I do—that the yoghurt and muesli-eating, Guardian-reading fraternity are only too happy to protect the human rights of people engaged in terrorist acts, but never once do they talk about the human rights of those who are affected by them?
  Mr. Blunkett: I declare straight away that I do eat yoghurt and occasionally muesli—in the summer, I even wear sandals; but I do not suffer fools gladly. It seems to me that although the nation of course has a right to scrutinise what we are doing and to question us—to ask why on earth we are taking additional measures—we must also face up to things and be prepared to understand that people out there really want us to get a grip on any danger that threatens their or our lives, or the operation of this country—its economy, working and lifeblood. That is all that we seek to do this afternoon: to explain the necessity of having to take these actions and, on the back of them, of having to derogate.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of many Members in the Chamber for his new news today that debate on future renewals will not be limited to an hour and a half—unlike our debate on the motion that we are to discuss later tonight? Given the circumstances of the 40 nations that have signed the European convention and, indeed, of the United States itself, why does my right hon. Friend think

  31
  that circumstances in the UK should lead us to suspend habeas corpus? That is not the case for those other nations, which were equally affected and, in one instance, much worse affected by the tragedy on 11 September?
  Mr. Blunkett: In the United States, the Patriot Act gives the Attorney-General sweeping powers of detention. It gives powers in terms of the ability of the Attorney-General first to certificate and then to hold people pending their removal from the country. Of course, they are not subject to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. In countries such as France—
  Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am still answering a question.
  In countries such as France, where the investigatory magistrates have considerable powers, a different law applies. People can be—and have been—detained without trial while investigations are taking place, for up to four years in certain circumstances. From time to time, investigatory magistrates are challenged. Indeed, the French have been challenged in the European courts. When the challenges are upheld, the magistrates take a different approach, but based on French law, not British law.
  I am proud of the fact that British law provides the human rights that are being defended and considered by all of us this afternoon. I am not intent on trawling through the anti-terrorist, criminal or civil laws of each country in order to abuse their systems, but I want to make one thing absolutely clear so that there is no mistake: those of us who are arguing the case this afternoon for additional powers are just as committed to human rights and civil liberties as those who legitimately and reasonably seek to oppose the powers. Some of us—in fact, all of us on the Government Benches—have spent our lives fighting for the civil liberties and empowerment of people who do not have access to wealth, privilege and power.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in a moment, but first I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) because I have to live with her regularly—
  Helen Jackson: I beg your pardon!
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall rephrase that. I have to keep our friendship going.
  Helen Jackson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am glad that he rephrased what he said about our living together.
  I do not doubt the intentions behind the Bill and the need for action following 11 September, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify an issue that relates to the effectiveness of this provision. I understand that the objectionable bits of the Bill on detention and the length of time that people might be detained applies only to
  32
  people who are not nationals of the country in which they live. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify this query: to what extent can he be sure that the people who are part of the international network about which we are concerned at the moment are not nationals of the various countries in which they live? Is there not a danger that we are labelling those individuals who are stateless, and directing this Bill at them, so ignoring potential terrorist activities from people—
  Mr. Mark Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. The hon. Lady's intervention was certainly far too long.
  Mr. Francois: You have just dealt with my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask whether there was a 10-minute limit on interventions.
  Mr. Blunkett: I return to my original point, and I apologise to the House for making it again, but it is important to stress that we are seeking the powers in relation to detention and the use of SIAC precisely on the basis of our immigration and nationality provisions and the inability to send people to countries in which they would be put at risk.
  The right to regular review exists; the right to leave the country exists; and the right to ask that Parliament reconsiders what we are asking it to pass in relation to these measures exists; but all that is based on the presumption that, in normal circumstances, we would have asked people to leave our country but that we have been unable to do so because their lives would thereby be put at risk. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, because I promised to do so.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most forbearing. He mentions the United States Patriot Act and the power of the US Attorney-General to detain people for up to four weeks. Will he confirm that, under the US constitution, any act by the Attorney-General is subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court of the United States and cannot be excluded?
  Mr. Blunkett: Well, it is, but that question has two answers. First, the person will be detained while that process takes place. Secondly, under the existing Acts and powers and in the circumstances where the Attorney-General would use his powers, military courts can also be used. In such circumstances, evidence can be presented in precisely the way that we intend under the SIAC process. I would not advocate such an approach, and I do not imagine for a moment that other hon. Members would.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way so often and helping Back Benchers to understand this complicated Bill, but will he genuinely explain why clause 21 states:
  "international terrorism' does not include terrorism concerned…with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom"?
  Does that mean that individuals from Turkey, Florida or other places who help and finance the Real IRA or the IRA will not be covered by the Bill? Bearing in mind the

  33
  fact that international terrorist organisations co-operate with one another and help one another with financing and training, is it not crazy to exclude the Real IRA from a Bill that deals with international terrorism?
  Mr. Blunkett: When such a foreign national is suspected of international terrorism or linked with international terrorists, he would be subject to the Bill.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: No.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes. We can argue it out in Committee on Wednesday and I will be happy to do so. There will certainly be time to argue about that particular phrase.
  I want to make progress by giving Members the opportunity to intervene on different parts of the Bill. Before I move quickly through the Bill in detail, I want to lay to rest once and for all the idea that, because action has been taken—action criticised by others—that has liberated two-thirds of Afghanistan from the threat of the Taliban, the threat has somehow gone away. It has not. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that a wounded and cornered tiger is more dangerous than ever.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: One more time, but then we must move on to consider the clauses.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his patience.
  Further to the question raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I thought that, under the Bill, when a case could be brought to trial in the United Kingdom—as I would expect for a case of terrorism in Northern Ireland—the person subject to immigration control would he subject to due legal process in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that where it is possible to conduct a trial in the UK—because the evidence and the witnesses are here—we will seek to bring these criminals to trial here?
  Mr. Blunkett: My answer is unequivocally yes. Of course we would do that. The hypothetical question was not about the act that could be charged—such as organising terrorism in Northern Ireland—but about whether it could be shown that there was a link to terrorism world wide.
  Mr. Fisher: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way one more time to ensure that we do not irritate each other by misunderstanding the arguments.
  Mr. Fisher: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his patience. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), do not the courts in this country have all the powers that they need to take evidence in camera, and are not judges able to clear the court? In respect of any evidence—my right hon. Friend identified it earlier—that prejudiced sources or the security forces or is prejudicial to the case,
  34
  powers currently exist to hold part of a court trial in camera. The need to assume the wide powers in the Bill is not readily apparent
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. The difficulty, as adjudged in passing the measure that set up the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and that results from the challenge of Mullah Rehman, is that some evidence is not admissible in such a court, but it is admissible in SIAC. That protects the security and intelligence services. The required threshold has to reach the level where SIAC adjudges that the decision taken by the Home Secretary on advice is correct. The Rehman judgment affirmed that what we believed to be the case over the past four years was indeed the case—that the threshold of evidence that would not be admissible in a normal court is acceptable in the SIAC process. I hope that that clarifies the position, because there has been a major misunderstanding about that at the public level. Although I have tried on various news and current affairs programmes to clarify the issue, it has not been possible to spell it out.
  Parts I and II complement the Proceeds of Crime Bill in stopping organised terrorism and crime being perpetrated through money laundering by organised finance—a subject that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered in Ottawa. We are seeking the ability to freeze assets, to take unified action with other countries and to introduce restraining orders. I also referred to the terrorism finance unit.
  Part 3 will enhance the power of disclosure to law enforcement agencies, with clear guidelines, and allow disclosure to be presented in constrained circumstances, including those that relate to criminal investigation.
  Part 4 deals with the issues to which I have just referred. In addition, I intend to make a small amendment to clause 25. During the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it was pointed out to me that there should be a test of reasonableness. It is my intent, therefore, to introduce an amendment to clarify that. I hope that that information helps the House and shows that we are genuinely prepared to listen and respond to what is proposed on such matters.
  Part 5 covers issues that relate to the controversy that has arisen in respect of religious hate. For the sake of clarification, I again want to put on the record what we seek we do. The debate on this subject has been going on for a long time. We were approached by leaders of the Muslim community—it was a representative leadership group—who thought that it was only right, fair and protective to include religion with race in terms of avoiding incitement to hate using the Public Order Act 1986. I considered that and decided that their point was fair and reasonable. That suggestion was also made when the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 went through Parliament and the Opposition pressed us hard to implement it. At the time, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is now Foreign Secretary, accepted that there was a reasonable case for keeping it under review, but that it would not be introduced then.
  Since then, others from the Muslim community—representative or otherwise—have said that they do not like the idea. It has been suggested—I heard people say this as recently as this morning on the radio—that it might be used against Muslims. That is true; it might, because

  35
  Muslims are no less subject to the law than Christians, Hindus, Jews or anyone else. I do not want gesturism. I hope that the provision will protect all those who have deeply held religious beliefs from having that faith used to incite hatred against them. This is a public order Act, and it is the order that we are talking about. To be prosecuted, the power has to be used against the perpetration of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with—this is the crucial phrase—the intention and likelihood that racial hatred would be stirred up. That is the crucial element.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way in a moment.
  The case is to be adjudged by the Attorney-General and brought only if he believes that there is a case to be heard. That brings the law into line with those of the Jewish or Sikh faith who have already been adjudged by the courts to be covered by the term "race".
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way and want to put a question to him from a Christian point of view. He will know, to use his own words, that two of the central foundations of the Christian faith—namely, that Jesus Christ was both man and God and that people can get into a relationship with God only through Jesus Christ—are deemed by some in other religions to be insulting and offensive. Indeed, in some countries it is so insulting and offensive that the very statement of Christian faith is enough to put someone in prison. Will the affirmation of those fundamental Christian beliefs fall foul of his Bill?
  Mr. Blunkett: The answer is unequivocally no.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I give way to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry).
  Tony Baldry: I fully support the Home Secretary's intention to extend to Muslims the protection afforded by race relations legislation to members of the Sikh and Jewish faiths. However, the problems with that legislation, including the exclusion of Muslims from its provisions, have simply been created by judges in their interpretation of it. Why does not the Home Secretary simply amend the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1976 to extend their protection to the Muslim community, rather than creating a new criminal offence? Will the Home Secretary acknowledge—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.
  Mr. Blunkett: Religious discrimination is a different matter, and it does not relate directly to the issues that we have been debating, which are public reassurance and calm in our communities following the hatred and associated dangers arising from the events of 11 September. Those tensions could have been extremely dangerous, and we
  36
  have devoted an enormous amount of police time and resources to providing protection. It would not have been right separately to pick out, and discriminate either for or against, a particular faith, because that in itself could well have caused difficulties with public reassurance and social cohesion.
  People are entirely entitled to their views on this matter, but including religion with race seemed to us to be a perfectly reasonable measure, associated as it is with the aggravated offence, which has been extremely successful—almost 22,000 such cases have been considered, and there have been 4,000 prosecutions.
  Mr. John Gummer: May I put a very straight point to the right hon. Gentleman? The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has on occasion said that the Pope is the anti-Christ and the whore of Babylon. Would that be illegal under this Bill? As a follower of His Holiness, I do not think that it ought to be illegal, because people should be allowed to say what they want.
  Mr. Blunkett: The argument is not whether people should be allowed to say what they want but whether the intention, and the likely effect, of their comments is to stir up racial hatred. [Interruption.] Both the intent and the consequences will be the basis on which the Attorney-General will make a judgment on any individual case. The great strength of our democracy is that we can debate, and people can say what they believe, but another strength, represented by race hate legislation, is that we can prevent people from using that democracy to develop hate into attacks on other people.
  I have paid careful attention to the column inches devoted to this matter. It is interesting that the very people who, in the weeks immediately after 11 September, wanted us to take action against particular, vocal individuals on the grounds that they were developing hatred, are now so strongly opposed to us including religion in laws to prevent that hatred becoming effective.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The whole House supports the stated intention behind the religious hatred clause, but if it is partly to afford to other religions the protection currently given to the Christian faith by the blasphemy laws, surely another way around the problem is simply to get rid of the blasphemy laws.
  Mr. McNamara: The laws apply only to the Church of England.
  Ms Abbott: I am sorry.
  Mr. Blunkett: There is an interesting debate to be had about the blasphemy laws—I said so to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which apply only to the Church of England. However, this is not about religion or the blasphemy laws; it is about public order and whether we are taking the right steps to ensure that we broaden the definition in relation to hate and the aggravated offence. An amendment will undoubtedly be tabled on Wednesday, which we shall be able to debate; we will reflect on what was said back in 1998.
  Part 6 deals with weapons of mass destruction and will extend the scope of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Those are precautionary measures but, in my view, quite

  37
  sensible. Part 7 deals with dangerous substances and secures the necessary protection for laboratories and other places where they may be held. Part 8 increases security in and around civil nuclear installations and will enable the Office of Civil Nuclear Security to deal with that. Part 9 updates aviation security and makes improvements to the Aviation Security Act 1982, which has some extraordinary loopholes. Part 10 deals with policing.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: As the Home Secretary may have noticed, I have kept quiet until now. Why is it necessary to extend the powers of Ministry of Defence police to cover any act in any part of the country, not just those involving terrorism?
  Mr. Blunkett: They are to be used in specific circumstances. It is important to distinguish the MOD services that we are talking about from the military police; I read one article that clearly implied that we were talking about military police moving around with guns in their hands. We are not. I want to make it clear that any use of weaponry would be entirely under the provisions of the authorisation requested by police services in the normal way. We are talking about circumstances in which MOD services would be brought in, either on the request of the local police or where there was judged to be a definable emergency, and only for that period. It is right and proper that in the police reform legislation that we will introduce next year, we ensure that the normal powers for police complaints will be available; if there is any action under the measures by people acting in a certain way, there is no doubt that individuals will have normal protection.
  Parts 9 and 10 also enable us to deploy the transport police in a more sensible way than is available at the moment; that is not controversial in any way. Part 11 deals with the retention—
  Norman Baker: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: For anyone watching the Parliamentary Channel, part 11 deals with communications data and their retention.
  Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification. Why will the powers that he proposes to give the authorities require all communications data to be kept and the authorities to have access to them not simply for the purpose of safeguarding national security, which people will understand, but for the purpose of the prevention and detection of crime, which could be any crime whatsoever? Why are the powers so sweeping and far-reaching?
  Mr. Blunkett: Because it has become abundantly clear that it is impossible to distinguish the issues when one cannot separate out crime and terrorist funding, crime and terrorist organisation, and crime used to fund terrorist acts. That is why there is a provision allowing data already held by the service providers to be held under the voluntary code that we intend to put in place.
  We thank, as I did on 15 October, the service providers for their co-operation, which we expect to continue. We are providing a reserve power only against people who undercut or damage the reputation and work of others by refusing to take part and co-operate with the code.
  38
  The data will not include content, merely subscriber details already held and itemised billing, and will be renewable after two years.
  Part 12 deals with bribery and corruption. We were happy to respond to the many voices, including those in the House, calling for such provisions. Part 13 deals with a range—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I did not think for a moment that my friends on the Eurosceptic wing would allow that to pass. For clarification, the affirmative procedure would apply under part 13.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Clause 109(3) states that references to the treaty on European Union include references as amended by the treaty of Nice. As I understand it, the treaty of Nice has not yet been approved by all member states, and is unlikely to be approved by member states. Is it right to put into our law a provision amended by the treaty of Nice, when that treaty has not been approved by each member state?
  Mr. Blunkett: I believe that the hon. Gentleman would be strongly in favour of our approving what we consider appropriate. The treaty of Nice and the Tampere European Council took forward provisions that were expected to be carried through in the usual way, after detailed scrutiny and an affirmative resolution. They included the 1995 and 1996 conventions on extradition, as well as laws updated in 2000 on mutual legal assistance. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was against the 1995 and 1996 provisions, but such measures are precisely the sort that will be carried through.
  The provisions relating to arrest warrants, which have caused such interesting debate in Europe, not least when I was discussing them last Friday, will be carried through, subject to the agreement of the House, in the Extradition Bill, rather than in the measure before us. The Bill also contains provisions dealing with the manifests carried by carriers, to introduce the protections that we seek.
  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Bill provide the country with the power to defend itself, and provisions to monitor and scrutinise how that power is used, to ensure that Parliament is not ignored and can hold the Executive to account for the actions that they take, and to ensure that our security and intelligence services are used effectively.
  I am aware of reports in the broadcast and print media of people abusing our intelligence and security services. On the basis of their performance 10 or 20 years ago, one or two commentators have called those services useless. They are not useless. Over the past few days, together with the Customs service, they have proved that by picking up those who threaten our lives in the United Kingdom from Ireland. We owe those services a debt of gratitude. Members of the police and security services, for instance, who approach vehicles that are about to explode in order to save the lives of others do not deserve the opprobrium of those who simply write columns and who have never in their lives taken the responsibility for making a decision, apart from what they would buy from Sainsbury's.

  39
  Let me put the matter simply, as though we were dealing with someone who has been invited into our home—someone who is not a member of our family, but who accepts our hospitality. Let us suppose we find that, in our home, they are undertaking actions that are unacceptable to us. In normal circumstances we would ask them to leave, but that might immediately put their life at risk. We would surely want to take steps in our home to ensure that we and our family were secure. Using the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the powers that we are setting out in the Bill, we endeavour to do precisely that, while of course protecting the civil liberties gained over many years in our nation and including the power to set aside even the limited requirement of detaining people on a limited basis should it prove that the threat that emerged on 11 September diminishes or disappears. I would be the first to come back to this House and ask for us to drop that power, but I am the first this afternoon to ask that, in the circumstances, we agree to it.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: These are dangerous times—I think that is agreed across the House—and there are loopholes in our national security. That, too, is agreed across the House. However, the purpose of the House and of Parliament as a whole at a time such as this is not merely to enact into law the first set of propositions that occur to Her Majesty's Government, but to achieve an appropriate balance between public safety, which it is the Home Secretary's responsibility to protect, and individual liberty, which this House and Parliament as a whole were established to protect. Most of what I want to say relates to that balance and to the elements of the Bill that I and my hon. Friends believe do not appropriately strike that balance.
  First, however, I want to say a word about process. I have discerned across the House, as everybody here must have done, a strong feeling that a few days—three days, in the case of this House—are not enough fully to scrutinise the Bill. However, I accept the severe time constraints under which the Home Secretary feels that he is operating. I also accept, therefore, that it is probably appropriate to allow this House and the other place the opportunity to make up ex post for what we will have failed to do ex ante, by providing a drastic set of sunset clauses so that Parliament as a whole will have a full opportunity to revisit almost all parts of the Bill regularly, and so that the great bulk of it will fall away unless Parliament chooses to re-enact it. We will then have the opportunity to see how it works in practice and to investigate whether the Home Secretary is correct, or whether some of the arguments that hon. Members, including me, will advance in this debate are proved right.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept the proposition that, although there may be parts of the Bill that are truly urgent, the great majority of it cannot from any viewpoint be considered as such? Is not the best way forward to identify that which is truly urgent, incorporate it into a one or two-part Bill and deal with the rest of the matter in proper order?
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend and I will probably not wholly agree about this, but I am willing
  40
  to take on trust and for the time being the judgment made by the Home Secretary, as he is in a position—whereas I am not—to understand what is urgent and where the loopholes are. If it turns out that some of the provisions were not needed or that they have not worked as the Home Secretary supposed, that will be an argument for them to fall. Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that some provisions should not have been included in the Bill in the first place. We will come to them in a moment.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that is quite a comforting doctrine, as it says that if the House of Commons passes bad laws, that is good enough, as long as we know that we will return to them within 12 months? Does he accept that it would be far better if the House of Commons and the other place had time to consider the Bill carefully before it gets on to the statute book, and not after we have discovered that. as too frequently happens these days, we have made a pig's ear of it?
  Mr. Letwin: Of course, it would be better if we had more time now. However, I suspect that the hon. Lady would agree that the time needed to scrutinise the Bill in detail is not simply an extra couple of days. If that were the case, I am sure that the Home Secretary would give way to the argument. The problem is that consultation on a wide range of measures has been inadequate because of time. The Home Secretary believes that he needs powers now to protect us against a potential appalling attack on our fellow citizens. I am unwilling on behalf of my party to put my country at the risk of the Home Secretary being proved right. I am therefore willing in that exceptional case to accept the argument that we should reconsider the matter later.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I could not let that go. My hon. Friend's approach to the Home Secretary is sympathetic and could almost be described as osmosis. Although that may be admirable, let us consider part 12, which covers bribery and corruption. What is so urgent that it needs those provisions? What arises from 11 September that requires them?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right. Part 12 is not an emergency measure. For a long time, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have called for legislation on bribery and corruption to implement our obligations under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention. I accept that the inclusion of the provisions constitutes an inelegance. However, it would be difficult for my party to oppose it given that we called for it.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the way in which the shadow Home Secretary expresses his genuine disagreements. I believe that the Conservative spokesman for international development suggested that the Bill would be a suitable vehicle for the provisions in part 12. I accepted that, given that it affects the OECD and the financial implications that the Chancellor tackled in Ottawa yesterday. The United States has said that it wants precisely such measures to help with anti-terrorist activity.
  Mr. Letwin: I fear that the answer to that intervention is simply yes.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The general approach that the shadow Home Secretary intends to take

  41
  to the Bill has excited a great deal of interest. Looking back at all those who have occupied the office of Home Secretary in the past 14 years, does he believe that it would have been legitimate in every case for Parliament to adopt the principle of "Trust me, I'm the Home Secretary"?
  Mr. Letwin: It is never appropriate to adopt a principle of trusting anybody. Parliament exists not to trust but to scrutinise. I wholly accept that we should be willing to pass legislation at the current pace only in the most exceptional national circumstances. That view has not always been shared by Labour Members.
  However, when the Home Secretary of the day believes that an urgent threat to our national security needs to be resolved but Parliament does not have adequate time to do that through scrutiny, proper sunset clauses are the only way in which to proceed. I hope that there is general agreement on that and that the Home Secretary and members of the Treasury Bench will eventually subscribe to our drastic amendments on sunset clauses.
  Meanwhile, we must not delude ourselves that it is sufficient to express the fears and hesitations that many of us may have about the short time available for scrutiny, or to use them as an excuse to sit back and refuse to carry out the scrutiny that we can in the few days that are available to us. We have tried to begin that scrutiny in the past few days. I shall give three examples of amendments that I believe we shall table jointly with Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that they will command wide support in the House of Commons and the other place.
  Part 3 deals with disclosure and includes strong provisions to increase the amount of disclosure of personal details by Government agencies, including the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. We shall try to limit that. The Bill would permit disclosure under the circumstances of any criminal investigation, including that of a minor offence. We want the provision restricted to terrorist-type offences.
  Part 4 gives a definition of international terrorism that I believe simply contains an error. The response of the Treasury Bench will be interesting. The definition specifically excludes terrorism that is
  "concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom".
  Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the effect of that is that, if someone comes to the UK from a foreign country to engage in the kind of terrorism that is specifically restricted to Northern Ireland, these provisions could not be used against them. That cannot be the intent of the Government, and we would want to see an amendment to that provision.
  My third point relates to the section with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was concerned. Notwithstanding the short time available, we want to carry out what scrutiny we can on the section on bribery and corruption. Clause 106 contains another error. I understand from our legal advisers that the clause as drafted would have the effect of making it a common law offence—indeed, probably an imprisonable one—for a member of Her Majesty's security services to bribe a foreign official to get
  42
  information to stop terrorism in the UK. That cannot be the intent of the clause, and we shall table amendments to cure that.
  Mr. Fisher: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern over the wording of clause 21(2)(c), in which the definition of an international terrorist includes someone who
  "has links with a person who is a member of or belongs to an international terrorist group"?
  When we are taking such extreme powers, is association of that nature—and the way in which it could well be interpreted—really satisfactory?
  Mr. Letwin: I have to admit that, before the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, I had not taken proper note of clause 21(2)(c). I found his arguments compelling, and I shall discuss with my colleagues whether we could table an amendment to try to cure that anomaly too. I agree that there is a problem there, and I suspect that there are other problems lurking in the text of part 4.
  Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that a better way of dealing with that aspect of part 4 would be for the Government to use articles 57 and 58 of the European convention on human rights to gain reservation against article 3, so that those threatening national security could be deported to countries such as, say, the USA and India?
  Mr. Letwin: Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, but I have spent a large amount of time in the last few weeks propagandising for that view. I shall come to that hugely important question in detail in a few moments. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  I turn now to the three major elements of the Bill in which we see large-scale problems, and for which we do not think that scrutiny and detailed correction will suffice. The first relates to clauses 109 and 110, which, as the Home Secretary so helpfully pointed out, relate to the implementation of third pillar decisions by the member states of the EU. The clauses propose that such implementation should occur by statutory instrument.
  The Home Secretary confirmed today what an earlier letter from one of his Ministers had hinted at, namely that it is his intention to implement the framework decisions on counter-terrorism and on the Euro arrest warrants through the forthcoming Extradition Bill, rather than through statutory instruments. We are grateful for that. On account of that, however, clauses 109 and 110 cannot be regarded as urgent. This cannot he regarded as an emergency provision if the very items most closely related to the emergency with which we are dealing are going to be implemented not by statutory instrument under the clauses, but by another route that is already available—primary legislation.
  We have a case, therefore, against including clauses 109 and 110—at least as they are currently drafted—in emergency legislation, and a material case against them in any event. The whole point of the third pillar of the EU is that it gives member states an opportunity to continue to control the vital question of how they are governed from the point of view of their criminal law.
  That is not just a matter of intergovernmentalism. To coin an adaptation of the words of Edith Cavell, intergovernmentalism is not enough. We need a continuing

  43
  parliamentary check, so that it is possible to revise what Ministers in Brussels have decided between them. That is why we want these clauses to be restricted to the very narrow extradition proceedings to which the UK is already committed, and thereafter to lapse, so that we can return, as we believe that we should, to implementing EU third pillar decisions in primary legislation. To give an example, that would mean that with proposals such as the Euro arrest warrant, we would be able to argue for amendment—as we will—so that the Euro arrest warrant related exclusively to terrorism. Such amendment would be possible only under a Bill such as the Extradition Bill. It would not be possible if these clauses remain intact, so we want to excise them in that form.
  Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend do more to emphasise his objection to clause 109? Is not the real objection that, hitherto, primary legislation has been required to put such measures into law? We are being asked to approve by way of emergency legislation, rushed through in two days, a state of affairs in which primary legislation will not be necessary to implement third pillar regulations. That would be done under the affirmative procedure—unamendable at that.
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend teaches me that I am wholly inarticulate. That is precisely what I was trying to say.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that that objection is shared even by those hon. members who are Europhile? It is not acceptable that, using the excuse of emergency legislation, the House should deny itself the opportunity properly to scrutinise what in most cases I would find perfectly acceptable had the House debated it properly.
  Mr. Letwin: I concur with my right hon. Friend. He and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) were members of the Cabinet who gave us the third pillar and part of the point was precisely that the House should retain the right to control those matters by primary legislation. I believe that we should utterly resist including in this emergency legislation provisions that deny the House that right. So, incidentally, does the Home Affairs Committee. As in other areas, there is a distinct congruence of the views of Conservative Members and the Committee, which has in its ranks a majority of Labour Members.
  Mr. Shepherd: I must reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Under title 6 of the European Union treaty, which deals with home affairs and some police matters in co-operative terms, primary legislation must be used.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right, and that is a strong point.
  Part 5 contains clauses that largely relate to incitement to religious hatred. I put it on record that Conservative Members recognise that the Home Secretary has a noble motive in introducing them. He wants, as we want and as every Member of the House wants, to protect vulnerable religious communities. That is not an issue. Moreover, he has included clause 39, which makes it an aggravated
  44
  offence to engage for religious reasons in an act that is anyway an offence. We are more than happy to subscribe to that clause.
  We see a genuine distinction between an evil and illegal act committed by an individual for ulterior motives and such an act committed for religious reasons. The difference is that sectarian strife can ensue if the motive is religious. That is a consequence for society worse than even the offence itself. Therefore, just as with a racially aggravated offence, we see an argument for a religiously aggravated one. There we are at one with the Government.
  I fear that we have the severest reservations about the rest of part 5—all those clauses that deal with incitement to religious hatred and the definitions that flow from it. In the first place, we are worried about including such provisions in emergency legislation. These are immensely delicate issues and there are huge questions of freedom of speech, some of which my hon. Friends and Labour Members have already raised.
  I do not know, and I suspect that Ministers do not know, what will be the true extent of the legislation's effects. No clear answer was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk. Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he asked whether the Member who has called the Pope an anti-Christ would be affected. I do not know whether he would be affected. I do not want to subscribe to legislation that could have effects on free speech that none of us in the House knows.
  Mr. Gummer: May I put another case to my hon. Friend? If a religious group allows its children to die because it does not accept blood transfusions, and if I drew that to the attention of others, they might well be very angry about the death of the children. Would I be breaking the law in making a direct connection between the religious beliefs of that group, and the deaths that result? If so, it means that I cannot properly argue the case in this country in future.
  Mr. Letwin: I do not entirely know, and what worries me is that I am not certain that the Home Secretary has fully fathomed the answer. Earlier, in response to a question, he said that what had to be shown under sections 18 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986—which are the relevant sections—was that the defendant intended to stir up religious hatred and that, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up. It is not so. The word "intends" in section 18(1)(a) is governed by what follows—the word "or" followed by
  "(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up".
  There is all the difference in the world between those two little words "and" and "or".
  I am sure that, under the "and" clause, my right hon. Friend's hypothesis would be unfulfilled—I am sure it would not be the case that he had intended to stir up racial or, in this instance, religious hatred. But whether, having regard to all the circumstances, religious hatred would be likely to be stirred up by such a statement, I do not fully know—and I do not believe Members will know unless and until judges make decisions.
  Mr. David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend consider a work that was without doubt hurtful, even

  45
  hateful, to members of a particular religion, and indeed led to disorder on the streets of this country? I refer to "The Satanic Verses".
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend brings me to the second of my deep concerns about clause 39.
  We stand at a very difficult moment for the country, for reasons that the Home Secretary rightly adduces. We are potentially under attack; but this is also a difficult moment because relationships between the Muslim community and the remainder of our citizens are tense. That is acknowledged on both sides, and the Home Secretary and I share an earnest desire for the tensions not to be aggravated.
  The Home Secretary rightly said that a piece of legislation of this kind could and would apply to Muslims, as to all our fellow citizens. That is how our law operates: it is blind to the persons with whom it is dealing. My hon. Friend, however, has raised a vital question. It can be replicated in many other ways. We must ask whether the editor of The Muslim News will find that he or some of his writers are under threat. Will Muslims feel that the use of this law against them at this time might have deleterious consequences?
  We are dealing with a matter of great delicacy. It deserves to be part of a considered debate featuring wide consultation and deep thought over a prolonged period, and very probably allied to the resolving of the whole question of religious discrimination, which is the item that most worries most religious minorities. We firmly believe that it would be far better to remove these clauses, and to leave the Bill to concern itself with items that are genuinely to do with terrorism—this is not such an item—so that we can return later to consider, properly and deliberately, the question of religious discrimination and all the attendant questions.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman support my amendment to delete these clauses entirely—including clause 39—so that they can be given the careful attention that he has recommended?
  Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I raised the matter with the Home Secretary in the House a couple of weeks ago, he expressed complete incomprehension in regard to claims made by me at that time, and made today by, for instance, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)?
  Mr. Letwin: Although we could argue about clause 39, on religiously aggravated offences, I go along with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's view. I think that it is extremely significant that the Home Affairs Select Committee has taken the view that
  "We have not seen sufficient evidence to justify the proposition that extending the law of incitement to include religious as well as racial hatred will work in practice…We therefore see no reason for this measure to be included in this emergency Terrorism Bill."
  I hope that the Home Secretary will heed those remarks from a source that is not partisan and that he will see fit to withdraw those clauses.
  Simon Hughes: It may be helpful for the hon. Gentleman to have confirmation that, having talked to the
  46
  Christian and other faith communities, we believe that the strong preference of all faith communities is the one that has been expressed by him and by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). The faith communities believe that we should legislate carefully and separately on the issue and that we should not mix debates on terrorism with those on how we protect people's faith and their right to criticise faith. That view should be a support for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. It is also held by a very large coalition which I detect may find favour in a few days in the other place.
  Mr. Letwin: I wholly agree with that, and our soundings among the same communities have produced the same results. I also think that the hon. Gentleman has, by allusion, made an enormously important point. To confuse protection of any minority, but particularly Muslim minorities, with counter-terrorism is itself to make an elision that is dangerous in the current circumstances. Muslims are not, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have freely and frequently acknowledged, terrorists. Muslims are Muslims—they are from a religion—and terrorists are terrorists. We do not want to be discussing the one in the same breath as the other.
  Part 4 contains the internment clauses which have caused most of the scintillating debate today. If these clauses are to remain in the Bill—in a moment I shall give the reasons why I believe that there is a much better route to use than that type of internment—they will need amendment. However, I think that the Home Secretary may have started to move in directions that are welcomed by Opposition Members.
  Clause 21(1)(a) currently requires the Home Secretary merely to believe that the person in question who is to be interned is a risk to national security. In the context of that inevitably draconian power, there should surely be at least a requirement for substantial grounds for belief. I think that that chimes with the Home Secretary's welcome statement earlier today that there would be some form of reasonableness constraint. I should like a reasonableness constraint allied to substantial grounds.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that desirable though such provision may very well be, and although such provision may well be included in the Bill, if judicial review remained—and there seems to be absolutely no reason why it should not remain—the divisional court would import a question of reasonableness into the test in any event?
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. and learned Gentleman moves me on to my next point, on judicial review. Perhaps unlike him, I sympathise with the Home Secretary's desire to exclude from consideration by judicial review the decision made by the Home Secretary himself.
  Mr. Hogg: On the merits.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes. I believe that the Home Secretary fears that, if the merits of his decision are subject to

  47
  judicial review, the merits will be subject to judicial opinion. He believes, and I have some sympathy with this line of thought, that it is the Home Secretary of the day—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
  Mr. Letwin: I promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if he can contain himself, I am about to make a point that will fully expose my view. Then I shall be happy to enter debate with him.
  The Home Secretary believes that it is the Home Secretary of the day, in the democratically elected and accountable Government, who should decide, on the merits of the case, whether the individual concerned is a danger to our national security. I can sympathise with that view, although with the profoundest doubts and hesitations.
  However, I cannot sympathise with the further leap that the current text takes, of entirely excluding judicial review. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission was set up not for the purpose of determining whether a person should be detained indefinitely, but for other and lesser purposes. Although, as the Home Secretary rightly says, that body was originally established with a view, de facto, to reviewing judicially decisions made by the Home Secretary, it is not constituted in a manner that gives sufficient assurance that by itself it will always act properly.
  The Lord Chancellor sets out the rules for that body, and we want at least an amendment that makes it possible to test by judicial review whether the body followed its own rules. That must be the absolute bare minimum of procedural constraint. To take a ludicrous example—
  Mr. Blunkett: I should hate the hon. Gentleman to embark on a ludicrous example before I was able to challenge him on a less ludicrous one. Surely the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and, if given leave, to the House of Lords on a point of law is itself a point of law relating to whether the SIAC process has been observed properly by the High Court judge and those sitting with him.
  Mr. Letwin: No. I have taken legal advice on the matter—as, obviously, has the Home Secretary—and we shall argue it out in Committee. As I understand it, an appeal on a point of law would not lie if there was a procedural irregularity in the conduct of SIAC. To take what I hope is a ludicrous example—although it has happened in English courts—if the person presiding over the commission on a given occasion were asleep during its proceedings, I understand that the Home Secretary would debar legal review of the decision to put someone into an English jail indefinitely, notwithstanding the fact that the person presiding was asleep. That needs reviewing.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I say, slightly painfully, that in this respect I agree entirely with the Home Secretary? That would be a matter of law, and would clearly be covered. The real problem surely relates to an attack on the merits, on which a Minister decides, on the basis that someone will be incarcerated indefinitely. For that not to be reviewable is abhorrent. Does the hon.
  48
  Gentleman not understand that in judicially reviewing a Minister's decision, the divisional court does not say whether it agrees or disagrees with the Minister? It must find that no reasonable Minister would have come to that conclusion. In my experience that has always been so: I cannot think of a single case in which the divisional court has not dutifully followed that principle.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, to which we shall attend and, perhaps, return in Committee. The question is whether the judicial review might be restricted to a kind of reasonableness that genuinely does not seek to judge whether the Home Secretary was right. That elision increasingly worries Members on both sides of the House. If the definition could be genuinely restricted to the case of reasonableness as it was originally understood, Opposition Members would have considerable sympathy for such an amendment.
  Mr. Hogg: I understand why my hon. Friend is reluctant to subject to judicial control the Home Secretary's decision about whether someone is likely to be a threat to national security. That is a qualitative judgment and is difficult to make, and therefore rather difficult to subject to appeal. The question whether someone is associated with a terrorist organisation, or whether reasonable grounds exist to suspect that he or she is, is ultimately a matter of fact. I put it to my hon. Friend that there is a strong case for that issue to be the subject of an appeal and review procedure.
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend makes another important point, and I am more than prepared to consider that, too, in the 24 hours that are available to us. We may return to it in Committee. Indeed, I have no doubt that he will want to return to it in Committee, by which time we may be willing to support him.
  Mr. McNamara: Those are all very fine legal points and distinctions, but for many of us the important question is whether the person who is to be incarcerated should know the reasons and evidence on which that incarceration will rely. We are saying that we will have to depend on the good faith of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, but there have been other Home Secretaries, in other circumstances, whose objectivity has been more coloured by the need to retain popular support than by the interests of justice and the individual. It is because we believe that a person should know the evidence that is being used to justify his incarceration that we object to this part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman takes us beyond the question of the process to be used and advances an argument against part 4 as a whole. There I leave him, because the Home Secretary and the Government do not currently have a viable alternative. They should develop such an alternative, which returns us to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham a moment ago.
  Mr. Garnier: It surely is not beyond the wit of the Home Secretary, or of man generally, to come up with a process that can accommodate the protection of the rights

  49
  of the individual subject to the detention order and the necessary requirements of the secret services to protect their sources of information. Those are both proper things to want to protect, so surely, between the 659 of us, we can devise a process that would achieve both aims.
  Mr. Letwin: I agree that it ought not to be beyond the wit of the House—and the other place, which may have a large role to play—to devise such a balance in part 4. That should be our primary purpose in Committee and it should be the primary purpose of the other place. I hope that we will devise such a scheme and amend the Bill accordingly. If we are unable to do so, a drastic revision after a year may enable us to correct what we have been unable to get right now. Between those two possibilities, I hope that we will get nearer to having a part 4 with which we feel more comfortable.
  We cannot ever feel wholly comfortable with part 4 because it poses two difficulties. The first, which concerns some Labour Members and some of my hon. Friends, is that each time we intern people—under whatever procedure—indefinitely and without a full trial, we create another precedent that, in the long run after an accumulation of precedents, may prove dangerous to our liberties. That is a worry. Secondly, and ironically, we may cause a risk to our society. The Home Secretary rightly seeks to protect British citizens from attack by means of the Bill, but if people connected with terrorism are interned without trial in our jails, that may be a potential cause of their friends, relations, allies and compatriots taking action from the outside to seek to liberate them through hostage taking, reprisals or other measures. Will the Bill impose an additional risk on us?
  For those reasons—the reason of precedent, which every hon. Member takes seriously, and the reason of increased risk—we should have a viable alternative to putting people in jail indefinitely. In my opinion, there is a viable alternative because the Home Secretary is in an unusual position. Most of our predecessors would have found it astonishing to be told that a British Home Secretary who had serious grounds for believing that an individual posed a threat to the stability of our society and the safety of our population was unable to prevent that individual from entering the country. That is indeed an astonishing state of affairs. It is yet more astonishing that on discovering that such an individual is in this country, the Home Secretary is unable to remove him. He is unable to do those things not because of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which is often cited, but because of what the judges have decided in cases such as Chahal and Soering, which was not part of the original intention of the drafting of article 3.
  The original statements that gave rise to the convention make it abundantly clear that the intention was to make it impossible for a country that subscribed to the convention to engage in inhuman or degrading treatment of its citizens or anyone else in its country—something to which I wholly subscribe. The judges extended that doctrine so that it was impossible for the Home Secretary's predecessor—a man whose politics I do not share but who is, by any standards, a reasonable man—to remove to India, which is not in a state of barbarism but has a proper legal system, two individuals whom he conscientiously judged to be a risk to this country. That strikes me and my right hon. and hon. Friends as absurd.
  50
  The Home Secretary has today helped enormously to take the debate forward in a constructive fashion by reinforcing the very point to which we have been trying to draw attention. Under articles 57 and 58 of the European convention on human rights, it is clearly possible—we have taken formal legal opinion on this and no doubt the Home Secretary has employed half the English Bar to consider it—to engage in an inelegant manoeuvre to remove ourselves from the convention for a millisecond and re-enter with a reservation, parallel to, though much more restrictive than, the reservation that the French have entered in respect of national emergency. That would enable the Home Secretary to have two weapons at his disposal. I think that the one to prevent entry or remove the person in question will be used more often.
  In the extreme circumstance that someone would be sent back to a most ghastly death and the Home Secretary judged that the risk to this country of interning him would not be so great as to make even that tolerable, then it is reasonable, I think—just, and with my heart sinking—for the right hon. Gentleman to put that person in indefinite detention, at least until the country in question becomes reasonable enough for him to return that person there. Instead, the Home Secretary is creating a situation in which he is willing to put at some risk our civil liberty precedents and our safety, as far as reprisals are concerned, simply to avoid that inelegance. I find that astonishing.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this state of affairs and take action. I do not believe that primary legislation is required at this stage. Oddly enough, in the Human Rights Act 1998, the same provisions apply to reservations subsequent as to derogations subsequent. The same kind of order that we will be debating later could apply to reservations. The Home Secretary could take action without any significant primary legislation being necessary in the short term. I hope that he will look again at the question and spare many of us the great anxieties to which part 4 gives rise by providing himself with a proper viable alternative.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman's word "inelegant" is an elegant way of describing sending people back to countries where they might be killed, tortured, subject to inhuman treatment or the target of American bombs. The statements of the leaders of the United States make it clear that countries that take into their territories people even suspected of terrorism will be legitimate targets. The hon. Gentleman is not asking my right hon. Friend to do that, is he?
  Mr. Letwin: We are talking about a fine balance. I respect the hon. Gentleman's pure position. However, does he really believe that the fact that someone comes from what, by our standards, is an unpleasant country—even if it has a perfectly proper judicial system—justifies us opening ourselves to the possibility of an appalling attack on our fellow citizens? The logic of his twin attack on part 4 and on my alternative is that the Home Secretary exposes us to that very risk. I am struggling to preserve so far as possible the fabric of our liberties while giving the Home Secretary the greatest possible scope to protect our public safety. It is that twin act—not so pure, but desperately important—in which we as a Parliament must try to engage.
  Mr. McNamara: On that basis, we should never have taken into our country any refugees who were Jews,

  51
  because they were likely to be followed by German Nazi persecution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. In the words that he used to describe the countries to which people were being sent, he also supports and strengthens the case being made by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Letwin: My mother-in-law left Germany in 1939. Her entire family was wiped out. I am rather grateful that this country received her because it gave me my wife. If she had come here with the intention of blowing up Londoners I do not think that she should have been let in. That is the argument I am making. I am not making it because I do not care about refugees: I do—passionately. I am making it because the Home Secretary has to balance our protection against the protection of individuals who are seeking entry. That seems a rational position.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a great inelegance because in the present circumstances we are saying to countries such as India, which have become independent, that we do not trust them as they should be trusted? We are thus taking a view that they must find immensely offensive. I do not understand why those who are most enthusiastically anti-imperialist should take upon themselves a role that they would not adopt in any other circumstances.
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend is unequivocally right. The case of India shows his point clearly. Let me take him one step further: if Mr. bin Laden were not to be apprehended and eliminated by British troops currently trying to kill him—as I understand it—but were to make his way to the UK and to say to the Home Secretary's officials that he was claiming asylum, not only would they have to admit him to this country but it would be impossible subsequently to extradite him to the United States if the Americans insisted on applying the death penalty to him. British troops may hunt someone down to kill him abroad, but if he enters this country we cannot return him to sit on death row in the United States—irrationality!
  Mr. Blunkett: In case anyone should think of writing that up as a tremendous debating point, I make it clear that we have had an extradition agreement with the United States since 1974. We understand precisely where we are on that. It was not the Government but the courts who judged that we should not extradite or remove to India, so we come full circle: the hon. Gentleman is deciding—is he not?—not simply that we should disavow but that we should have to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. That is what he is saying.
  Mr. Letwin: To repeat: the opinion we have obtained suggests that it would be perfectly possible to withdraw for a millisecond and to re-accede with a reservation. However, the Home Secretary has made an extremely odd point. Our treaty and understandings with the United States rely on the American states to which we are extraditing individuals not applying the death penalty. If an American state or the federal Government insist on applying the death penalty, I cannot understand how it can be right to refuse to extradite a gentleman whom we are trying to kill elsewhere. That is irrational.
  52
  I have spoken for too long, for which I apologise to the House. I have done so mostly because I have tried to answer a number of interventions, as the Home Secretary did on a much more magnificent scale. I hope that, in the succeeding few hours, we shall have a calm but effective debate on the detail of the Bill, which poses fundamental issues for our liberties and safety. I hope that in Committee, in this House and in the other, we shall make changes that will make the Bill not perfect—we cannot hope to do that with this rush—but at least better. Finally, I hope that, in a year and in two, three and four years from now, Parliament will have the chance to reconsider the provisions and to decide how many of them are really necessary and how many need further amendment. If we can achieve that in Committee, in this House and in the other, Parliament will have done its job.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches?
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I do not suppose that any hon. Member welcomes this Bill because we all regret the circumstances that have made it necessary. We wish that there was not a growing threat of terrorism and growing evidence of people provoking and inciting racial hatred and discrimination, but, sadly, there is. We face a dilemma: we are presented with emergency legislation, but we have to recognise that these laws are likely to have to remain in place for many a long year and that they might be strengthened and amended later to combat the threat of terrorism.
  Attempting to curb terrorism will be a long process, but we have a duty to protect our law-abiding fellow citizens going about their business or, for that matter, going about their pleasure, and we also have to make a measured response. We must always bear it in mind that one of the objectives of terrorism has been, is now and will be to get us to conspire with the terrorists to bring our valued institutions into disrepute and to get us unnecessarily to erode our democratic standards, so we must be very careful.
  The Home Secretary has had a very difficult job in attempting to strike a balance. Broadly speaking, he has got it about right, although hon. Members on both sides of the House have many detailed criticisms. However, I hope that, in the spirit that has been embodied in virtually all the contributions, he will listen to the points that have been made and consider additional safeguards where they can be provided without undermining the general strength of what he is trying to do.
  I want to concentrate on the proposal to make incitement to religious hatred a crime in the same way that incitement to racial hatred is a crime. That proposal seems to have provoked a great deal of adverse comment from the commentariat in the newspapers, hardly any of which seems to have addressed the background to the proposal.
  The proposal has been introduced because Muslims have been victims of religious hatred and discrimination not just since the murderous events in New York and Washington, but for years. Muslim mothers collecting children from primary schools have been abused and assaulted. Muslim homes have been stoned and fire

  53
  bombed. Well-qualified Muslim young people have been denied the jobs that they expected to get. All that has happened because of religious hatred and discrimination, yet Muslims have been denied some of the protection that is rightly afforded to other groups.
  Incitement to racial hatred and discrimination has been unlawful since 1965, and most of the arguments now being put against making incitement to religious hatred and discrimination unlawful are exactly the same as those put in the 1960s. The problem is that the racial hatred laws cover some religious groups—for example, Sikhs and Jews—where religion and ethnicity coincide, but that is not the case with Muslims. Muslims, if they are a group at all, are a religious group, not an ethnic grouping. Devout Muslims feel resentment because they know that the blasphemy laws do not cover their religion.
  I support the proposal to outlaw incitement to religious hatred. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, the scope has been limited so it does not pose a substantial threat to freedom of speech. I agree that it will be hard to enforce—the law against incitement to racial hatred has been difficult to enforce—but it is not impossible.
  We must remember that the law is declaratory. Making incitement to racial hatred discriminatory and unlawful changed society's view of the awful things that had gone on in the past. The law declared that such incitement was wrong and at the moment we are not declaring that incitement to religious hatred and discrimination is wrong. I believe in equality before the law, so I am glad that the Home Secretary accepted our argument that the proposed change in the law should apply to people of any religious belief.
  The law should also protect people of no religious belief, because 40 to 45 per cent. of the population of this country—and I am one of them—subscribe to no religious belief. Atheists and agnostics are just as entitled as anyone else to protection against fanatics having a go at them. We should all be equal before the law. We need to right a wrong against Muslims and I believe that this change will do that.
  As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the change will have two effects on the Muslim community. It will protect them from attack, and also constrain immoderate attacks by some of them, which is only right and proper. Equality before the law is what we believe in.
  If we pass this measure, it will remove the last fig-leaf of legitimacy for the present law on blasphemy. As long ago as 1949, Lord Denning described it as a "dead letter". In 1967, Parliament repealed the Blasphemy Act 1697 and in 1985 the Law Commission recommended—and no wonder—that the common law offence of blasphemy should be abolished. It has never been clearly defined. People may commit a crime without knowing that they are doing so. Despite that, there is strict liability, so if people commit a crime they may be guilty even if they never intended to cause offence in either sense of the word.
  The last time that the courts considered the matter in 1991, it was decided that not Christianity but only the Church of England was covered. That relied on the summing up of a judge in Gathercole's case at the York summer assizes in 1838. I am proud of my native city and its contribution to English history, but that is ridiculous.
  54
  There is no reason why any religion should require special protection over and above what the Bill intends to provide.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I am afraid I do not have time.
  I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury and others have objected on the grounds that the change might lead to things being said that cause offence to people of deeply held religious beliefs. Deeply held religious beliefs are not a monopoly of the Church of England. Roman Catholics, Quakers, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs all have deeply held religious beliefs and have no protection at all from blasphemy. Although I am not a believer, I recognise their deeply held beliefs and I do not believe that the Church of England is in such a bad state that it needs some special measures. As my right hon. Friend knows from his experience as Secretary of State for Education and Employment, special measures are usually an indication of real trouble.
  I have tabled an amendment, which I understand that my right hon. Friend favours. It was drafted by the Law Commission and comprises just 84 words to amend a Bill of 114 closely printed pages. I hope that he will ignore his officials and, if the Archbishop of Canterbury has objected, that he will ignore him. The Church of England should learn to stand on its own feet.
  I am reminded of a glorious episode—and I mean that—in the history of the Church of England when Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were being got at by Catholic theologians. It was said that Cranmer leant upon Master Latimer in the argument, Master Latimer leant upon Master Ridley and Master Ridley leant upon the singularity of his own wit. People in the Church of England should now lean upon the singularity of their own wit and look after themselves. They do not need the state to protect them.
  5.45 pm
  Simon Hughes: Although the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and I differ in our faith, or lack of it—I am a member of the Anglican Church—my party and I share his view that it is nonsense to protect a denomination of one faith in a way that other faiths and other denominations of the Christian faith are not protected.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: One more sentence; it is an early intervention.
  My party believes—in this respect, I share the Home Secretary's view—that it is better to legislate on this matter in the context of other changes in faith legislation, with slightly more time given to them after we have dealt with the emergency provisions that make up the principal part of the Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: I am tempted to mention early birds and worms.
  Surely the point is simple: the law of blasphemy may be bad, but we should not replace it with another bad law.
  Simon Hughes: That is certainly part of our case. I shall return to the argument that, when we legislate on

  55
  faith, freedom of speech and so on, we need to be careful to consider whether we can do it reasonably in a total of two or three hours in the House of Commons, because it will be almost incredible if we can. To think that Parliament as a whole can do it in a couple of weeks is certainly incredible, and we will be in big trouble if we try, because we will be doing a disservice to members of all faiths and because it will be disrespectful. I hope that we can agree on the process even if we have different views—as there are in all parties—about the laws that we should have.
  On a more formal note, I thank the Home Secretary, his ministerial team and their officials for the courtesy that they have shown to me, my colleagues and, I believe, Conservative Members in trying to keep us abreast of the preparation of the legislation before it came into the public domain last week. We may disagree—as we do—about some of its elements and about the process, but on the matter of personal political co-operation, I hope that the three main parties have behaved as efficiently as possible given that the Government have an army of civil servants and all the cards at the beginning, and the Opposition parties do their best with the cards that they are dealt at the end. We have also tried to work co-operatively and intelligently with the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his team, so that the politicians disagree only when we really disagree and do not spend time engaging in artificial disagreements when there is little between us.
  Mr. Letwin: May I take this opportunity to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks? I, too, thank Ministers for now distributing early versions of their amendments to us for consideration. They are gratefully received. I hope that the Bill will be an example of scrutiny in opposition, with the Opposition parties working together in co-operation in a way that does service to the nation.
  Simon Hughes: That is the formalities over. It is important that we send people the message that we are trying to be adult and responsible politicians as we deal with difficult matters in difficult times.
  Liberal Democrats share with all other responsible community leaders the view that exceptional times sometimes need exceptional measures. The 11 September attack was an exceptional attack and, since then, people have been trying to come to terms with exceptional new realities. There has been a severe element of terrorism in the world, the likes of which we have never seen before. We accept that there is a terrorist threat to this country, although its extent is probably better known to Ministers than to hon. Members generally. For those reasons, as Ministers and the House know, we have supported the international diplomatic, humanitarian and military coalition abroad. We may have had some nuances of difference and differences of emphasis, but we realised, and were prepared to say publicly, that we knew that something had to be done.
  This debate, however, is not about what we do abroad; today's questions relate to what we do at home. Are the United Kingdom's laws sufficient to deal with the threat, or do they need to be strengthened because we did not foresee the provisions that we would need?
  56
  I remind colleagues that only a year ago we passed the Terrorism Act 2000, and only a little earlier we passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Those two major Acts give the state considerable new powers, and before we legislate further we should consider whether those are not enough.
  We are all seeking to ensure that we get the balance right between the powers that the state properly needs in exceptional times and the liberties that people should have whatever situation we are in. That is self-evidently important because we have no written constitution. With some exceptions, Parliament is supreme, so we have a particular job to do. If, for example, we deny people the opportunity to go to court to have a decision of the Executive investigated, there is no place to which they can turn for a remedy.
  There are two fundamental justifications for the Bill. The first is that we need additional powers to deal with terrorists, and the second is that we need an emergency timetable to put those powers into statute within days. However, the problem is that the Bill deals not only with national and international terrorism but with many other matters. Liberal Democrats' first objection is that if we are to be asked to legislate in haste to deal with terrorism, we should do just that, and not tackle matters that are in the Government's queue for action or that it will be convenient to append to this already significant project.
  When the Home Secretary was asked why the Bill contains phrases such as "any other criminal offence," he said, in a telling response, that it is because the offences cannot be separated out. That is not the argument that we heard from his colleagues last year when we legislated on terrorist offences. If we are trying to deal with terrorism, as much of the Bill does, we should limit the legislation to that because it gives the state particular additional powers. Other, less serious, crime should not be dealt with in the same way, and there should be no general removal of rights from the defendant or suspect.
  Our second objection, which has also been voiced by Conservative Front Benchers, is that time limits are imposed at only two points in the Bill. There is a time limit on the opt-out from article 5 of the European convention on human rights and a possible time limit on some of the powers on data regulation in part 11. Like the Conservatives, we say clearly to the Government that unless, by the time the Bill leaves Committee, it contains general provisions requiring us to legislate again when we have time to do so properly, it will not be acceptable. There is a precedent for such legislation—we have introduced emergency powers for Northern Ireland, as many colleagues know well. In that case, there was not only an annual renewal provision but a requirement for Parliament to re-enact legislation to make sure that what was done in haste was considered more carefully later on.
  I need not remind hon. Members that history tells us that legislation rushed into statute for a short period often remains in place for a very long time, and legislation pushed through the House quickly is often very poor. I shall give a minor example. At 4.30 pm my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) went to a delegated legislation Committee dealing with a Home Office measure on the rehabilitation of offenders in England and Wales. From the fact that the Committee had to be adjourned because the measure was not accurately or adequately drafted, we can see the need to get our legislation right. With the greatest respect to the

  57
  members of that Committee, this Bill is much more wide-ranging and much more dangerous in its implications than that statutory instrument, and we need to learn the lesson.
  We welcome the omission from the Bill of two provisions that were talked about and, in one case, even announced. We welcome the fact that the provision for additional sentencing powers for what are colloquially called "anthrax hoaxes" is not retrospective, because that would have been quite wrong. We are grateful that Ministers heard the opposition to that idea and decided not to proceed. Secondly, in his statement of 15 October, the Home Secretary suggested that there might be a general conspiracy law. That is not included, which is welcome news.
  I can be very brief about the bulk of the Bill. There are generally good things in eight of its 14 parts. Parts 1 and 2, which deal with the proceeds of crime, terrorist property and freezing orders, are by and large acceptable. My only comment today is that they should logically be part of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is in Committee at the moment. I hope that, by the time this Bill has passed through the House, those provisions will be more correctly located with their parent legislation.
  Without going into detail, parts 6, 7, 8 and 9 contain measures that the House wants to put into statute. It is obvious, for example, that we ought to be improving aviation security, so we welcome and support those measures.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that we welcome and support those measures, and he may be right, but does he agree that the process that we have embarked on should enable us to consider them properly and in detail?
  Simon Hughes: I thoroughly agree. Those parts of the Bill seem to be related to terrorism, so they pass the first test, but we will not be given the opportunity to consider them in detail, so they do not pass the second test. That is why I hope that, whatever view the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes on other matters, he will join us in voting against the programme motion later.
  Mr. Hogg: And the Bill itself.
  Simon Hughes: I shall come to the Bill. We cannot begin to deal with those provisions in the two Committee days that are to be allocated. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, a maximum of 16 hours' consideration of a Bill of this size is not possible or justifiable, however exceptional the circumstances.
  My comments on the two remaining parts are less controversial. The bribery and corruption measures in part 12, to which we may table detailed amendments, have been included only as an exception to the rule. There was agreement between the three main parties that those measures were not controversial because everybody had argued for them and they were potentially linked to terrorism. Part 14 makes general provision.
  So much for agreement—it does not apply to the rest of the Bill. Parts 3 and 11 deal with very important matters concerning the rights of the state to interfere in communications, to find out what communications, technological or otherwise, are passing between people and to require people in the communications industry to
  58
  hold on to that information for much longer. We have only just legislated in that area. If we need more powers, they should be strictly limited to matters to do with terrorism, and they should be much more narrowly drawn. We shall seek to amend parts 3 and 11 to that effect.
  Part 10 relates to police powers. We are told that there will be a police Bill later this Session, so we could reasonably expect those powers to be introduced in that. I ask the House to take care and to seek much more satisfactory answers about two measures in particular before it agrees to them. The first is the power enabling the police to require somebody to remove coverings that they are wearing, even when they have not been arrested or taken into custody. Somebody could be wearing a hood on their way to a football match; they could be taking part in a demonstration on globalisation issues; or they could be wearing a piece of clothing traditional to their culture. It is dangerous to propose seeking powers to identify people before they are believed to have done anything wrong and when there has been no arrest for suspicion an offence. I hope that in due course we can remove that provision from the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: What about somebody wearing a balaclava in a crowd throwing pipe bombs?
  Simon Hughes: If they are suspected of committing an offence, they can be arrested and dealt with in the normal way. I understand what the issue is and that it is a matter for debate, but we cannot debate it properly in two days.
  The second controversial area relates to whether the Ministry of Defence police and the transport police should have jurisdiction outside their natural territory. Such a provision is left over from the Armed Forces Act 2001. It was got rid of before the election, but is now being reintroduced. Colleagues all over the country, both north and south of the border, have serious concerns about the tight control of policing of non-specialist parts of the country other than by conventional territorial police. Clearly, we seek change on that.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, although he accepts a small number of clauses relating directly to the current emergency, almost two thirds of them, which he has carefully enumerated, are not acceptable to him or his party? If that is the case, will he give an undertaking that he will oppose the Bill?
  Simon Hughes: I was going to deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Actually, I am a lady.
  Simon Hughes: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. No one could fail to recognise that she is a lady, unless they were momentarily inattentive; I apologise again.
  I have tried to make it clear that eight parts of the Bill seem to relate to terrorism. Six parts either do not relate to the subject or go much wider than we would wish. In a second, I shall explain how we propose to deal with that, both today and in the days ahead. Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] I have a defence, as the occupant

  59
  of the Chair has just changed, unlike the sex of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), which is well known to be permanent.
  I shall move on to race and religion, which may be safer than gender and sex. Liberal Democrat Members have made the point that the Bill includes perfectly reasonable propositions to remove the blasphemy law which applies only to the Church of England; we support that and have long argued for it. We have long subscribed to the need for an equality Bill, which treats all faiths equally. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made the point that race relations legislation does not protect all faiths equally.
  The Bill makes specific proposals both on incitement to religious hatred and on aggravated offences. I hope that I have made clear our view that we ought not to legislate on such sensitive areas now; incitement to religious hatred comes into that category. If the House is minded to deal with the much easier matter of accepting the aggravated offence of religious hatred and sentencing on it, we ought to follow the proposal of the Scottish Executive, which was put to the Scottish Parliament last week, to consult more widely and relatively quickly on religious incitement but to legislate separately. The Scots are not buying into that aspect of the legislation; I hope that the United Kingdom Parliament will not buy into it either. If we are trying to make sure that community relations improve as a result of the crisis of the past two months, we need to ensure that we do not act in ways that would make it more likely that they worsened.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a substantial number of Muslim people have been asking for equality before the law for years—so long, for instance, that the Law Commission's 1985 report on blasphemy canvassed the idea of an offence of creating religious hatred? Although it is convenient to include such a provision in the Bill, it can scarcely be regarded as a rush to judgment. The hon. Gentleman may have talked to religious groups that find it surprising that it has now been thought of, but they were consulted in the past, as the House has discussed it before.
  Simon Hughes: That is certainly true, but those groups also say clearly that they would rather have an equality Bill that dealt with all matters of faith, as the Government promised in the last Parliament. We were waiting for a report from the university of Derby, which has now been published, and the Government said that they would introduce such a Bill. Many groups, and the Liberal Democrats, believe that it would be much better to pursue that option.
  Part 13 deals with the third pillar proposal. Even though our party is supportive of a European jurisdiction, I share the view that we ought to have primary legislation on important and wide-ranging measures, even if they have their genesis in the European Union. The Secretary of State is justified in seeking a short debate and the right to introduce statutory instruments only in relation to
  60
  measures that cannot wait until beyond the end of the year because they are time-limited by an EU agreement and are connected to terrorism and related issues.
  Mr. Blunkett: They are.
  Simon Hughes: Those are the only things that ought to be introduced now. The conclusion to be drawn from what the Home Secretary just said is that we may be able to limit this part of the Bill to those matters. If so, he will find much more widespread support in the House.
  Part 4 raises one major issue that has already been touched on and two others, including the process of dealing with asylum applications. The Bill suggests that somebody can be turned away before their application is considered, against the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It also introduces the power to keep asylum seekers' fingerprints indefinitely, which is not right. In addition, there is the issue of how we deal not just with people who are suspected of terrorism but, as was pointed out earlier, with individuals who could be linked to terrorism—a much more remote proposition—and therefore detained under the proposals. Theoretically, under one derogation, people could be detained for up to five years, although with six-monthly reviews.
  We should improve the procedure significantly; we should improve the rights of representation on appeal and throughout the process; we should improve people's opportunity to have their case reviewed, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, according to both facts and law, and allow more frequent reviews. The key point is that the House should not agree to take away the rights of the courts to hold the Executive, tribunals and Ministers alike to account. That is almost unprecedented; it is entirely unjustified and goes well beyond what is necessary, even in the circumstances.
  Later, we shall debate whether we should derogate from the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has just been set up, made clear recommendations after taking evidence from the Home Secretary. It stated, in paragraph 30 of its second report, that
  "even if it is accepted that there is such an emergency"—
  which is a prerequisite for derogation—
  "the lack of safeguards built into the Bill, particularly in relation to detention powers, causes us to doubt whether the measures in the Bill can be said to be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation."
  At the moment, those safeguards are not in the Bill, which is a strong reason for making sure that we do not derogate at this stage from the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. That is why I suggested to the Government at the end of last week that we leave that debate till the end of our consideration of the Bill, and that we do not come back to it unless we can be persuaded—the burden is on the Government—that the Bill contains only what is necessary. If the Human Rights Committee, which we set up to do the job, advises us that the measure is not justified, we should be careful to follow that opinion. If we do not, the danger is that community relations could be significantly impaired because we have not been attentive to those who are suspected and held in detention as a result.

  61
  The British constitution works on the basis that Ministers bring proposals to Parliament. It is for Ministers to propose and for Parliament to decide. I gather that some Government amendments have already been tabled, even before we have completed the first day of proceedings on the Bill. If they are good amendments, they will be welcome, but it is strange that the Government are amending their Bill at this stage—
  Mr. Blunkett: As I said, we listened and responded to the Human Rights Committee's deliberations last week—yet now the hon. Gentleman tells us that it is strange for us to table amendments. I have every intention of listening. If there are good arguments that the Government as a whole can accept, I will accept them. To do otherwise would be an example of the yah-boo politics that bring the House into disrepute. In return, I hope that, if I convince both major Opposition parties, they will do me the courtesy of giving way on matters which at present they find objectionable.
  Simon Hughes: Of course. If the Home Secretary had let me finish the sentence, he would have heard me say that I hoped that the Government would try to get agreement with the Opposition on amendments tabled at this stage. We are all in the business of reaching agreement about any improvements that can be made to the Bill; I accept that, whatever the rigours of the timetable. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have tried to ensure that where agreement is possible, it is reached. Yes, we will listen and respond. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do likewise.
  To answer the question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, many significant amendments will be needed in the Commons or the Lords if the Bill is to be acceptable to us. That might make the Bill not only shorter and more focused on terrorism, but much more limited in terms of time. Liberal Democrats see it as their job to make sure that legislation pushed through by emergency procedures has only a limited life. We see it as our job to ensure that anti-terrorist legislation deals with the dangers of terrorism, not with a lot of other issues at the same time. We see it as our job to make sure that the Home Office does not take the opportunity to clear its in-tray just because there is the convenient opportunity of less scrutiny. We specifically see it as our job to make sure that we do not take away the right of anybody in this country to go to court to test whether what the Government or the Executive are doing is right.
  We had a choice to make about the attitude that we took tonight and in the days ahead. I have indicated that we will vote against the timetable motion, as the time is ridiculously short. I have made it clear that we will vote against derogation from the Human Rights Act, as we do not believe that the case has been made. However, we are prepared to let the Bill go on to the next stage.
  If, in the light of the Home Secretary's last remarks, we are to be constructive, and given that the Government have a majority in the Commons, we will seek to change the Bill by amendment over the next few days. If we do not get the amendments, we will vote against Third Reading. If we get the amendments, the Bill will have been much improved by the fact that the views of the Opposition and of many Labour Back Benchers have prevailed. I look forward to persuading the Home
  62
  Secretary and his colleagues of the fact that the Bill will be acceptable to deal with terrorism or the emergency only if it is significantly amended.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall speak mainly to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report published today. I start by thanking the Home Secretary and his colleagues for co-operating with the Select Committee's attempt at pre-legislative scrutiny, of which I hope we shall see a great deal more.
  In the short time available, we inevitably focused on part 4 of the Bill. We were anxious to publish our report and the evidence in time to inform today's debate and the subsequent Committee stage. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will find our report and the published evidence useful.
  I welcome the fact that no attempt was made to rush through emergency legislation in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity on 11 September, as has happened with emergency legislation in the past. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I welcome the fact that none of the provisions is to be retrospective. However, I agree with those who say that we could have done with a little more time to scrutinise the Bill.
  Despite the Home Secretary bending over backwards to co-operate with our Committee, our witnesses had to give oral evidence and express a view in public before they had a chance to see the Bill. That is not entirely satisfactory. The Bill is large—much larger than any previous emergency anti-terrorism legislation—and it would have benefited from a slightly more generous timetable.
  Many of the measures in the Bill are uncontroversial and are plain common sense. They adapt existing anti-terrorism legislation to deal with the threat of chemical and biological warfare; they oblige telecom companies to keep records for much longer than they must do at present to assist with investigations into terrorism; and they enable Customs and Inland Revenue officers to work with law enforcement agencies. All that seems to me, as it seemed to the Committee, desirable.
  As regards part 4, the Committee accepted, albeit reluctantly, that there may be a small category of persons who are suspected international terrorists who cannot be prosecuted, extradited or deported, and may therefore have to be detained. However, as everyone who has spoken so far agrees, that is a very large step, which we should not take lightly or with much enthusiasm. We welcome the various safeguards that the Home Secretary has inserted—the renewal after 15 months and 12 months—and I particularly welcome what he said about his willingness to provide for a much longer debate when the time comes to renew the legislation.
  We note the six-monthly review of detention in each case by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. However, we believe that there should be a sunset clause for part 4. As we all know, the history of anti-terrorism legislation is that when it is introduced, it is represented as temporary and as a response to some immediate crisis, but it has a habit of becoming permanent. I have therefore tabled—as have others, probably—a sunset clause which requires the Government to come back to Parliament after five years to go through the entire legislative process to obtain the powers that they seek in part 4.

  63
  We picked five years—others may choose a shorter or a longer period—because there is a precedent for it. That is what appeared in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. I believe that the Government could readily concede that measure, and I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect carefully on it. I am sure that he will.
  As for the clauses dealing with incitement to religious hatred, most of the evidence that we received was sceptical—first, about whether they would work, and secondly, about whether they were needed. Thirdly, some suggested—I was probably the person whom the Home Secretary heard on the radio this morning, although he was far too delicate to mention it—that the provisions would probably be used first against Muslims, which was not necessarily the intention. Of course, I entirely agree with his comment that Muslims should be as accountable to the law as those of any other faith, but I agree also with those who have argued that the measure has no place in emergency legislation and should perhaps return to the House in another provision that deals with this and other religious issues. If he is going to proceed anyway, as I suspect he will, this might be the moment to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and abolish blasphemy as well.
  On the third pillar measures, the Bill gives the power to implement all the justice and home affairs measures, rather than those relating only to terrorism, by secondary and not primary legislation. The Committee felt that that was too broad and that the power should be confined to anti-terrorism measures. I hope that the Government will think carefully about the matter.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mullin: I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to forgive me; I shall not give way, as I have only a few minutes.
  There is one other matter that we did not consider as a Committee: extension of the powers of the MOD police, all of whom can be armed, to arrest anyone in connection with any offence in any area, albeit subject to a request from a police force. I believe that the last Armed Forces Bill contained a measure that fell at the last election to confer new powers only in life-threatening situations. The measure before us seems to be an improvement. I welcome the comment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—indeed, I had intended to make the same suggestion—that, if the MOD police are to have these powers, they should be subject to the Police Complaints Authority and perhaps also to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. However, perhaps that is not possible—of course, he will have taken advice on the matter—and the powers should be limited to terrorism-related incidents.
  I recognise, as did the entire Committee, that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Many of the measures in the Bill are necessary and reasonable, but some go too far and take powers that are too wide, and I hope that some limits will be placed on them during our brief consideration of the Bill.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I congratulate him and his fellow Committee members on their speedy work in producing the report to which he alluded. In discussing that report, I congratulate also the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the speedy work that they have done. I am sure that it has informed the debate considerably.
  If there is any purpose in this Chamber any more, it is to provide members of the opposition—I refer to the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, members of the other smaller parties and, indeed, the members of the opposition that I see seated on the Government Benches—with opportunities to bring to public attention from time to time the ideas that masquerade as considered policy and high principle and which are turned, almost without question, into law.
  We have already had an excellent debate. The Home Secretary, who has just left the Chamber, was generous in giving way, as was my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who made an especially effective contribution. I hope that, if he and other hon. Members question the utility, let alone philosophy, of the Bill or parts of it, the Home Secretary will pause, listen and perhaps even consider what we have to say before sweeping all before him. He said that he would do so, and I hope that he is as good as his word. The victor's laurels do not take long to wither. Although the first stage of the crisis in Afghanistan may perhaps be ending successfully, our duty to unpick legislation, ask the simple questions "Why?" or "What for?" and test propositions almost or even to destruction goes on.
  The Home Secretary has a number of arguments at his disposal in support of the Bill. We will have to take some of them on trust, because the evidence upon which he relies is drawn from the secret services. I accept that he cannot tell us everything, but if he wants us willingly, rather than grudgingly, to accept the need to disapply certain provisions of the European convention on human rights barely a year after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force and to accept in a spirit of co-operation that what were so recently thought to he essential freedoms should be curtailed, he needs to be more open with us and, if I may say so, to avoid insulting the very people whom he needs to apply and carry through his new restrictive provisions.
  It is not an argument in favour of detention without trial to say that those who are prepared to uphold the present law against the Executive are ill-motivated. The Home Secretary is clearly proud of the fact that he is not a lawyer. I am sure he is entitled to the proud heart that evidently beats so fiercely in his breast, but he has recently made it an article of faith to vilify judges and lawyers. Ten days ago at The Spectator magazine and Zurich parliamentary awards lunch, at which he was the honoured chief guest, he repeated what he had said only a few days before in accusing lawyers—I paraphrase so as not to give the slander excessive currency—of being a money-grubbing vested interest group. Lawyers of that calibre may exist, or it may be that his sense of anger arises from a conversation with the Lord Chancellor.

  65
  Lawyers and judges are and must be independent of Government, but they will apply whatever laws, good or bad, that we pass. If we pass laws that have consequences that the Government did not foresee, it is a problem that the Government and Parliament must deal with in a rather more intelligent fashion than by abusing the judiciary and the legal profession. The term "Kill all the lawyers" is not a new motto, but nowadays it has greater resonance in Zimbabwe than it should have in this country. It should certainly have no resonance in the Home Office.
  The Government's case is apparently based on a public emergency. The Home Secretary declared last week that we were in a state of emergency so that he could avoid the consequences of the very convention that his Government brought into our law last year. However, what is the evidence to show that such an emergency exists or had to be proclaimed except as a device to sidestep this Government's own legislation?
  Article 15 of the European convention on human rights permits a state to derogate from convention rights
  "In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
  The functions of government at national, devolved, county, district and parish level continue undisturbed by the events of 11 September. Our public services, as far as this House has been told, have not been affected by international terrorists. If we look at the member states of the European Council or the European Union, do we find an Interior Minister who has reached the same conclusion as our Home Secretary? Surely the French, German, Italian and Spanish Governments, as well as all the others, would have reached the same conclusion, had the evidence existed. They would not have been slow in taking necessary measures to protect their citizens or in declaring emergencies if they had existed. The burden of proof, which is a heavy one and must be discharged by our Government, and the standard of proof to be expected must be sufficient at least to stir in our minds a feeling that this is a policy that has been thought through and is evidence based, even if not to convince us so that we are sure.
  Humbug often masquerades as high principle. The signs of political camouflage in the British domestic arena are already emerging. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Government's proposal in the Bill to make it a crime to incite religious hatred. We do not need a law to make that type of behaviour illegal, and nor would it serve the purpose for which some of its proponents hope: deterring anti-Muslim unrest in this country and allowing Britain to be seen as fighting terrorism and not Muslims. Every citizen of this country has the right to expect that the law will protect him from bodily harm as well as safeguard his freedom to worship and to express his views. That does not mean that those who disagree, wish to evangelise in favour of another religion or want to express views that others may find abhorrent should have to curtail their activities or run the risk of prosecution. Parliament should not be in the business of standardising opinion or entrenching orthodoxy. Nor should it make courts of law arbiters of what is right, wrong or acceptable in religious or philosophical controversy. Such debates should take place in the columns of newspapers, in books, on public platforms and in pulpits. The criminal law should protect citizens, not ideas. Plenty of laws make the use or threat of violence against human beings a criminal offence.
  66
  It is a mistake to confuse race and religion; they are not always interchangeable. They should not be likened as they are in the Bill, if the Government whip Parliament into passing a law that outlaws incitement to religious hatred but will not define religion and list the religions that are to be covered by the statute, its use to stifle debate and free expression can be foreseen. The Government may not want the law to do that or to be used to that end, but those who are more intent on curtailing than respecting free speech will employ it in precisely that way.
  The lengthy Bill, heavy with constitutional and legal implications, will receive a Second Reading. I trust that here on Wednesday and next week and in the other place later, further work will be done and that in the short interval, the public will learn exactly what we are doing in their name. Perhaps it is worth saying that if we are prepared to cast aside essential freedoms to gain temporary security, we are likely to lose both freedom and security.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the position on interventions? They can help debate. My understanding is that the intervention does not count against an hon. Member's time, although the answer sometimes does.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is precisely right.
  6.31 pm
  Ross Cranston: We have a heightened responsibility to scrutinise the Bill because it encroaches on civil liberties and human rights. They have been hard won, and we therefore cherish them. We also know that the great majority of people do not have similar civil liberties and human rights.
  Our history teaches us that the Executive can trample on liberties or rights in pursuit of their interests. Habeas corpus was mentioned in one of the many interventions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took. It was an attempt by common law courts in the 17th century to limit one aspect of Executive government. Seldon's case, which was one of the seminal decisions, involved the imprisonment of Members of Parliament by the Crown because of their objections on a taxation issue.
  History also teaches us that law enforcement agencies can use discretion partially. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, Labour Members are especially sensitive to that because the Labour movement was often a victim. The well documented example in the 1930s of the partiality of the police to the blackshirts comes to mind.
  Again, history shows that encroaching on civil liberties or human rights, however justified, can go horribly wrong. Obvious recent examples are the miscarriages of justice arising from the fight against Irish terrorism. We must therefore scrupulously test the claims made for a Bill such as the measure that we are considering. What is its overall justification? Are its specific provisions justified? Are there equally effective alternatives that would make less of an incursion into liberties and rights? Will the unintended effects swamp the benefits? How will the checks against abuse, misuse and mistakes work in practice?
  I have no doubt about the Bill's overall justification. Terrorism is not new. We have known since the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993 and the east African

  67
  embassy bombings in 1998 that al-Qaeda is a major terrorist organisation. However, the events of 11 September have brought home its ruthless dedication and destructive capacity. When we consider other factors such as the existence of rogue or distressed states and the dispersal of the knowledge and technology that relates to biological and other weapons of mass destruction, we know that we face a threat to our way of life. People expect us to act, and we must.
  I cannot accept that we should not act because that is somehow contrary to what are said to be our liberal, democratic traditions. We are vulnerable because a liberal democracy enables people to pursue individual interests, and we act as a refuge for those from other states. We will pay a high price if we ignore the minority of fanatics who would abuse the liberties and rights of liberal democracy to destroy it.
  In 1940, E.F.M. Durbin, who later became a Member of Parliament, considered the relationship between socialism and democracy and wrote that
  "we should continuously remind ourselves that the enemies of democracy have no moral right to the privileges of democracy; … a time may come when, to defend ourselves, it will be necessary to suppress their political organizations."
  He was referring to fascism and communism in the 1930s, but his words are equally pertinent today.
  Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Ross Cranston: Since it will not take up my time, I shall.
  Mr. Shepherd: How do we know that people are a threat to democracy?
  Ross Cranston: The events of 11 September show clearly that there is a threat to democracy.
  Part 4 deals with the dilemma that is posed by the European Court of Human Rights, and decisions such as that on Chahal: we would be in breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights if we deported international terrorists to jurisdictions where they would be tortured, executed or otherwise inhumanely treated. What should we do? Should we allow terrorists to continue their evil work unchecked? The Bill proposes their detention, which will be subject to regular review by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. That body was set up following a suggestion by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal. Its composition and methods have been judicially approved by the European court and in the House of Lords in subsequent decisions.
  Hon. Members need only consider SIAC's decision in the Rehman case to realise that it is no pushover. It imposed the same high standards of proof as ordinary courts. In the case of Rehman, SIAC rejected the Home Secretary's case. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, some believe that there will be no judicial review of SIAC decisions. That is nonsense. The Bill provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. That covers matters such as the sleepy judge, which the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)
  68
  mentioned, and the absence of evidence, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred. Apart from some interlocutory matters, appeal on a point of law is equal to judicial review. Therefore, judicial review exists.
  Mr. McNamara: I accept the point about appeal on a point of law, but although a friend who is appointed to represent the accused may be told the evidence on which intelligence services make their decision, the accused will not. His court-appointed representative cannot tell him that. He is therefore in no position to rebut the evidence against him.
  Ross Cranston: The evidence is rebutted by counsel appointed by the Attorney-General to act for the accused. That points to the importance of the independence of the Bar.
  Mr. Hogg: The detained person will not know the evidence against him, and he cannot therefore give proper instructions to his representative.
  Ross Cranston: Only one aspect of a case before SIAC—intelligence information—will be treated in that way. In other aspects, ordinary counsel, who acts on behalf of the person, will put the case.
  Merits review has been mentioned. Judicial review never involves a review on merits. There can be an appeal on a point of law, and issues such as lack of evidence or facts, which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned earlier, will be taken into account. I do not, therefore, regard that as an objection.
  The more substantial objection to the detention provisions is that foreign international terrorists should be dealt with by the ordinary courts. The Terrorism Act 2000 gives the courts extra-territorial jurisdiction to deal with foreign international terrorists who incite, or who have engaged in, terrorist acts abroad. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has assured the House that there is still a small number of foreign international terrorists who would not be caught by those powers. He alluded to the problem of the Interception of Communications Act 1986, and the bar that it appoints to bringing evidence before the court. That Act was, incidentally, introduced by the previous, Conservative Government.
  I am sure it would help the House if the Minister, or the Home Secretary, could reiterate that it is Government policy that the Bill's provisions will be a last resort—in other words, that if foreign international terrorists can be prosecuted here, or extradited to places where they can be tried, they will be.
  I cannot see an alternative to the thrust of the provisions, although the Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised some useful points of detail which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider. I should also say that, at first blush, I am attracted to Professor Gearty's proposal to the Home Affairs Committee for an annual report on detentions, by an independent commissioner.
  Earlier this year, I supported the provisions on the disclosure of publicly held information for law enforcement purposes, to which the hon. Member for West Dorset objected, and with the additional protections

  69
  in the Bill, I cannot see any problem with them. As to the objection to the power to remove face coverings, if the power is handled sensitively, I cannot see a problem, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The retention of communications data will be subject to a code of practice, and also to data protection legislation.
  On the provisions relating to religion, there has been, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, an upsurge in religious harassment and attack. Such incidents have occurred in my constituency. Hon. Members may have received through the mail the latest bile from the British National party, a copy of which arrived in my office this morning.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman has had his 10 minutes. I call Mr. Christopher Chope.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Following on from what the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) has said, I hope that, if he had been allowed to speak for a bit longer, he would have gone on to tell us that the Home Affairs Committee report contained some useful evidence from Muslim organisations which originally thought that the Bill would be helpful to them, but now realise that it will not be.
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) dismissed the objections raised by Muslims, but he failed to recognise that the organisations which signed up to the document submitted in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee included the Muslim Council of Britain, the Association of Muslim Schools, the Muslim Parliament, the Union of Muslim Organisations, the Muslim college, the Muslim Women's Helpline and others. The Muslim organisations, of which those are some, are against the provisions in part 5 of the Bill. They recognise that there are immense practical difficulties connected with the provisions, but my concern is more an issue of principle. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, race and religion are not the same thing. Race and colour are attributes with which we are born, and over which we have no choice, whereas religious belief, or lack of it, is a matter of choice and opinion. In that sense, religious belief is similar to political belief or even, dare one say, support for a football team.
  The front page of the sports section of The Sunday Telegraph yesterday carried an amazing photograph of a section of the crowd at White Hart Lane on Saturday, when Tottenham played Arsenal. They were carrying placards which had one word on them: "Judas". I understand that those placards were directed towards Sulzeer Jeremiah Campbell, otherwise known as Sol Campbell, the English international footballer. They were directed at him because he had switched clubs, from Tottenham to Arsenal. I do not know Mr. Campbell's religion or, indeed, his race, but if he is a devoted Christian, and if part 5 of the Bill had already been on the statute book, I have little doubt that all those holding up the "Judas" placards would, prima facie, be guilty of incitement to religious hatred.
  Those placards were displayed with the likelihood, if not the intention, that they would stir up hatred. I think that they were in very poor taste, if not puerile, but why
  70
  should it be unlawful in a free society to stir up hatred against people with whom one strongly disagrees, or whose beliefs or behaviour one strongly condemns? I hate communism. I also hate the religious beliefs of Osama bin Laden, but he has religious beliefs—or so we are told—and under part 5 of the Bill, those who support the religious beliefs of Osama bin Laden will receive protection. I have tabled a question on this matter, to which I hope I shall receive a reply. I hate the doctrines of the Dutch reformed church that led to apartheid. I dislike many aspects of Rastafarianism, which has recently been described by the courts as a legitimate religion. I also hate Muslim fundamentalism. Why should we legislate to prevent people articulating such views in our open society?
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has done the House a great service in producing his report from the Home Affairs Committee. It is an excellent report, but it is important to consider the scope of the proposed new offence of incitement to religious hatred. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), kindly sent us all a document earlier this month, which contained a summary of the key points of the Bill. In relation to this provision, she stated:
  "Whilst preserving the right to practise religion in peace, the Bill recognises the long-standing tradition of free speech. To be prosecuted for stirring up religious hatred, the perpetrator must use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of people because of their religious belief. Whilst preserving the right to practise religion in peace, the Bill recognises the long-standing tradition of free speech. It will not prevent reasoned debate, humour or criticism of religions or religious practices."
  I want to share with the House something that happened in relation to the existing provisions on stirring up racial hatred. In my constituency, a free advertising magazine called ADvantage is circulated. It is published quarterly, and comprises mainly advertisements but also some local news. The editor of the magazine had been reading on the internet stories generated by a spoof article written by Richard Littlejohn in The Sun in February 2000. He replicated parts of the article in his free newspaper, although I do not think that he attributed them to Mr. Littlejohn.
  Someone from the Dorset Commission for Racial Equality objected, and the matter was referred to the police and to the prosecuting authorities. There was no question of going round and discussing with this person what his motives were. An enormous amount of public money was spent on investigating the matter and, eventually, about six months later, the editor got a knock on the door, and two policemen explained to him that he was not going to be prosecuted on that occasion, but that he should not do anything like that again because it was, effectively, against the law, although there was to be no prosecution.
  That is a case of someone exercising his right of free expression in a small circulation newspaper. The prosecuting authorities did not have a go at The Sun, did they? They spent a lot of time investigating some pretty harmless comments from this person in the Verwood locality of my constituency. If the Home Secretary, or any other worthy, gets up and says that it is not the intention of the Bill to result in the denial of free speech, all I can say is that he cannot guarantee that.

  71
  In practice, if anybody complains the complaint will be taken extremely seriously by the prosecuting and investigating authorities, because it is about a serious offence. If it is not taken seriously, that in itself will generate a further complaint. That process will take up a lot of time and it will not necessarily result in a series of prosecutions, but people will be threatened by such an atmosphere. I am concerned that the Bill extends so widely into an area where, hitherto, we have been able to exercise free speech and free expression. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said from the Front Bench.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Home Secretary strove magnificently to defend a number of indefensible propositions. Following that unstinting praise, I hope that he regards the rest of my speech as friendly fire.
  The historian A.J.P. Taylor argued that Napoleon III learned nothing from the mistakes of history other than how to make newer and bigger ones himself. I think the House will prove to be like that tonight—Napoleonic and ill judged in its attitude to the Bill.
  Not since the panic and hysteria that overcame the British establishment in the aftermath of the French revolution has the House considered such draconian legislation. Habeas corpus was suspended twice—first between 1794 and 1801 and subsequently in 1817. The Minister responsible was Lord Eldon—a member of the vilest troika ever to rule Britain. The second member was Castlereagh:
  "I met Murder on the way—
  He had a mask like Castlereagh".
  A psychopath, before he went mad and cut his own throat he converted a Dublin riding school to a den of terror where anyone remotely thought to be connected with rebels against the Crown was flogged with the cat o'nine tails until either bones showed beneath the flesh or he betrayed his friends. Now there is a thought for a Home Secretary looking for good ideas to tackle terrorism.
  The third member was Viscount Sidmouth, the Home Secretary and perhaps an exemplar for the current incumbent. He prospered through inheritance and corruption, waged war against the British people, set up an army of spies whose good works resulted in the execution of many liberal reformers and introduced a stream of laws to put down free speech as well as an Act of Parliament to prevent public meetings of more than 50 people for any purpose whatever:
  "And many more Destructions played
  In this ghastly masquerade,
  All disguised, even to the eyes,
  Like Bishops, lawyers, peers, and spies".
  Unbelievably, the troika prosecuted war against the French with no fewer than 470,598 citizens under arms in a population of just 10 million. Yes, there is much for today's troika—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary—to chew over here. But let them beware before they go ahead with the legislation— a rag bag of the most coercive measures that the best
  72
  mandarin minds from the Home Office can produce, which are manna from heaven for any future or present Home Secretary who wants to establish a police state.
  Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sedgemore: No, sorry.
  When the troika of Eldon, Castlereagh and Sidmouth died, the people of England rejoiced and danced in the streets. We would not want that to happen if any of our modern troika died, would we?
  The Bill clashes with habeas corpus, judicial review, the rule of law, the notion that justice should be public and be seen to be done and checks on the arbitrary power of the authority of the state, including the Home Office, the security services and invisible commissioners. It threatens freedom of expression with an extended version of the infamous blasphemy laws and invades privacy on the internet and God knows what else—we have not seen its full implications—so perhaps we should pause for a moment lest history judge us badly.
  The fundamental fault line of the Bill lies in its refusal to accept the checks and balances of our constitution and its assertion, adumbrated with inelegant clarity by the Home Secretary, that the Executive must be all-powerful and beyond criticism. Our Home Secretary and our Government genuinely and sadly believe that the Executive can justify any action if it is given legitimacy by a compliant Parliament that has long since consigned to the dustbin of political history the notion that our primary function is to check and call to account the Government of the day.
  For the Home Secretary, the judiciary is there to be lectured and mocked. Was there ever a more populist person guaranteed to get a cheap laugh as he tries to bring the law and its practitioners into hatred, ridicule and contempt? According to him, MPs know best, lawyers suck and the law is an ass to which only airy-fairy civil libertarians such as me pay homage.
  In Shakespeare's "Henry VI, Part II", a bloodthirsty, Blunkett-type character snarls:
  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
  Theatrical simpletons and bar-room drunks may enjoy that approach, as will those MPs who, for whatever desperately sad reason, need to stay on message. The rest of us will treat it with scorn.
  Yes, the judges have sometimes failed us, but invariably by going along with the conventional establishment wisdom and the dictates of the establishment. Everyone knows that, at the height of the second world war, Lord Atkin, a judge, pleaded with his brethren that they should be more than
  "mice squeaking under a chair in the Home Office".
  Who today will plead that MPs should be more than mice nibbling cheese at the Home Secretary's table?
  This bad legislation is as unnecessary as it is draconian, as theatrical as the declared emergency is phoney, as beguiling as the chants of approval that will come from those for whom justice is a chimera. To those on these Benches who intend to support the Bill tonight, I suggest that they remember that its most avid supporter is that infantile cretin who edits The Sun and that our Foreign Secretary has given a ringing endorsement to the views

  73
  of the aforesaid Mr. David Yelland. Need I say more? I shall not support the Bill at any stage, and I very much hope that others, too, will refrain.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: That is a remarkably hard act to follow, so I hope that the House will show compassion if I fail to match the eloquence of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).
  Without doubt, it is right to reassess the country's security needs in the aftermath of 11 September, but, having said that, dramatic claims that the world changed that day should be treated with caution. International terrorism has been a growing reality since the mid-1970s at least and, from one point of view, 11 September horrifically showed its long-existing potential rather than the birth of something new.
  When, periodically, the Government create new anti-terrorism measures, the proposals should be tested against strict criteria. Are they appropriate to the threat? Will they be effective in combating terrorism? Do they contain proper safeguards against the abuse of those new powers? Should the new measures be categorised emergency and temporary, and therefore subject to further parliamentary scrutiny, or mainstream, more permanent legislation? When all those are posed about the Bill, they are serious questions indeed.
  My first and main concern has already been expressed by other hon. Members and I need refer to it only briefly. The reckless speed with which the Government are taking through Parliament a Bill that touches on supremely important issues of human rights and individual liberties is scandalous. It is wholly unacceptable that our deliberations should be subjected to such a curtailed and arbitrary timetable. It can be predicted with a degree of confidence that a Bill rushed through with such speed will before long be found to be deficient in some way. A 124-clause measure cannot possibly receive the attention that it deserves within the Government's proposed timetable.
  Part 4 deals with how to treat foreign nationals in the United Kingdom who are believed to be involved in terrorism. Without doubt, ideally the answer would be through criminal law. I accept that that cannot always be the case: that there are circumstances in which evidence of terrorism, the source of that evidence and the nature of that evidence, if made public, could both jeopardise the source and endanger life. The dilemma that faces the Government—a dilemma significantly of their own making—arises from the existence of articles 3 and 5 of the European convention on human rights.
  As it is entirely unacceptable to allow foreign nationals involved in terrorism to wander around the United Kingdom plotting and conspiring, either article 3 or article 5 must become non-binding. Reluctantly, I accept that there are circumstances of national emergency in which the practice of internment is the lesser of evils: it is not right, but it can prevent a greater wrong. It was used very successfully by the British Government during the second world war, and has been used successfully twice by Irish Governments in their dealings with the
  74
  IRA. It proved counter-productive only when intelligence was deficient. I therefore view part 4 with more sympathy than do some of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that in certain circumstances intelligence was deficient, and criticises the use of the internment provision on that basis. Does he not agree that there is always a high risk of intelligence being at least in part deficient?
  Mr. Hunter: There is always that potential ultimately, but I think the circumstances of the early 1970s, when internment was not a success, no longer prevail. The quality and quantity of our present intelligence is far greater than it was in historic circumstances.
  I do not quarrel, in principle, with the proposed role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I believe that the exclusion of appellants and their lawyers can be justified on grounds of national security. I note that the Attorney-General may appoint a special advocate to represent an appellant's interests. I understand that the Government do not propose any derogation from article 6 of the convention, which states that although the press and public may be excluded from a trial in the interests of national security,
  "judgment shall be pronounced publicly".
  The legal question that interests me is whether, in the prevailing circumstances, the Government can legitimately provoke the powers of derogation in article 5. The European Court has said that the article can be applied only when there is
  "an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a real threat to the organised life of the community of which the state is composed."
  I think that whether we face an emergency that threatens the life of the nation may be open to considerable doubt. The greatest threat to the security of the United Kingdom from terrorism is still the threat of Irish terrorism, and the non-applicability of the Bill to such terrorism is a matter of concern.
  As for the question of making incitement to religious hatred a crime, I share the widespread conviction that the Bill's proposals may prove unworkable and should therefore be dropped. Moreover, I consider the need for such a new law highly questionable. I do not agree with Mr. Rowan Atkinson and others who argue that comedians may fall foul of the provisions—there is and should be an enormous difference between exposing to ridicule what is deemed to be absurd, and inciting hatred—but I do agree with the pressure group Justice that these measures, apart from constituting a sop that the Government want to throw at the Muslim community, will prove divisive and impractical, and breach fundamental rules relating to freedom of expression.
  I feel that the key to much of our dealings with the Bill should be to look at each part separately. We should ask whether, if an individual part of it had been law before 11 September, it could or would have helped to prevent the catastrophe of that day. As for the proposals relating to incitement to religious hatred, the answer is no—and the same can be applied to many other aspects of the Bill.
  Plenty can be done to make the country a safer place. We can be granted more resources for the police, better witness protection, the admission of telephone intercepts as evidence in terrorist trials, and a greater willingness to

  75
  enforce deportation orders when they do not infringe article 3. Some of that may require abrogation of international treaties or curbing of the power of the judiciary, but most can be achieved under existing legislation and without this Bill—a Bill that will become bad law because it is being rushed through with such unseemly haste.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Until the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), I suspected that most Members agreed about the scale and nature of the dangers that confront us, and that almost all considered many of the intentions and new powers in the Bill to be sensible. The prospect of international terrorism focusing on Sellafield certainly concentrates the mind on the powers of the police around nuclear plants, and the idea that terrorist organisations can accumulate money in their bank balances with impunity in this country commends the relevant parts of the Bill.
  It is possible to agree with all that, however, and still to be very unhappy—as I am—with some features of the legislation, particularly the necessity of derogation from a convention to which we have only just signed up, and aspects of part 4. Those fears make it extremely hard for me today to support the Government whom I am generally proud to support in the Lobby.
  The Home Secretary presented his case with great courtesy and patience, and engaged with the House. That is to his credit, and no one would doubt his sincerity—or his record of defending human rights, which he mentioned. I fear, however, that the roots of much of the Bill lie in the need to be seen to do something in the face of horrific dangers and anxieties. That is a very bad basis for legislation. Far from calming my fears, the Home Secretary played on them by citing a report in The Times, dated, I think, 15 September as a demonstration of opinion outside and the pressure under which the Government found themselves.
  I am sure that there is pressure, in that the country wants the Government to do something; but, as I have said, that is a bad basis on which to legislate and to find the correct balance between the powers we have—or should have—to deal with international terrorism, and not just the protection of human rights but the maintenance of the fundamental principles of our legal system, which I consider even more important than specific human rights.
  Surely the strategic test that we should apply to our scrutiny of all aspects of the Bill, and to its totality, is this: have we sufficient powers in our existing legal system, after recent terrorism legislation and the creation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and other arrangements, to deal with the present circumstances? Only if those powers are totally inadequate should we seek more. I am not sure that that applies to some of the Bill's provisions.
  I appreciate that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the derogation in a later debate. However, I remain totally unconvinced that we would be within our rights under the convention to derogate. The convention specifically says that we can derogate only
  "In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
  76
  Last weekend, looking round our constituencies, did hon. Members see the life of this nation being threatened? We saw people flocking to early showings of "Harry Potter", and others doing their Christmas shopping. We also saw the trains at least trying to run on time. The life of this nation is not at risk.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: How many attacks of the scale that we saw in New York does my hon. Friend think the United Kingdom can sustain before people say that the nation is being threatened?
  Mr. Fisher: That is not the question to ask. Currently, the life of the United Kingdom and other European nations is not being threatened. Although I hope that we do not, we may well suffer the horror of a terrorist attack. None the less, one attack on a nation does not threaten the fundamental life or nature of the state. Such an attack would wound the state grievously and would be a wound that none of us wished to see, but it would not threaten the life of the nation. I believe that that phrase was included in the convention to protect against civil war or a complete breakdown of a country's system of law and order. I do not believe that it was meant to deal with a horrendous attack in another country that made us all only too acutely aware of the scope and nature of terrorism.
  I commend the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the speed with which it has served the House by issuing its report. In paragraph 30 of that report, the Committee seems to say that it is not convinced that derogation is justified. I share that view. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether derogation would be legal if it were not justified.
  Why is no other European country derogating? It is an international problem that affects us all equally, regardless of the primacy of our position in tackling the situation in Afghanistan. Although our Government of course have a prime duty to protect the people of this nation, we must consider the international dimension. Indeed, I would go further and say that we will solve nothing by deporting terrorists from the United Kingdom. Terrorists are as dangerous to this country and to the world if they are in other countries as they are if they are here. Our responsibility is if necessary to tackle terrorism in this country by means of our legal system. I am not sure that we need the extra powers that the Government are proposing to provide in the Bill.
  During the Home Secretary's speech, I raised the issue of the definition of a terrorist, in part 4. Clause 21(2)(c) states that an international terrorist is defined as someone who has "links" with an international terrorist group. Considering the severe nature of the legal sanctions, guilt by association, as is implied by the word "links", is really not good enough. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that issue and accept amendments to eliminate the word "links".
  I am also less than convinced by the nature of the provisions on trial and detention in part 4 and by the overall treatment of evidence. The Home Secretary and I had a previous exchange on that issue. He defended himself by saying that the provisions were all to do with inadmissible evidence. Although, as I said, I am not a lawyer, as I have always understood it the rules on inadmissible evidence are based on the nature of that evidence, such as whether it was hearsay, rather than on

  77
  its source. The crucial issue in this legislation is to protect a source such as the security services. Are we happy that people should be indefinitely detained and imprisoned on the flimsy basis of evidence that they will never hear? I do not believe that we can be.
  I am also extremely perturbed about the speed at which we are being asked to move. The Home Secretary said that we have had 10 weeks to examine the matter. Today we are considering not the wider intentions that he announced 10 weeks ago but the actual wording of the Bill. We are passing legislation, and wording is everything. As Thomas More understood, if we do not cling to the wording of the law, when the wind blows we shall have nothing to protect us. We are producing loose wording to define "terrorist", and wording that is misguided in other respects.
  I am grateful to the Home Affairs Committee and to the Joint Committee for moving so fast in producing their reports, which none the less show the precise nature of the problem. One Committee met on 8 November, and both met on 14 November. They have had a chance to examine the issues only since the Bill was published. The Bill itself has determined the speed at which we have proceeded. Historical precedent—such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which is a trivial but real example—shows that, when we move fast, we seldom pass good legislation. The implications of legislation cannot appear immediately. It is only when members of the public test an Act's wording against all the circumstances to which it may apply that we truly see the issues on which we were legislating.
  Despite all the semi-sunset clauses that the Home Secretary has included in the Bill to enable us to review aspects of it, I believe that we are moving too fast. If we cannot properly scrutinise legislation, we shall serve neither the House nor the country well.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: The world order changed on 11 September, and so must we. Many thousands of my constituents are directly involved in the consequences of that change, whether they are serving in Her Majesty's forces, working at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, or working on anthrax vaccines at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down. This is not, however, an entirely emergency Bill. Some things never change, and one of them is Whitehall's propensity to see a good thing and turn it into a Christmas tree. Today we are considering an early and a very large Christmas tree. Some might even allege that it is a leylandii.
  Some of our constituents are very concerned about the legislation. My constituent Mr. Guy Nicholls of Salisbury e-mailed me to say:
  "I am extremely concerned about recent developments towards change regarding basic human rights in the United Kingdom … Imprisonment without charge or trial is a violation of fundamental human rights and should be dropped from the 'Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill'."
  Feelings are running high. Although I accept some parts of the Bill and believe that any Home Secretary would wish to see loopholes tightened and closed, I have difficulties with other parts, the first of which is part 5,
  78
  on race and religion. One of the greatest strengths of British parliamentary democracy is its tolerance. The British, and I think the English in particular, are tolerant people, but part 5 smacks of intolerance.
  There are two broad reasons why I cannot support part 5. As a member of the Church of England, I deplore the intolerance that I sometimes sense both among the Wee Free Presbyterians and in Roman Catholic dogma. However, as an Anglican and an Englishman, I tolerate their right to express a hugely divergent view, and I would not wish to see Free Presbyterians in the Hebrides locked up for denouncing the Bishop of Rome for whatever reason. I first face up to the principles. Legislation should not seek to control all outward actions by telling us what we should or should not do. If it did, our society would be totalitarian. The rule of the law is intended to establish and sustain for society as a whole—for all our citizens—what the Christian tradition calls the common good.
  Criticism of another person's race is morally unacceptable; criticism or rejection of religious beliefs or practices is not only acceptable but desirable. The claims and practices of religion are in principle public claims and should be open to public examination and critique. It is such examination and critical reflection that can lead a person towards a change in religion, or, indeed, towards religion itself. Freedom for such examination and critique is an important part of religious freedom. Can the Government and the courts be sure that the Bill will be capable of publicly distinguishing between criticism or rejection of religious beliefs and practices, and expression of religious hatred? We should avoid a legal change that threatens openness to scrutiny and criticism.
  On 15 November, in reply to a written question tabled in the other place, the Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Rooker, said:
  "As part of the Anti-Terrorist, Crime and Security Bill introduced earlier this week, we have proposed expanding incitement to racial hatred to cover religious hatred, to protect everyone from religious hatred and harassment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. WA96.]
  In other words, motherhood and apple pie. But racial hatred and religious hatred are not the same, and we cannot simply extend the law on the first to cover the second.
  Article 18 of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights gives a clear definition of religious freedom, which is at risk under the Bill. Religious freedom is an immunity and freedom from coercion, and any legislation that threatens that freedom is unwelcome. The least that the Government must do if they want the support of people who think like me is to amend the Bill so as to recognise the major difference between race and religion—one is a fact of life, and the other is not.
  The notes that Home Office Ministers have kindly provided, which have already been quoted, state:
  "To be prosecuted for stirring up religious hatred, a perpetrator must use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of people because of their religious belief".
  Who decides? By whose standards, culture and traditions will a policeman or a court judge decide? The provision is entirely unsatisfactory, and I cannot support it.
  Part 6, which covers weapons of mass destruction, and part 7, also give me great concern. Like the Research Defence Society, I am worried that domestic terrorism

  79
  remains a serious problem and that the position of medical and scientific researchers, who have already been subject to outrageous and violent attacks by animal rights extremists for the past 20 years, is not being dealt with. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the past year extremists have fire-bombed the cars of 11 people connected with Huntingdon Life Sciences, and attacked several people personally, injuring them gravely.
  Several of my constituents have been attacked and bombed and had their lives made a misery. The lives of people working at Porton Down for the protection of our forces, who are engaged in defending the liberties of this country, are being ruined by domestic terrorism. That should have been covered in the Bill.
  I turn to the part of the Bill that deals with Ministry of Defence police, Atomic Energy Authority police and British Transport police. There is a lot of good sense in the Bill. The fact that the British Transport police and AEA police are being given extra power and jurisdiction is welcome. I should like the Home Secretary or the Minister who is to wind up tonight to explain what point we have reached with the legislation on mercenaries. The Home Secretary was kind enough to be frank about the matter when I raised it in the House last month. The Export Control Bill was not deemed the right place to include measures on mercenaries, but this Bill is part of a terrorism package and might have included some. What is the Foreign Office up to? It appears to be dragging its feet.
  The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has already referred to Ministry of Defence police. I spent the first three months of the year in the Standing Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill, which dealt with that matter. My advice to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would be broadly to welcome the substantial changes that have been made to the proposed measure. It was pushing their luck to try to tag the measure on to the Armed Forces Bill, and it is pushing their luck a little further to tag it on to this Bill. A lot of probing needs to be done. The revision is sensible, and I welcome it. The wording is quite different; it has been substantially rewritten. However, we still have no independent control for Ministry of Defence police—independent, that is, from the chain of command of the military—or independence for the chief constable, to whom the Secretary of State can still effectively give orders. There are no proper discipline and complaints procedures either. I was therefore delighted to hear the Home Secretary say that the matter would be included in new legislation next year.
  No formal agreement or legal arrangements have been made with the Police Complaints Authority. There is no formal discipline or conduct procedure regulated by Parliament. Ministry of Defence police have no formal or independent police committee or authority. There are no formal inspections by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, although that was promised. No legal liability for torts has been defined, and so on. What has happened to those standing arrangements at a high level? My hon. Friends need to home in on that.
  The future role of Ministry of Defence police could be as a gendarmerie, which Britain currently lacks. They are used in Kosovo to great effect, and the matter should be reviewed. In devising a long-term strategy for the Ministry of Defence police, we should consider whether
  80
  they should be an armed gendarmerie for international peacekeeping operations, if that is the way the world is going, rather than using any more of Her Majesty's forces.
  There are good bits and had bits to the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is aware. My constituents want terrorism defeated, and I am robust in that objective. However, we must ensure that we do not extinguish the ancient freedoms that the House has guarded so well for so long.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform, if he is to reply, to answer two questions—or otherwise to inform whoever is to reply of them? The first relates to the religious clauses and their extension to include religious hatred. Will he confirm that the clauses will provide a remedy for parents and girls at the Holy Cross school in the Ardoyne, who have been victims of a vile campaign of religious hatred? Secondly, will he confirm that the clauses could be said to fulfil the promise in the Good Friday agreement to uphold the right to freedom from sectarian harassment? He will have read in today's newspapers Greenpeace's advert showing routes taken by trains carrying nuclear waste through London. Will he confirm that once the Bill becomes law such adverts will become illegal, and will silence people or organisations that rightly draw attention to health and environmental dangers?
  The Home Secretary was charitable in the number of times that he gave way to Members from both sides of the House and in answering some of our points. He did not convince us, but he answered us. Points about the amount of time that we have to consider the Bill have already been well made, and I do not intend to discuss the matter further.
  Unfortunately, I shall not be present next Monday, because I shall be chairing a Committee of the Council of Europe—the Sub-Committee that considers the appointment of judges to the European Court. We make recommendations to the Parliamentary Assembly—several countries make recommendations and give us a list. What do most people here think the reply would have been if before 11 September I had asked one of the candidates, "What is your opinion of articles 5 and 15?" and he had said that if there were any source of trouble at home, it would be a mere technicality to derogate, and that would be the end of the matter? A mere technicality? Eyebrows would be raised, people would tap their pencils, and in all probability that person would not have received a recommendation to be a judge on the European Court of Human Rights.
  That would be quite right, because the effect of the derogation takes away from the accused the right to a fair trial and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, and the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him, and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf, under the same conditions as the witnesses against him. The derogation takes away all those rights under article 6, which are fundamental to freedom. This House cannot and should not accept that.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not answer the point, which has been raised continually, that no other state in the European Union or the Council of

  81
  Europe has felt it necessary, following 11 September, to derogate as we propose to do. Many of those states—Spain, France, Germany and Italy—would all be prime targets on the basis of the undertakings they have given to supply men and women to fight al-Qaeda and the other organisations. Nor has any attempt been made in the US to stop the courts having jurisdiction over detained people. Why do we have to be more American than the Americans, more Catholic than the Pope—old red socks, my great friend? My right hon. Friend has not answered that point to the satisfaction of the Joint Committee or of the House.
  My final points concern internment. I shall not deal with the legal niceties, but I remind the House what happened in Northern Ireland. We had a state of emergency, followed by the introduction of internment. Internment led to Bloody Sunday and to the death of Bobby Sands. I was involved in that issue and I know that those three factors—internment, Bloody Sunday and the death of Bobby Sands—were the three great recruiting agents for the Provisional IRA.
  People will argue that the present situation is not analogous, but I believe that it is. If one person who was imprisoned under the Bill, whether he was wrongly imprisoned or guilty as hell, went on hunger strike and died, what would happen? We boast that the legislation is not directed against Muslims or Islam, but it was argued that earlier anti-terrorism legislation was not directed against the Irish. At the time, people said, "Oh, it will only affect a few people and we must deal with them." However, that legislation put the entire Irish population in this country through persecution and harassment after 1974, and ended in a situation in which that population did not support the Provos but did not respect the forces of law and order either. There are disaffected young people in this country of Asian-Islamic origin, who feel no tremendous loyalty to this country, for a variety of reasons. Whatever their leaders, elders and muftis have said in good faith about deploring—and I do not doubt that for one moment—what happened on 11 September, if someone put in prison under the Bill dies or an injustice is created, it will foster that same degree of hatred and depth of feeling in the disaffected youth here and in the slums of south-east Asia and Pakistan as in Ireland.
  Why are we prepared to risk that happening? Is it because we feel that our institutions are somehow so threatened that we are not prepared to put a person we suspect before a judge to have the evidence against him properly examined? I hope that I am wrong about the effects of the Bill. I want to be wrong, but this omnibus Bill contains every illiberal idea that the Houses of Parliament have already rejected, except for the sweetener on corruption. Are we prepared to risk all that might happen for the sake of this tawdry Bill when we could find out more information about what is happening by having proper surveillance of the dozen or so people involved, probably at far less expense?
  7.35 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: When I first became a Minister, a wise colleague told me not to sign anything for the first fortnight, because a new Minister is always presented with all sorts of things that the civil servants have been keeping in the cupboard and that no Minister previously was prepared to sign. I have that feeling about the Bill. It contains all sorts of elements
  82
  that we have failed to pass previously and that are being presented to us again. We should start our consideration of the Bill by distinguishing between those elements that are necessary for the prevention of terrorism and those elements that have been brought in under the guise of an emergency Bill and clearly are not necessary.
  Nobody could accuse me of being soft on terrorism. Anyone who was present at the heart of the Grand hotel in Brighton when the bomb went off has a clear view of the damage done and the horror created by terrorists. However, I hope that the House recognises that tonight's debate represents the whole reason to be a Member of Parliament: it is the need to protect the liberties of the people against the over-mighty power of the Executive. That battle has to be fought in every generation, even when one cannot but accept that the Home Secretary is a decent man in a Government who are not, at this moment, intending to take penal powers against innocent people. However, that is the very situation in which we should most beware. At no time is freedom more vulnerable than when good men set out to protect freedom against terrorists. The good men have an excuse for almost every action, but that excuse is too ready to be used in the wide way in which it is being used for the Bill.
  The only element that could make the situation more dangerous is the speed at which we are moving. The Home Secretary said that it has taken 10 weeks to get to this point. If it has taken him 10 weeks to get here, with the panoply of the civil service at his command, he must understand why those who have concerns about the Bill need time to debate it, to grasp the realities and to ask the questions that he has already shown are very difficult to answer.
  The key issue is democracy. Anyone who has seen the Greenpeace advertisement today will have noticed the mistake in it. It says:
  "The nuclear industry is incompatible with a democratic society."
  What it should have said is that nuclear power is incompatible with any system except democracy. It is possible to do many things safely only because of our democratic system. The danger of the Bill is that it strikes at some of the freedom that makes so many other things safe. I hate the expression "public safety" because it reminds me of the Committee of Public Safety, but it also reminds me of why that was so terrifying a committee. It used the excuse of public safety to do horrific things. Many of its members were idealists, but one can be an idealist and still do terrible things. That is why I find the Bill so objectionable.
  I shall take two examples in which I support what the Bill tries to achieve but still believe the methods in the Bill to be wholly wrong. First, I am a supporter of our active and enthusiastic membership of the European Union, but I do not believe that the third pillar should be passed into law in the form of the mechanism in the Bill. I believe in democracy. I want us to debate the issues and I want those of my hon. Friends who have much greater doubts about it than I do to have the opportunity to put their points of view forward. They will of course be wrong, but that should not deprive them of the opportunity of putting their case, or me of the chance to answer it. That is what democracy is about. I do not believe that that part of the Bill should be accepted.
  There is a false connection between race and religion in the Bill. There should be no need for any man or woman to defend himself or herself because of the colour

  83
  of their skin. That is not in question. However, it must be necessary for all of us who have faith to defend the basis upon which that faith is placed. In many cases, people do things that are profoundly wrong because of what they believe. Dr. Goebbels, for example, believed what he said. It was evil and wicked but, under this Bill, it could—or could not—be referred to as a religious belief.
  So pathetic is this part of the Bill that the notes read:
  "This definition is designed to cover a wide range of religious beliefs but does not seek to define either what amounts to a religion or a religious belief."
  If we cannot define what we are trying to protect, it seems odd to seek to protect it. We must know what we are doing, but the Bill does not know what it is doing. Let me give two examples. If anyone suggested that the author of "The Satanic Verses" was intent on stirring up his fellow Muslims, that would not be far from the truth. He wanted to do that, I believe, for what he thought was a good reason. He thought it important to sharpen people's attitudes and get them talking. However, Muslims saw it as a blasphemous insult to their religion. Will the man whom we have spent millions of pounds protecting now be subject to the law for inciting religious hatred? That must be the result of the Bill if it is passed.
  The second example involves religions that promote notions which are manifestly damaging. I am not prepared to be prevented from saying that those who believe that children should be killed by not having a blood transfusion are wrong and that they should be stopped from doing that. I know that the strength of that remark may be considered by others, and certainly by the people to whom I refer, as an incitement to religious hatred. I do not like the word "hatred"—I hope that I hate no one, but I know many who would come near to hating when they saw that the result of those people's beliefs was a dead child. I do not believe that that is a suitable case for interference by the law; I believe that I should be able to say what I believe to be true on that issue.
  Some organisations, such as Scientology, masquerade as religions. With the protection of this House, I say that Scientology is a fraud. It is a mechanism for money raising, a damaging and hateful thing. Under this measure, however, I should not be able to talk about that outside this House, and that is wrong. The Government should have no part of it.
  I must say something very firm about the Government. They ought to believe in habeas corpus. All their instincts should mean that they do not want these provisions in the Bill. I believe these measures to be so fundamentally wrong that I am very unhappy that my party is prepared to support the Bill, although I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that I understand why they are doing so. Of course it is necessary for the Opposition to show that they are fundamentally opposed to terrorism and will not put the people of Britain in danger in any way by not allowing the Government those parts of the Bill that are necessary, but that does not mean that we all have to go along with it.
  Some of us must stand up and say that so much is so wrong with the Bill that not only will we not vote for it, but we will vote against it. We do so knowing that people outside know perfectly well that we are not in favour of terrorism and are, indeed, rather right-wing about it.
  84
  A free society needs to be defended most when there is the greatest degree of pontification, self-opinion and hugely righteous indignation. Righteous indignation makes bad law. The people of Britain need to be defended in the age-old way, by supporting habeas corpus and ensuring that we do not condemn people for their religious views, forcefully put.
  7.45 pm
  Jean Corston: I wish to use the time available to me to draw on the report on the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair.
  The Bill was introduced into the House last Monday and our report was published on Friday. I do not know whether it is a record to report within four days, but it must be quite close. I wish to record my thanks to fellow members of the Committee, our staff and legal adviser for making it possible for the House to have the benefit of the report as an example of pre-legislative scrutiny.
  I thank the Home Secretary for meeting a delegation of members of the Committee before the Bill was published and giving evidence to us on Wednesday 14 November. I also thank him for responding flexibly to some of our concerns and being prepared to consider amendments on issues raised with him.
  It is precisely in circumstances such as the aftermath of 11 September that the need to be seen to be doing something puts the protection of human rights under pressure. Human rights apply to all, even people with unpopular opinions or those who support repugnant causes. It is important that we do not use this emergency procedure to introduce powers that would not have received parliamentary support but for the current concerns and fears.
  The Committee welcomed the decision not to increase retrospectively the penalties for terrorism-related hoaxes and the Home Secretary's undertaking to consider rewording clause 27(9) concerning his power to issue a second certificate when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission cancels a certificate. We welcomed the confirmation that under the provisions dealing with incitement to religious and racial hatred, which were urged on us last month by the UN Human Rights Committee, the Bill will not restrict the freedom to express opinions and beliefs, including those which are critical of some or all religions, whether expressed seriously or satirically. So, to respond to a point made earlier on the Opposition Benches, Rory Bremner and Rowan Atkinson will not be out of a job.
  The Home Secretary's statement to the Committee was also welcome, in that he told us that there will come a moment when the law of blasphemy will find its place in history. I welcome that. The Committee also accepted that SIAC is a fully fledged judicial tribunal.
  Let me summarise the matters to which the Committee wants to draw the attention of this House and the other place. First, no other European country is considering this kind of legislation. Secondly, we believe strongly that there should be a clear definition of the class of people liable to be regarded as international terrorists. We also think that people who are considered to have links with terrorists or terrorist groups are covered by the Bill in ways that give cause for concern. We can find no precedent in United Kingdom law for such a vague definition.

  85
  By relying on immigration legislation to detain suspected international terrorists, there is a risk of discrimination on the ground of nationality. We call attention to the proposals to retain indefinitely fingerprints taken from intending immigrants, believing that it stigmatises those who have no criminal connections whatever.
  We note the extension of the powers of constables to require anyone on the street to remove facial coverings. That could be a matter of sensitivity for many people, particularly Muslim women.
  We also call attention to the extension of police powers in non-terrorism cases relating to detention in a police station, such as being photographed without consent, removing any article worn on the head or face, even with the use of force, and the fact that there are no accompanying provisions covering the taking, storing, retention and cross-matching of the photos. We also note that the code of practice relating to the retention of communications data will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure, even though it may be used in evidence in courts and tribunals.
  Finally, the European arrest warrant should be introduced by primary legislation rather than by invoking the provisions in clause 109. In brief form, those were the points to which the Committee wanted to draw the attention of both Houses as they consider the measure.
  In conclusion, the Bill entails a great leap of faith and a considerable element of trust. I believe that the Home Secretary has evidence that a number of people—albeit a small number—are abusing our immigration and asylum system for the purposes of terrorism. However, by its nature, that evidence cannot be shared with us.
  I have more reason than most people to trust the Home Secretary, having served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary during almost the whole of the last Parliament, but emergency legislation passed in haste can often haunt us. The Bill provides that the power of detention will continue in force for only 15 months, so I hope that the Home Secretary has booked a slot in the legislative timetable for February 2003 to ensure that it is not renewed. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights states in its report:
  "The situations which may appear to justify the granting of such powers are temporary—the loss of freedom is often permanent."
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Ulster Unionist party understands the need for most parts of the legislation. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary will recall that in summer 1998, following the tragic bomb explosion in Omagh in which 28 innocent people were brutally murdered, the House was recalled to debate emergency anti-terrorist legislation and that there was much talk of how effective such legislation would be in combating terrorism, especially the activities of the Real IRA. I bring the attention of the House to the reality that not one person in the United Kingdom has been convicted under that legislation since it was enacted by the House.
  The Real IRA—the main target of the legislation—continues to be active in the United Kingdom and, indeed, we have seen its activities recently in Birmingham. To enact legislation is not in itself enough to defeat terrorism, so I urge the Government to look carefully at the effectiveness of the new laws that they intend to introduce.
  86
  With regret, we also note that Irish terrorism is not covered in the definition of international terrorism. That is difficult to understand, as the definition of an international terrorist group is that it is
  "subject to the control or influence of persons outside the United Kingdom".
  Is a person who resides in the Irish Republic not someone who lives outside the United Kingdom? Is it not the case that the Real IRA, for example, are controlled by people who live outside the United Kingdom? Is it not also the case that the Real IRA and indeed the Provisional IRA have been engaged in international terrorism?
  During last summer, three senior members of the Provisional IRA were arrested in Colombia. It is thought that they were involved in the preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism in that country and were sharing their engineering expertise in bomb making with the Colombian terrorist group, FARC. However, the Provisional IRA will not come under the definition of an international terrorist group set out in the Bill; nor will the Real IRA, which has been involved in procuring weapons abroad and has been assisted in its terrorist activities by people residing outside the United Kingdom. It is, of course, a two-way process. The IRA has been assisting other international terrorist groups in acts of terrorism, yet it will not fall under the provisions of the Bill.
  The leader of my party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has written to the Home Secretary setting out in detail our views on those aspects of the Bill that affect—or ought to affect—the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland. However, as I said, one of our primary concerns is the definition of international terrorism. Will the Government look at that carefully? We believe that the definition is too narrow. It is wrong to exclude groups primarily involved in acts of terrorism related to Northern Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom; there is ample evidence that those groups are involved with and engage in international terrorism.
  I support the comments of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the spokesman for the official Opposition, on the clauses dealing with incitement to religious hatred. I also support the comments of other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard. There is a genuine fear, especially among Christians, that those provisions will have serious implications for freedom of speech.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised the issue of the affirmation of fundamental Christian beliefs. There is a major concern about the proclamation of those beliefs. Will the provisions curb the freedom of Christians, for example, to evangelise in this country? Will citizens of other faiths, who live in the United Kingdom and who might take exception to such evangelism, be able to utilise the laws to curb evangelising Christians?
  The Home Secretary must reflect on those points. The concept of civil and religious liberty lies at the heart of our constitution. I and my party are concerned that the provisions will curb civil and religious liberties to such an extent that we shall be unable to pursue the evangelism of our Christian faith in this country for fear that it will cause offence and that we will end up in court as a result of such activities.
  I want to focus on the provisions on the retention of communications data. We are disappointed that the Government have not made provision for the admissibility

  87
  of wire-tap evidence in bringing prosecutions against terrorists. The Home Secretary will be aware of the success of the United States authorities in infiltrating the mafia and securing convictions using the legal powers laid down in "RICO"—the racketeer influenced corrupt organisations legislation.
  We have pursued that issue in the House for several years. Interestingly, it was considered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in his inquiry into anti-terrorist legislation. In considering the arguments for and against the admissibility of wire-tap evidence, he made several points. I quote from one paragraph of his report. In dealing with the arguments in favour of an amendment on the subject, Lord Lloyd stated:
  "The first and most obvious argument is that evidence of intercepted material is admissible to prove guilt in each of the countries which I have visited, and in every other country of which I have knowledge. The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material."
  Why on earth does the United Kingdom impose that unique handicap on itself when dealing with serious crime, including offences of a terrorist nature? I can see no sense in that.
  There are inconsistencies in the approach taken by the Government and also by previous Governments, as at present it is possible for conversations recorded by a device placed on a person to be admissible in evidence, yet evidence gathered using similar equipment to record telephone conversations is not admissible. When the Prime Minister declared war against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, he did so partly on the basis of intelligence information made available to him, no doubt including information gathered using wire-taps. Surely, if it is right to go to war on the strength of such information, it is right to make use of it to prosecute terrorists in our courts. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider the value of using wire-tap evidence and its admissibility in court if we are to secure convictions against international terrorists. It is worth bearing it in mind that, after years of terrorist activity, those people are very astute in the methods that they use to evade conviction, prosecution and, indeed, capture. We see that very clearly with the al-Qaeda group. Therefore, if we are to take stringent measures to combat terrorism, we should use every valid means at our disposal to ensure that those people are brought to justice. Making wire-tap evidence admissible is a valid method to secure prosecutions against terrorists, who are very adept at evading prosecution and conviction.
  I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech. The legislation that emerged in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing is on the statute book, but, to date, it has proven totally ineffective in bringing to justice the people who perpetrated the Omagh bombing. They are still at large, free to carry out their evil activities. Therefore, in proceeding with the Bill, the Government need to take steps to ensure that the legislation is more effective than at present. However, I support those who call for the provisions on incitement to religious hatred to be removed and dealt with in separate legislation and at greater length, so that we can fully consider their consequences.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: This is a compendious, complex camel of a Bill. In very large part, it is incontrovertible; in very large part, it is worthy. In
  88
  juxtaposition, parts of it are draconian, dangerous and completely unacceptable and, unhappily, other parts of it are completely incomprehensible. I would challenge any professor of linguistics or semantics to cast light, meaning or vision on clauses 25 and 26. As I have unsuccessfully wrestled with those clauses for a considerable time and as they go straight to the very deepest and basic part of human liberties, that is, to say the least, a shame.
  There are sinister overtones of the great Lewis Carroll in another important part of the Bill. Hon. Members will have noticed that, under clause 21(4), the definition of a suspected international terrorist is someone who has been certified as a suspected international terrorist. That logic would have been well understood by Alice in Wonderland—"words are what I certify them to be."
  Some parts undoubtedly require urgent and emergency legislation; other parts manifestly and certainly do not. Religious bigotry certainly does not, nor do other more immediate provisions. For example, the power in respect of disguises in Northern Ireland does not require emergency legislation. Giving police officers the power to say, "Give me your moustache and your balaclava", may well be valuable in the Province, but that provision should not be found in the Bill.
  Of course, the Bill's kernel, which has exercised the House for almost the whole debate, is to be found in clauses 21 to 32—the powers of internment and detention by the Executive without trial, without charge and without the subject having the elementary protection of even knowing the basis on which he or she is interned.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please forgive me for not giving way as time is limited? I suspect that I may well cover what he has in mind.
  Before I go on to deal with the Bill in detail, may I acquit the Home Secretary in two respects? May I acquit him of the outrage and the criticism—which came from many different directions, not just from Hampstead socialists—that greeted his description of those who are concerned about arbitrary, Executive imprisonment without charge or trial as being airy-fairy? I do not think for a minute that he believed what he said on that occasion. If he did, it was alarming indeed that he should have shown such contempt for the absolute, central tenet of human liberties, for which hundreds, thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of men and women—many of them designated as terrorists—have fought during the past century of totalitarian government.
  The Home Secretary has a penchant for irony. One might even say that he has fallen for it, and one is forgiving and characterises what he said as an ironic statement, as indeed one does about the words that have occasionally fallen from his lips in relation to the judiciary, which have sounded semi-venomous, if not absolutely venomous. No doubt those remarks were intended to excite the judiciary—as, indeed, they have from time to time—but I acquit him of the charges of illiteracy as to the divisions of power. I dare say that he has read Montesquieu with the care and attention that I have, and I acquit him of that charge.
  I also acquit the Home Secretary of the concept that he arrogates such powers to himself willingly—anything else would indeed be alarming—and of the oft-repeated

  89
  criticism that he is using a populist veil to push through this draconian legislation. Let us acquit him of all those things and consider the substance of what he is attempting to do.
  Three tests are necessary to arrogate all those powers to himself. First, are they necessary? Secondly, have safeguards been built into the Bill or the British common law sufficient to deal with those powers? On the first test, I am bound to say—I am sorry to have to do so—that I am unconvinced. I came here with an open mind—I wanted to be convinced. I listened for the evidence, although I appreciate that some of it cannot be shared with us. What did we hear? We heard a quotation from The Times, which said that hundreds of terrorists are living in our midst, without any source for that information. Where does it come from? I would lay quite a lot of money on the source probably being a Home Office briefing. Thus, I am unconvinced of the need for such powers, as are many hon. Members.
  Let us assume for a moment that there is such a need. Let us pass on to the linchpin of the defence offered by the Home Secretary—that SIAC will effectively take over judicial review. There was a wonderful, dramatic pause when the Home Secretary waved the rhetorical cape and said that hon. Members were all here when SIAC was created, and that those who cavilled at SIAC's powers should stand up and be counted, to a man or woman, but there was silence. I am terribly sorry that I was so slow to get on to my feet; by that time, he had moved on.
  Of course, if hon. Members had heard that SIAC—that star chamber of an organisation, with all its draconian powers over evidence—was to be used as an appeals procedure not for deportation but for the indefinite incarceration of people without charge or trial, no one would have voted for it; or, if they had, they would have felt ashamed of themselves a great deal earlier than this. SIAC is not a body known to law. It is a star chamber, and it is manifestly inadequate as the only appeal court against the exercise of such powers.
  The final provision that causes concern is clause 29—the deliberate and expressed exclusion of the courts and judicial review from the procedure. I have heard it said that the court considering judicial review cannot take into account the merits of the case before the Home Secretary. I have to say, using the best parliamentary language that I can, that that is complete bunkum. A divisional court, in considering ministerial discretion, has the power to examine everything that the Minister can consider. The test that it applies is: could a reasonable Minister have come to this conclusion? It is a high test, but I do not know why the Home Secretary should be worried about it—I have not the remotest idea. Terrorists or potential terrorists can be kept in custody while a judicial review takes place and we have all the mechanisms and protections in place under the immunity provisions so that information is not revealed in public. At the end of the day, a divisional court makes its decision, but such a court has been deliberately and totally excluded from the Bill.
  That is the point at which I stick. I will never vote for the Bill for as long as clause 29 is in it. It is the signpost to tyranny, and I will not take a single step—no matter how few people are involved—down that road.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am delighted to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), but I wish that he
  90
  would come off the fence and say what he really means. It is a treat to follow him; he is an advertisement for independent-minded Members who speak their minds. I pay tribute to him for that.
  I acknowledge the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary. I pay tribute to him for what was a real tour de force and an example of how we can oppose with reasonableness and in a forensic way. I hope that it will be a model for the future. It was a privilege to be present to hear his speech.
  I have a considerable measure of support for the Bill, but I have three concerns and in the nine and a half minutes that remain to me I shall recite them. First, like many others, I am concerned about the time scale. We all understand that there are times when the House needs to act quickly to deal with emergencies, but there are at least two major provisions that do not, by any means, constitute emergency legislation.
  The first is the anti-bribery legislation that flows from a commitment that we signed up to under Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provisions back in 1998. I know that because when I carried out a Front-Bench job on international development not a million years ago we consistently called on the Government to incorporate the OECD convention in United Kingdom law and to introduce anti-bribery provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is doing a fantastic job in her portfolio, has continued to call for that legislation but she has not, in any circumstances, specified that it should be appended to an emergency Bill. The Home Secretary got that wrong.
  We know that for many years many communities have discussed laws against religious discrimination. Until recently, we eagerly awaited the university of Derby's report on the subject because there was a measure of optimism that the Government would consider it carefully and introduce laws on religious discrimination. However, no one anticipated that they would tack those laws on to emergency legislation dealing with terrorism. That is a significant mistake. It is in the nature of Governments that they will seek to maximise every opportunity to pass legislation in the House, but I regret that they are adding to important emergency legislation other provisions that have no place in the Bill.
  My two other reservations have been well recited in the debate, but I want to make a contribution to that important discussion. I feel strongly that the Government are making a significant mistake with part 4. We all recognise that those who drafted the European convention on human rights after the second world war attempted to ensure that the holocaust would never happen again. Therefore, we support the convention 100 per cent.
  However, can one imagine that, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it was in the minds of the draftsmen of that convention that a British Home Secretary with strong grounds for suspecting that someone was a threat to national security should not be able to prevent that person from entering this country? That would not have been in their minds. In addition, they would not have contemplated that people in the country who were considered to be a threat to national security could not be deported or, certainly, extradited to countries where the

  91
  death penalty was in place. That takes the convention too far, and judges who have turned article 3 into such a provision have done us all a grave disservice.
  The person in the Dog and Duck in my constituency—although there is no pub of that name there—and people considering the issue in detail recognise that there is a problem. It is absurd that this country cannot deal with people who are a threat to national security by sending them back to their home country or onwards for trial to countries such as India or the United States of America. However, in response to that genuine problem, the Home Secretary has come up with a strange and dangerous solution—to intern or confine people without trial for an indefinite period, which must undermine many precious and long-regarded freedoms. He is making a very serious mistake.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset referred to the precedent that such a provision would create, and he was absolutely right. We have now all come to terms with, and have begun to take for granted, policemen walking around airports or Whitehall with machine guns. How did we reach that point in just a few months? Although I am in favour of the police protecting us, such draconian measures represent a slippery slope. If we introduce draconian measures on internment, who knows where we will end up in five or 10 years' time? I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider that provision. We face the real risk of reprisals, so is it right for this country to take on board that extra danger simply because he has chosen the wrong solution to an undoubted problem?
  We have offered the Home Secretary another solution. The solution is smart and there is no reason why it cannot work. It involves stepping outside the convention for a millisecond and introducing the restrictions and derogations that we need to make sure that article 3 does not apply in these circumstances. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), believes, after legal advice, that our solution cannot be introduced, will she explain why? I believe that it can and should be implemented.
  My final concern relates to part 5. I want to live in a country where people are free to follow their religious convictions and are not discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, their religious faith or their genuinely held convictions. However, I also want to live in a country where there is genuine freedom of speech. Therefore, I say to the Government and to the Home Secretary that they really need to reconsider part 5. It will almost certainly fall foul of the historic law of unintended consequences. If it becomes law, horrendous unintended consequences are likely to make religious relationships worse. I ask them to think again.
  Will the Government take the provisions in part 5 out of the Bill and put them in a White Paper so that we can have a proper period of consultation with senior religious leaders? We all want to get on together and to create a society in which people are not discriminated against and in which everyone is treated equally.
  Let us think of some of the difficulties involved with seriously and sincerely held religious faiths. Some people might argue, "There is no God but Allah, and anyone who believes differently is an infidel." Others might argue that,
  92
  "Jesus Christ is the unique gateway to salvation and anyone who does not believe that will not go to heaven." Yet others might say, "The Jews are God's chosen race and nobody else is." However, if the provisions becomes law, we shall have a cocktail for conflict and derision. We want to ensure that no one is discriminated against because of their religious belief, but let us put the provisions into a White Paper so that the Government can consult. If, after the consultation, it becomes clear that legislation is necessary, let us introduce more balanced, insightful and sensible measures.
  At the moment, the Bill is flawed. We shall of course support it, because it is important that we send a clear signal to terrorists that we shall close every loophole and take every measure to bear down on them. There are, however, at least two provisions that even reasonably minded people such as me could not support at this stage. The Government have their work cut out to persuade us that they have thought it through, seen the consequences of parts 4 and 5 and decided that, as there are no alternatives, this will make serious and sensible law. At the moment, I have to say that at the very least the jury is out.
  8.20 pm
  Caroline Flint: I have listened carefully to the debate and was pleased to be in the Chamber for Home Office questions earlier. It is interesting to note how many of today's questions related to MPs' concerns about constituents of theirs who felt that there was no justice in, for example, the way in which antisocial behaviour was dealt with in their communities—a fact which I will link to the debate that we are holding today. I strongly believe that what came out of the tragedy of 11 September was the fact that many people woke up to a world that they did not realise existed. They could not imagine such terrorist action happening in their worst nightmares.
  The events have caused me and my constituents to question whether the 20th-century methods of dealing with terrorism, or our perception of what terrorists are or how they behave, is valid in the 21st century. As the debate after 11 September unfolded and the press, television and the House debated the international crisis, many of us discussed how people could commit such a crime. As evidence unfolded, questions were raised about people in this country who in different ways perhaps aided and abetted that crime in New York on 11 September. Whether it is a question of domestic justice, in which constituents feel under seige in their communities, or of an international situation in which they could be a victim of terrorist attack, for me—and I am not a lawyer—it is interesting to hear their voices, concerns and worries about whether the pendulum swings too far in favour of allowing terrorists to have their way.
  Whatever is portrayed of the United Kingdom, and whatever arguments we may have on issues of civil liberties, I am pleased to be able to say that, looking round the world, we live in a tolerant and fairly liberal society. Our society recognises that people are entitled to rights in terms of their position. However, some of those people

  93
  who read in the papers about the latest use of human rights or social justice or equality have started to question whether they are fair.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Caroline Flint: No, I do not want to take any interventions; lots of people want to speak and I do not want to encroach on their time. I hope that we will have a chance to debate the issue further in Committee.
  How have we arrived at this point? The events of 11 September showed us all the extent to which a terrorist network could destroy thousands of lives in a matter of minutes. They showed how it is possible to bring a nation to a standstill. They exposed for many of us a new breed of non-negotiable terrorism. When those planes went into the twin towers, there were no demands or calls to say, "In exchange for this, we'll stop this." As we track events after 11 September, it is clear that bin Laden's explanations and justifications, such as the middle east situation and poverty in Afghanistan, were added on.
  We cannot interact with that terrorism as we might have interacted with a different type of terrorism in the past. It is not about doing something in exchange for releasing prisoners. Over the past few days it has emerged that bin Laden could have had a hand in the beheading of the British Telecom engineers in Chechnya, so such terrorism is certainly not about clear demands. From what I have read—I am no expert—the engineers were killed purely because they might have introduced a telecommunications systems in that country which would have allowed people to have access to discussion and debate and because bin Laden wanted to destabilise European investment. Those are not demands that we could understand.
  We are dealing with terrorists who have the education and finance to carry out hugely complex terrorist acts on an international basis. They do not need to be heavily armed or strapped up with Semtex; instead they use the latest technology to pursue their aims, based on small networks throughout the world. It is a new form of remote-control terrorism, which uses technology in a way that I have not been aware of before. Few could imagine the shattering of lives that it caused on 11 September, including the lives of 10,000 children who lost a parent on that day.
  In the face of such actions, we need new powers to tackle the threat. Our country has a relatively liberal regime. Despite all the discussion about asylum and immigration laws, the system is fair, but the fact is that there are those who seek to abuse it. We know that asylum seekers disappear. We also know that false names are used. We found out that many of the terrorists in the United States used the names of people living in, for example, Egypt. We only need a small number—not hundreds—of highly motivated activists to carry out enormous crimes against humanity.
  I believe that, when all is said and done, the debate is about striking a balance between preserving the freedoms that we all cherish and recognising the threat that we face today. We can all contribute to the scrutiny of the Bill, but few of us in the Chamber will bear the responsibility if we do not attempt to tackle a threat that might lead to a tragedy happening in central London similar to that which happened in New York.
  94
  The Government are accused of cynicism for pushing the Bill through, but with every day that goes by, we are risking our safety. Terrorists are not awaiting legislation. Bin Laden will no doubt follow world events. As the picture worsens for him in Afghanistan, who knows what plans he has for more murderous terrorist activities around the world? Some of my colleagues have suggested that we risk making matters worse, but what is the alternative? I believe that the detention plans strike a fair balance, and we should also use fingerprinting to get around the problem of people using false names at a later date.
  I turn now to police powers to ask people to remove masks or head coverings. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) told me that during elections in Qatar, where she was an observer, every woman wearing a veil was asked to remove it so that she could be identified before going to vote. If there are violent activities on our streets, the police have a right and responsibility to ask people to identify themselves. If people in the vicinity of a violent act are known to the security forces because of their activities, it is right that we should know where they were when the event took place.
  I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading. We must go home to our constituents and explain that it is necessary. Times are hard and decisions are difficult, but we must bear it in mind that safeguards are incorporated in the Bill to ensure review and to uphold people's right to reasonable behaviour. We must take people with us on this, or we will do human rights a huge injustice.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I very much hope that the House does not accept the advice of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) because, in justifying her actions, she has focused almost exclusively on the terrorism measures in the Bill. However, as she knows full well, the Bill has 14 parts, and only one deals with terrorism.
  That takes me to the central theme of my remarks. I share the reservations of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but those reservations cause me to believe that we should deny the Bill a Second Reading, rather than abstain or wait and see what happens. I say that essentially for two reasons. First, I am against the process, and secondly I am against much of the content.
  I shall deal first with the process, because that causes me the greatest offence. The Bill was published last week. We are discussing it three or four days thereafter. The lobby groups have not yet had an opportunity to express their views. The passage of the Bill will be complete by Monday of next week, following about two days of parliamentary discussion. That is a very odd thing to do with a Bill that infringes civil rights in many important respects and touches on terrorism in only one part.
  Most of the Bill has simply come out of the Home Office's back lobby. It has a lot of stuff that it wants to put before Parliament, and it has attached it to this Bill. Part 5 deals with incitement to religious hatred, which is a very important issue, but it has nothing to do with terrorism; part 10 on police powers, ditto; part 11 on retention of communications data, ditto; part 12 on bribery and corruption, ditto; part 13 on implementation of the European Union third pillar, ditto. All those matters are important, but they are certainly not about terrorism, and yet we are subjecting them to a very tight timetable.

  95
  Measures of fundamental importance to many of our constituents will be rushed through in two parliamentary days. That is offensive; indeed, it is a scandal.
  There was a perfectly proper way forward. I suggested it to the Home Secretary, and it got some support from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). We could have identified that part of the Bill which is urgent and touches on terrorism, put it into a short Bill of one or two parts and asked the House to push it through. We could have cleared the parliamentary timetable to enable the matter to be properly discussed. I would have been willing to do that, and I might even have been persuaded as to the merits of such a Bill, but most certainly I will not support an extraordinarily tight timetable to push through legislation most of which has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
  I turn now to content. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made an extraordinarily powerful speech, which I cannot emulate, on part 4. He is absolutely right because part 4 is deeply offensive. It concerns internment without trial. I was a Home Office Minister for two years and a Foreign Office Minister for five. When I was a Home Office Minister I argued against internment without trial in Northern Ireland. When I was a Foreign Office Minister I argued against unlawful detention in the middle east.
  I seem to remember that Labour Members gave me some support when I made those points—but not now. They were, of course, right because the general arguments against internment without trial are very powerful. We normally get the wrong people; it is unjust; we depart from the moral high ground, and we alienate folk. It is a jolly bad policy to pursue. When one looks a little more closely at the detail, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway has done, one sees what a scandal it is in this case. People can be confined arbitrarily and indefinitely because of the Secretary of State's suspicion or belief. Suspicion and belief are enough to take people's liberty away.
  We were told by the Home Secretary that there will be some form of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which was set up under different legislation for a different purpose; the hon. and learned Member for Medway was entirely right about that. However, that judicial safeguard is pretty rum. To start with, the detained person does not necessarily have to know the evidence; he does not even have to be present during the inquiry and may be excluded; he may not necessarily appoint representatives of his own choice. If the Law Officer chooses to appoint a representative for him, the Bill expressly states that he is not responsible for the interests of the detained person. It is a pretty rum safeguard.
  The tribunal only has to say that it may be satisfied on the grounds of suspicion or belief for a certificate to be issued. Even if the certificate is cancelled, the Secretary of State can issue another one straight away without any explanation. We were told by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston)—and she is entirely right—that the provisions will die away 15 months after the Bill is enacted. So they will, but the Home Secretary has the power by order, or even without order, to return to the House and revive or extend that 15-month period. That is a pretty rum safeguard.
  96
  I am hostile to the Bill because I disapprove of the process used to introduce it. It includes significant measures touching on important civil liberties, but we are proposing to rush it through in one week; that is not right, it cannot be right and the House should not do it, as it means that the Bill will not be properly scrutinised. Even if I am wrong about that—and I am not—part 4 is deeply offensive to those of us who cherish liberty. For that reason, I shall seek to divide the House, even if the only people in the No Lobby are the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer); they will be good company.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I support the Bill and have good reason to do so. I do not believe that its powers will be abused by the authorities in any way. I was surprised by the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) because the Government to whom he belonged had an appalling record on civil liberties.
  I admire the Home Secretary for his courage and guts in fighting terrorism which, everybody knows, is the cancer of society. I offer my condolences once again to the people of New York, who live in a city that seems to be under constant siege. With the atrocities of 11 September in mind, I broadly support the Bill's provisions. The attacks have brought home the magnitude of the threat facing the world. It is true that we have faced terrorism for many years in the form of attacks by the IRA and other groups, but the attacks on New York and Washington took nearly 200 times as many lives in one day as were taken on the single worst day of the troubles in Northern Ireland in 1974, when 33 people lost their lives.
  We are dealing with an organisation willing to take terrorist activity to unprecedented levels. America may be al-Qaeda's priority, but bin Laden's own words point to his desire to extend the conflict to Americans and their civilian and military allies. To address that threat, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is proposing several sensible measures. On aviation security, for example, the Bill improves the police's ability to deal with potentially dangerous situations at airports and on aircraft. Allowing the authorities to remove someone from a restricted zone makes sense.
  In the light of the threats made by bin Laden, another logical step is to tighten legislation relating to chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, including the provision to make it an offence to aid or abet the overseas use or development of such weapons. I approve of plans to allow officers to stop, question and search people travelling or believed to be travelling by aircraft within Great Britain.
  Only this year, President Mubarak of Egypt announced that Egyptian intelligence had learned of a communiqué regarding a plan to load an aeroplane full of explosives and plunge it into Genoa during the G8 summit in June. As we know, if terrorist organisations are to succeed, they require funding. The speed with which money can change hands means that the authorities must be able to act swiftly. It makes sense for the Government to have the power to freeze the assets of overseas individuals or groups who support terrorist acts, even if that means acting before the European Union or the United Nations have agreed a course of action.

  97
  Stifling terrorists' financial links may make their lives more difficult, but it will not be enough to close down their activities completely. Terrorism is often not a particularly expensive business for the terrorist, who may simply have to pay for plane tickets, van rentals and the rental of two apartments. Clearly, it will be difficult to starve organisations such as al-Qaeda of money. The American Treasury estimates the total cost of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings at around $18,000. That is why firmer action will sometimes be necessary.
  The United Kingdom has frequently taken too soft an approach to those who not only incite hatred, but are willing to offer assistance to terrorist organisations. Terrorists in this country have been given the freedom to indulge in terrorist activities and kill people, including one of my friends in my constituency. I can guarantee that those involved in terrorist activities will not be questioning their actions as we are questioning ours.
  Dr. Magnus Ranstorp of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism at the university of St. Andrews said:
  "London is an attractive place because it is a multinational city."
  Bin Laden had his advice and reform committee in Britain in 1994 and lived here before he gained notoriety. Our legal system, with all its avenues of appeal, which is used to provide justice for the citizens of this country, is often exploited by terrorists and their supporters. Some of the press, politicians and human rights activists also sometimes give support and encouragement indirectly.
  For that reason, I welcome the introduction of firmer detention powers. Arbitrarily detaining massive numbers of suspects would be unpopular and wrong, and as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency with a large ethnic population, I am sensitive to people's concerns. However, the Bill is targeted specifically at foreign nationals against whom there is fairly strong evidence and who cannot be sent back to their own country. We are not dealing with a catch-all measure, but with something designed very much with al-Qaeda in mind.
  I believe that many human rights campaigners take a naive view of the people with whom we are dealing and wrongly charge the Home Secretary with trampling on our civil liberties. Indeed, some hon. Members have accused him of doing that. However, this is a mature, democratic country. These measures will take effect only where there is strong evidence. Law-abiding citizens who are not involved in terrorist activities will have nothing to fear.
  Recent evidence has highlighted al-Qaeda's attempts to develop nuclear capabilities, which are well known to the international community. A nuclear or biological strike on this or any other country would represent an attack on our liberties. It is unfortunate that these measures are necessary, but the ruthless actions of bin Laden and his followers have left us with little choice. We have seen that in Afghanistan. A manual entitled "Military studies in the Jihad against tyrants" was found in Manchester in May 2000. It outlined the tactics that al-Qaeda operatives should employ. All the instructions were given to them. The cell structure, as they call it, that they are encouraged to use makes gathering evidence against them difficult. The 180-page manual indicates the thoroughness of the preparations that we have to combat.
  In an ideal world, we would not have to take these firmer measures—I can believe that—but 11 September indicated once again that we do not live in an ideal world.
  98
  It provided yet more evidence—somehow, some people seem to need more evidence—of the impossibility of reasoning with these people. A passage in the manual that I have mentioned states:
  "The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regime does not know Socratic debates…Platonic ideals…nor Aristotelian diplomacy."
  If we do not act at this precise moment, there is no doubt that the terrorists will.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Home Secretary has characterised the Bill as emergency legislation that is being introduced in response to a threat that is exceptional and beyond our past recollections. I represent a constituency that is situated very near to Birmingham. An assault on people there occurred 25 years ago. Indeed, an assault was attempted only two weeks ago. It would have been massive, had the explosive gone off, as the detonator did. People who live in London have been under assault for more than 30 years, with the threat of terrorism hanging over them. All through those years, we maintained our attachment to a basic concept of who we are as a people and what distinguishes us as citizens of this island. That includes our attachment to due process and the right to know the charges that are laid against us. At the centre of that are the courts, as well as ourselves.
  The Home Secretary has issued a statutory instrument, which will be debated later, on the basis of a claim that there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation—an issue that has come before the courts before. Lawless v. Ireland states that it refers to
  "an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency that affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the state is composed."
  I reflect on that, because no other European state has sought a derogation such as that sought by the Home Secretary. I reflect also that, in the context of the common law countries, among which we are, or rather were, pre-eminent, there is no prospect of removing these matters from the judgment of the courts. Therein lies the freedom of the citizen and even of the stranger to this shore. I do not want to see a deterioration in our regard for ourselves.
  I want to speak about process, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) discussed so eloquently. Part 3 appears to be lifted from the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. In the case of that measure, the provision was deemed—that sums up the House's regard for such matters—by the Labour majority to have been discussed, although it had not been considered. It fell only because of the intervention of a general election.
  Part 5, which covers religious hatred offences, constitutes a great threat to our liberty and sense of self-regard. Whatever my feelings, what are such provisions doing in a measure that is trying to deal with an emergency that threatens the nation? They should not be included; neither part 3 nor part 5 should be in the Bill.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, implementing the European Union third pillar is not appropriate. Its inclusion is a major constitutional breach. Provisions that affect home affairs and the criminal law in this country should not be

  99
  passed through delegated legislation. Under chapter VI of the treaty on European Union, which also deals with legal and police matters, such changes have to made through primary legislation.
  The Home Office exists to protect and ensure due process under our constitution, not to hand over power so that a directive can become part of our law without proper scrutiny by those who are sent here to represent people. There will be difficulties in the upper House about implementing such constitutional provisions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, such incorporation should be done through primary legislation.
  I asked my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) why the Bill included provisions on bribery and corruption. I am rather ashamed that they are incorporated at the insistence of Conservative Front-Bench Members. I did not know that and I am dismayed by the knowledge. Their inclusion is absolutely nutty.
  When we strip down the measure, what is left? What is the irreducible factor that causes anxiety? I am sympathetic towards some provisions, such as those dealing with pathogens, whatever they may be. They sound menacing and frightening and should be incorporated in the Bill.
  However, we must revert to the central questions with which I began. Who are we? What are we defending? What constitutes our sense of freedom and justice, which we extend to all members of our communities and those who reach our shores? I understand the Home Secretary's difficulty. I, too, believe that we should be able to reject those whom we do not want here.
  However, we all know that the Home Secretary knows no more than me who enters and leaves this country. He knows no more than me whether they are of good character or conducive to the public good. He will rely on something that I have come to dread—secret information given by those who are charged with the most difficult task of all: maintaining the security of the state. They cannot reveal their sources or give evidence in open court. On that basis, we have committed terrible actions.
  Northern Ireland has been mentioned, and hon. Members have referred to what happened in Diplock courts and in set-ups. Under such circumstances, the Home Secretary becomes the only king of our law. He determines what is right and wrong. I do not believe that that is right. Generations before us did not believe that one man should determine something so dreadful that, even if wrong, it would characterise an individual for the rest of his life.
  The Bill is wholly unacceptable. It is only part of the rather brisk march towards a security state that I have witnessed in the 22 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. Against our traditions, we are the security state non plus ultra in the western democratic world. One has only to look at everything that we now do: we cannot have freedom of information in the way that the former Secretary of State proposed in a White Paper. Why not? Because we have more secrets and sensitive matters than any other common law country.
  This is the heart of the matter: the Home Secretary hopes to bounce the House into passing the Bill, with all its 125 clauses and eight schedules. We have approximately six hours for its Second Reading. We will
  100
  then have 15 hours at the most to deal with all the concerns of the House that I and others have described. All I know is that the Bill will go through with a massive majority, and that we cannot debate these clauses and schedules rationally in 15 hours and then have time for a Third Reading. We are now also told that there will be amendments.
  The House is doing yet again what it does constantly under this Government: it is hoping that the House of Lords will assert through careful deliberation the principles that many of us on the Conservative Benches profoundly believe in. The Bill should be voted against.
  8.56 pm
  Ms Bridget Prentice: I will try to be brief, as I know that many of my colleagues want to speak.
  I do not want to live in a security state, but I believe that we want to live in a secure one. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I speak for the vast majority of our colleagues who have been silent throughout the debate, in saying that those who shout the loudest do not necessarily have the best arguments. I should say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, if he is looking for briefings, I have several here from a number of the different lobby groups, and I would be happy to share them with him.
  The majority of provisions in the Bill are uncontroversial. The measures relating to hoaxers, financial powers, data sharing, biological and chemical instruments, the nuclear industry, and strengthening security at airports must be matters on which hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree. I accept the argument that the timing of the Bill is difficult. It is true that its introduction has been speedy, but we have had time, albeit limited, for some scrutiny already. The Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have given some scrutiny to the Bill already. We have certainly had more time to scrutinise it than we have had for any previous emergency legislation brought before the House. Clearly, the world has changed since 11 September. Previous legislation could not have taken into account that terrible event, so we must surely accept that this is, indeed, emergency legislation.
  I want to address two main points. First, like many hon. Members, I have deep concerns, as did our Select Committee, about the clauses dealing with incitement to religious hatred. That is not because I disagree with the provision in principle. I agree that we should legislate on the matter. It is, however, a complex area that needs to be examined in more detail. Nor do I have any concerns about the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) condemning the Pope as the anti-Christ and having his right to freedom of speech undermined. In the situations in which that hon. Gentleman makes such remarks, I simply turn the other cheek. The issue is complex, and I would like further debate involving members of all our faith communities and others before that provision becomes law.
  Secondly, I want to talk about the clauses relating to the asylum and immigration, and to the question of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and judicial review. I am convinced that SIAC's role in reviewing the

  101
  Home Secretary's decisions is more than adequate. When the Opposition spokesman commented on how ludicrous it was that the Home Secretary would not have the ability to remove people, he made the very case for judicial review not being needed. There is no need for judicial review because SIAC has a High Court judge presiding, and another judge sitting with him or her, as well as someone with special experience in security issues. Furthermore, there will be a right of appeal to the divisional court on a point of law.
  I say to those who argue that there should be judicial review that one High Court judge reviewing the decision of another would simply add another layer. On the matter of evidence, the Home Affairs Committee has expressed concerns. The hearing could be held in camera, which would prevent the press from seeing the evidence, but the defendant may cross-examine. That means that the defendant would have information from the security services that may undermine their role and, indeed, threaten people's lives. I do not see why we should endanger the lives of members of our security services in such circumstances.
  As so many colleagues want to speak, I draw my comments to a close by saying that I welcome the Bill in so far as any of us can welcome such legislation. I say to the civil liberties lobby that it does not have a monopoly on concerns about people's rights, whether they be civil liberties or human rights. No one, at least on this side of the House, takes such steps lightly, which is why we on the Home Affairs Committee reluctantly accept the need for the legislation in these times.
  I believe that the Home Secretary himself is as reluctant as we are to take these measures, but the evil of 11 September, when 10,000 children were left without a parent, and our country's inadequacy in respect of dealing with those suspected of terrorism mean that the Bill is necessary. I hope that the House supports it.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice). We both sit on the Home Affairs Committee and we did our best to consider the Bill in the little time that we had. Like her, I do not deny the scale of the problem that we face—200 of our fellow countrymen dead in the world's worst terrorist outrage—nor do I deny the great evidence that we are still in danger.
  The Home Affairs Committee has twice been briefed by the security services. I even managed to make it to the right building on one occasion, but the first time, instead of going to MI5's, I went to the other one. I could not ask a policeman the way. The security services gave us compelling evidence and I ask them, if they can, to publish as much as possible, because we in the House are being asked to pass remarkable legislation.
  I do not deny the need for a Bill and there are good elements to it, such as those on hoaxing, British Transport police and nuclear facilities, but I have four serious objections. The first is the size of the Bill—we do not have to read it, as we can simply weigh it. There are 124 clauses and eight schedules, but we are told that it must be dealt with by Christmas.
  Although the House has only three days on which to consider the Bill, it will be law by Christmas, which, as other Members have said, is the operative word. This
  102
  Christmas tree Bill has been round every Department and pieces have been hung on it. Having listened to the debate, I believe that we shall have to perform serious surgery.
  I am new to the House and today I have seen one of the worst sides of being a Member, as we are passing a 124-clause Bill in just three days at the whim of the Executive. We have heard powerful speeches laying bear the objections to parts of the Bill and I beg the Government to listen. They have had little time to prepare the Bill. If they came back to the House to say, "We have thought again and we will remove parts of it," they would be applauded and there would be no loss of face.
  Let me touch on some objections. We must be clear on the third pillar and clause 109: effectively, it allows Ministers to pass through the House as a statutory instrument rather than a Bill any measure agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. That is staggering.
  The Government are not saying, "Europe has agreed an important terrorist measure and we must rush it through the House and get it into British law." They are not saying, "A package of terrorism measures has been agreed so we must put it into law." They are not even saying that any European Union decision on terrorism must go through this place quickly and become law. They are saying that any, and possibly every, measure agreed under the third pillar by Europe's Justice and Home Affairs Ministers can go into law without primary legislation being passed.
  Where was that in any of our manifestos—in anything that we put before people when we are asked to come to this place? And what important decision in Europe produced the need for this legislation? There is the rub: we do not yet know. The terrorism framework directive has not yet been finally agreed, so we do not know what we shall be passing into law and what is quite so urgent.
  It is even worse than that. We are not taking this power—not taking this huge constitutional step—in a normal Bill, debated properly in the House; we are rushing it through in a piece of emergency legislation that will be debated in only three days. As other Members have said, clause 109 is not emergency legislation, and it should be struck from the Bill.
  Then there is the question of incitement to religious hatred. I utterly condemn those who stir up religious hatred, whether we are talking about Abu Hamza in the Finsbury park mosque or thugs in the National Front, but I want the police to use existing laws to gather intelligence, chase the people concerned, build up the evidence, take it to the Crown Prosecution Service and prosecute through the courts. The question we must ask today is whether we need a new law.
  The Prime Minister gave an elegant answer at Question Time. He said "There is a law against racial hatred; we must have a law against religious hatred." But, as many hon. Members have said, the two are not the same. People are born with their race, but they are not born with their religion. Even that is not the strongest argument: a Muslim might feel that his religion is so core to his being that it is part of his identity.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cameron: I am afraid not. We are very short of time.

  103
  The real argument is this, I think. We all know that no race is greater than another. All races are equal: people are equal, whatever the colour of their skins. Every religion, however, claims that it is the true faith, and denies the veracity of the others. [Interruption.] Almost all religions do. If you are a Catholic, if you are a Jew, if you are a Muslim, you claim that yours is the true faith.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cameron: I am afraid not. There is not enough time.
  There is, however, an even more serious objection to the Bill: it would bring the whole of the law into disrepute. When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee, I asked what definition was being used. She said that it was intended to catch those who produced literature that was
  "clearly inciting people to hatred and likely to result in public disorder."
  I asked the Minister whether it would catch "The Satanic Verses", a book that did, in many people's eyes, incite religious hatred, and in some instances led to disorder. She replied that she did not believe it would be caught, but she cannot know: she is not the Crown Prosecution Service.
  The real point is this, is it not? Many people believe that the book should be caught. The police and the CPS would be inundated with complaints, and when they did not prosecute, how would people feel? They would feel desperately let down, and the law would be brought into disrepute.
  I believe—some Labour Members mentioned this—that the real answer is to level the playing field between the religions by abolishing the blasphemy laws. I suggested that to the Minister when she appeared before the Select Committee. However, she said that such action was outside the terms of the Bill. Is that not the reason why none of the stuff on religious hatred should be dealt with in an emergency Bill? Let us do that separately, in a considered way, so that we can examine all the options.
  There are parts of the Bill that we need to pass into law rapidly, to help us to deal with the terrorist threat. Powers are needed—powers that the Home Secretary has told us about. Huge parts of the Bill, however, have nothing to do with the emergency and nothing to do with terrorism. That is made clear in the Select Committee's report, and I hope that the Government will heed it when they consider the Bill further.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: In view of the time, I shall try to be brief.
  Like many other Members, I do not welcome the Bill with open arms. In view of the events of 11 September, however, I recognise the existence of a new and immediate threat, and I think that the Bill is designed as an emergency provision to plug some of the gaps in our existing security.
  I should like quickly to express three concerns. First, when we are addressing these types of issue, and regardless of the exasperation and frustration felt by some,
  104
  it is not helpful to dismiss those who express concerns about civil liberties as being "airy-fairy". I do not think that there is any part to play for such criticism, particularly in the Labour movement.
  Secondly, although I listened with interest to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), I do not think that the case has been made against judicial review. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect further on that issue.
  Thirdly, although I, like many other hon. Members, recognise the intention behind the provisions against religious hatred, I am not at all convinced that the way in which they are presented in the Bill will be helpful.
  I was entertained by and listened with interest to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). However, regardless of the craftsmanship of his speech and the colourfulness of his prose, I do not think that some of the comments we have heard truly chime with the concerns and fears of the British public. We would be doing them a great disservice if we were to ignore the real threat posed against them. I also do not think that we would ever be forgiven if there was a serious attack on this country and it was later shown to have been preventable if we had taken the action necessary to plug gaps in our law.
  If the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) genuinely believes that only one of the Bill's 14 parts deals with terrorism, he clearly needs more time to read and scrutinise the Bill.
  We should be arguing for immediate implementation of many of the Bill's provisions, such as those to freeze terrorists' assets. The events in the United States showed us the purposes to which terrorists put their money. I also welcome the provisions on retaining fingerprints and other forms of identification, although I do so with a heavy heart, because we need those provisions now.
  Like other hon. Members, I also see the necessity of provisions to secure laboratories and other installations that contain toxic materials and micro-organisms. We should also welcome the seemingly minor provisions to extend the powers of the British Transport police, the atomic energy constabulary and even the Ministry of Defence police, although I recognise that there are some concerns about how those provisions will operate in practice.
  As for concerns about the provisions on detention in part 4, I think that the Home Secretary was absolutely genuine today when he pointed out that he is proposing them because he has no option. The Law Lords left him no option when they said that another way of providing safeguards in national security cases would have to be found. Although the shadow Home Secretary presented an alternative, my view is that this is emergency legislation that we need now to cope with the present threat. If there were another way, I would be happy for the House to consider it. I argue strongly, however, that we should not deny ourselves the available protection before an alternative has been presented.
  I shall make only one party political point. I listened with great interest to some eloquent and elegant speeches by Opposition Members in defence of freedom. I only wish that they had found that voice when some of them were in government or when others supported Governments who enacted some of the most draconian measures against good, honest and hard-working British

  105
  trade unionists who posed no threat to security. I do not recall Opposition Members expressing concern about those people's freedom.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to cover two main issues. Let me make it clear straight away that I have serious doubts about some of the Bill's provisions, which I do not support. Although security needs to be reviewed in the light of what happened on 11 September, I do not believe that the contents of the Bill are being properly scrutinised. Nor do I believe, despite the fact that it is intended to be in force for only 15 months in the first place, that it will not be in force long term. The history of all previous legislation introduced in this way suggests that the Bill will last and be in force for a long time to come.
  Part 4—clauses 21 to 23 in particular—provides the powers to act on suspicion. Many Members have discussed the problems of certification and of the definition of suspected terrorism leading to indefinite detention, the nature of the evidence and how it can be challenged. I do not want to repeat their remarks, but I shall make one brief point.
  Throughout debate on those clauses so far, the assumption seems to have been made that the intelligence with which we shall be dealing will come from British intelligence services. Inevitably, some foreign Governments will want their political opponents who live in this country to be regarded as international terrorists, and will no doubt try to supply evidence and intelligence to that effect. Questions will arise about how that intelligence will be assessed and what the political pressures will be, depending on which country the evidence comes from. I am sure that if we were not introducing the Bill, but were considering the introduction in other countries of indefinite internment without trial, many hon. Members would say that they fundamentally disapproved of what was happening.
  Clauses 33 and 34, which have not been discussed much in this debate, deal with the UN convention on refugees, and certification that the convention does not apply. Why are those clauses needed? Terrorists are not covered by the convention, as article 1(f) of it makes clear. People who have committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not covered by the convention. The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made it clear that it does not believe that the change is necessary.
  The question that should be asked about this part of the Bill is: how is it possible to make a proper judgment about whether someone should be excluded from the provisions of the refugee convention without considering their whole story? It is only by full consideration that it is possible to decide whether they should he excluded. The drafting of the clauses means that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will not be able to do that. It will not be able to question the merits of the decision that the Secretary of State has made. That is specifically excluded.
  Clause 34, the title of which is "Construction", appears to be an interpretation of parts of the 1951 convention—and, indeed, a reservation concerning some of those parts. How does that relate to article 42 of the convention—to which we are signatories—which makes it clear that
  106
  reservations concerning articles were possible only at the time of signature and accession to the convention. Indeed, it is impossible to make reservations concerning some articles, including article 1.
  I have significant doubts about the provisions on religious hatred, which I do not have time to detail this evening. The Bill raises serious questions, and I hope that significant changes will be made in Committee, especially to parts 4 and 5. Without such changes, I shall not find it possible to support the Bill's Third Reading.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We have heard some powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House and I single out the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), whose speech we all enjoyed, my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I would say that it was one of my right hon. and learned Friend's best speeches except that I used to be his speech writer, and I know that he made better speeches earlier in his career.
  It is good that we have heard high quality speeches because we are discussing, once again, the distinction between freedom and security—the distinction between the civil liberties of the individual and the liberty of civil society. Once again, we face a Government—I take the point that other Governments have done the same, including Conservative Governments—who claim the power of the moment, in this case the events of 11 September, to infringe further on our civil liberties. However, that need not stop Members of Parliament scrutinising carefully the legislation that is put before us and giving each clause due consideration. We must test whether the legislation is strictly necessary.
  I shall concentrate on part 4 of the Bill, which so many hon. Members have discussed. It will drive a coach and horses through 800 years of legal history, stemming from habeas corpus, and we must be careful about excluding people from legal processes and about ruling out judicial review. I notice that one clause is actually called "Exclusion of legal proceedings". That is not an appropriate approach.
  We know who is behind the Bill; anyone who has followed the Home Secretary's remarks in recent weeks will know that he has no time for lawyers. Indeed, he was reported in The Times immediately after he spoke at the Labour party conference as saying:
  "Freedom springs not from abstract legal process but from political action. After all, British democracy was not created by lawyers and judges."
  I do not know how much history the Home Secretary has read, but he profoundly misunderstands the history of this country. Freedom has come from Acts of Parliament and acts by politicians, but it has also come from hundreds of years of judicial decisions and the growth of our common law. It was in large part the common law and the decisions of lawyers that placed the Government within the rule of law and protected the liberties of the individual. Our founding fathers are not only politicians and those who draft constitutions: they are also jurists and judges who, over the centuries, have taken those decisions. We must be careful.

  107
  The Home Secretary tells us that he has to take these powers because, in effect, he is hindered by human rights lawyers. That is not the case. What really restricts his power to act are the various international agreements and conventions that Governments of all parties have entered into on our behalf. We are being asked to erode the historic liberties of our country, including hundreds of years of common law and habeas corpus, so that we can twist our way around international agreements. That does not make for a pretty spectacle. Later this evening, we will go through the legal charade of claiming that this country is in a state of public emergency so that we can get part of the Bill through this House of Commons which is democratically elected by the people of this country. That is not a happy state of affairs.
  Clause 23 states the position explicitly:
  "A suspected international terrorist may be detained…despite the fact that his removal or departure from the United Kingdom is prevented…by…a point of law which…relates to an international agreement".
  That is why we have to go through these contortions. It does us no great credit and we should be honest about why we have got into a mess. It is because we have incorporated one of those conventions—the European convention on human rights—into our law.
  I noticed in the recent appeal brought by the Home Secretary against certain asylum seekers who objected to being detained that the court said that
  "we started this judgement by remarking that it was artificial to consider English domestic law and the Human Rights Convention separately. The Human Rights Act has made the Convention part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom."
  The Bill will of course become law, despite the valiant efforts of some Opposition and Labour Members to oppose it. I hope that as we pass the Bill we are aware that we are jumping through legal hoops and undermining our domestic tradition of liberty simply because we have got into a mess about the international agreement to which we have signed up. I hope that we are aware that we are undermining the rights of our citizens because we have given so many rights to people, including suspected international terrorists, who come to this country and claim asylum.
  9.25 pm
  Vernon Coaker: The terrible events of 11 September have caused us all to think about how we can try to prevent such an awful thing from happening again on the world stage. It has also made us think about how we protect our citizens and country and ensure, as far as possible, that all can live in peace and safety. How to guarantee such security poses a dilemma for democracies and for democrats. For the essence of democracy is freedom—the freedom to protest and freedom of movement, speech, association and thought. Such freedoms must be protected against those who seek to destroy them. How should we respond to those who threaten those freedoms at home and would undermine our democracy? That is what the Bill is about and what it seeks to defend.
  As always, in a liberal democracy, there is tension—even conflict—between the public interest and the civil liberty of the individual. It is, however, understood by all
  108
  that certain rights have to be restricted for the benefit of all. Individual human rights are important and must be protected, but so must collective human rights. A small minority must not dictate to the majority.
  If an individual seeks to bring terror to the lives of countless others through the bomb, the gun or other means, does society not have a right to protect the human rights of those countless threatened people through the denial of that individual's human rights? That is what causes many to deplore those who use the very freedoms treasured by all of us to undermine and threaten our democracy. It is ridiculous that the Government can do nothing while terrorists use our immigration and asylum laws, which offer genuine refugees a safe haven, as a means of staying here and openly pursuing their hostile opinions. Thus, the Home Secretary is taking action to address that anomaly through the Bill.
  The Bill will guarantee the individual rights of the majority by restricting the rights of a small number. That change is demanded loudly and clearly across the country in every constituency, and will reverberate through every estate. Ordinary people can see a clear difference between ensuring that a suspected terrorist can face special detention procedures and a threat to everyone's civil liberties. They can see a clear difference between tackling effectively those who would maim and terrorise and those who seek to protest through democratic means.
  In my view, if we did not seek to strengthen our laws as the Bill proposes, following the events of 11 September, the majority of our citizens would be staggered by our complacency. For them, this is not an abstract debate; it is about ensuring that the civil liberties that count are those of the majority of our citizens—those who are law abiding and respectful of democracy, who are tolerant and who see our multicultural society as a huge strength. They demand that we should, above all, safeguard their human rights and freedoms. Not enough has been said about their rights and civil liberties.
  If the Bill restricts freedoms, it is the freedom to terrorise, and most people believe it is right and proper that it does so. They can see a difference between that and persecuting minorities, banning dissent or unpopular opinions and undermining our traditional rights and freedoms.
  In any society, the security of its citizens has to be one of the major tasks of Governments. Strong measures are necessary to tackle the threat of terrorism. We simply cannot and must not put the rights of an individual above those of the majority. For too long, ordinary people have been frustrated; they believe that they have seen the erosion of their right to feel safe. They have felt ignored as they have seen individuals exploit the judicial system, use our democracy and abuse our desire for fairness and freedom under the law: 11 September has given them a voice and the confidence to demand that their rights—the rights of decent, law-abiding people—be respected above those of the terrorist. Parliament—their Parliament—must respond to that demand: not to undermine democracy, but to sustain it.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: We have had a fascinating debate. An illustration of the advantage of starting the main business immediately after questions is that the debate has been much fuller than might otherwise

  109
  have been possible. Second Reading debates are often curtailed, but today there have been ample opportunities for many Members to make contributions.
  As I contemplate the contributions that have been made, I note that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is in a small minority. Only the hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and the hon. Gentleman tried to justify the entirety of what the Home Secretary came to the House to propose. The vast majority of the contributions made during this fascinating debate expressed grave reservations about sections and components of the legislation.
  Those anxieties and fears are shared by Opposition Members. It is abundantly clear that in embarking on emergency legislation, designed to respond to sudden and horrific events, we must be extremely careful not to go beyond the bounds of what is proper, and try to ensure that civil liberties are upheld.
  I was especially struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He highlighted the behaviour of the United Kingdom Government during the period of the French revolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) noted that similar excesses occurred in France at the same time. It must be a characteristic that one action sets off another. The greater the tendency of this Parliament to legislate and to raise the temperature, the greater the knock-on effect, which can go far beyond this country, in creating a climate where people want to suppress activities that they think may be prejudicial to the safety of the state.
  We have heard powerful contributions from several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I apologise if I am unable to go through all of them in detail. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) expressed his concerns about the religious hatred clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) spoke on the same theme.
  I have already mentioned the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. He made telling points about what happens when religious tolerance and religious hatred come into conflict. We also heard the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made what I can only describe as a fizzing speech. He was moving around behind me throughout his speech and I was never quite sure where he was going to pop up next.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) all made speeches on the same theme. Although they accepted the need for emergency legislation, they expressed disquiet about its scope.
  I turn to the way in which the Opposition would have wanted to approach such a Bill in the circumstances that have arisen. First, I point out to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have expressed disquiet and, indeed, opposition that I completely understand their position and have great sympathy with it, but the problem is that it is difficult to escape the fact that the events of 11 September were extremely unusual. They amounted to terrorism on a scale that the world has not seen before. It is all very
  110
  well for Opposition Members to feel in our hearts that perhaps the threat may not be as great as it has been depicted, but we must, to an extent, accept the information given to us by the Home Secretary that the threat is real and serious.
  I was struck by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). He made one of his characteristic speeches on civil liberties, with which I have so much sympathy. However, he began by saying that, when those events took place his mind turned to places such as Sellafield or nuclear power installations, where a catastrophe could occur if unscrupulous terrorists were involved. The House would do well to ponder the fact that, if such an event were to occur, under the European convention on human rights it would fall within the category of an event threatening the life of the nation. The Home Secretary grimaces slightly, but let us consider the issue sensibly.
  I used to be involved in legal work on nuclear safety, and I remember a case involving a power station on Anglesey. Although terrorist bombs may kill people, events involving nuclear power stations could lead to widespread nuclear contamination, with catastrophic consequences not only because they would kill a large number of people, but because they would jeopardise ordinary life. At the time of the Lockerbie air disaster, fears were expressed about the fact that the plane could have crashed into the Chapel Cross nuclear power station, whereas the plane passed over it on its way down. The House would do well to ponder such events.
  We accept that some of the Home Secretary's proposals seem to constitute a measured and sensible response to the emergency that has arisen. Indeed, I have listened to some of the points made by hon. Members, and few have reservations about part 6 on weapons of mass destruction or part 7 on the security of pathogens, or about the extra protection for the nuclear industry in part 8.
  Most tellingly, I heard no hon. Member criticise part 9 on aviation security. We expected such measures to appear in the Bill. Indeed, provisions such as those on communications data and police powers may well be targeted specifically on terrorism. It is for that reason that we on the official Opposition Front Bench support the Government on the Bill, but it is for that reason only. I am bound to tell the Home Secretary that an awful lot in the Bill does not seem to be about the emergency that has arisen at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are going soft."] One can never go soft on issues involving civil liberties—a point that I made in Committee to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in debates on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, to which, I am afraid, he seems remarkably oblivious. We will not go soft on those issues; we want them to be considered carefully, and I shall simply tell the House what we will seek to do.
  First and foremost, in relation to some of the issues, such as police powers, we will seek to amend the Bill to make it absolutely clear that, where extra powers are provided, they are for the purpose of fighting terrorism and that they do not represent a general enhancement of ordinary powers to deal with criminals, which should be given close scrutiny and not passed as emergency legislation at all. It appears that there is absolutely no reason why the provision on the communication of data should not be confined to offences that relate to terrorism. I do not understand why it should be so difficult to isolate

  111
  what is a terrorist offence. Those investigating such offences will know exactly what they are, so it should be possible to frame the Bill to ensure that it is confined to those offences and not to general criminal conduct.
  With the assistance of the Liberal Democrats, we intend to give the provisions for internment in part 4 the closest possible scrutiny. First and foremost, one need only examine the detailed wording to realise that the provision on the grounds under which proceedings may be brought can be substantially tightened up. The question of mere belief should give way to the question of substantial ground to believe, and we shall seek to amend the Bill accordingly.
  On the internment provisions, we shall seek in Committee to ensure that there is judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision-making powers so that those who see the provisions in operation consider that they are manifestly fair and that they do not have the taint—an unintended taint, I know—of being a purely administrative procedure that has been taken out of the hands of the judiciary. I do not share the Home Secretary's phobias about the judiciary in this country; they have served us extremely well. Therefore, it is perhaps unfortunate that he should have introduced the Bill having prefaced his remarks so frequently with disparaging comments that are bound in the circumstances to make Members question the basis of his approach.
  We shall also examine carefully whether there are alternatives to internment. It may be justified but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out, there are substantial problems involving the duration of the internment, the public resistance that may arise when someone is incarcerated and deprived of their liberty and the relationship between internment and the Home Secretary's undoubted powers to deport.
  It is fascinating that the two reports produced by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights—neither of which is exactly dominated by Opposition Members—make absolutely clear the oddity of the situation by which the interpretation of article 3, as developed by jurisprudence in the European Court of Human Rights, seems to fly in the face of common sense. It beggars belief that the Home Secretary should not be able to choose to deport someone to countries to which people could properly be deported. I refer to those countries that any right-thinking person would believe provide a reasonable standard of justice and that do not torture people or arbitrarily put them to death. If, after the due process of justice, it is decided that someone should suffer the death penalty after he had committed serious terrorist offences in another country, most people in this country would consider that to be a matter for the person who decided to commit a terrorist act in that country in the first place.
  In those circumstances, we shall probe the possibility of introducing before the House measures that will enable the Home Secretary to deport people to the countries that I have mentioned. As he has the powers under domestic law, he should have the courage of his convictions or at least the courage of the convictions of the Home Affairs Committee or the Human Rights Committee, which have suggested that he should grasp the nettle and introduce such powers for himself and exercise them in a way that no one in the House could possibly fault. That would
  112
  mean that we could be fairly certain that the European court would have to change its approach after what I strongly suspect was its wrong decision.
  I merely point out that hardly anyone who has spoken in the debate has had a good word about the Bill's provisions on religious hatred. Although they may be well intended, I suspect that they are unworkable and capable of bringing about great injustice, A wide range of people may be caught by them. The protections will not apply simply to people in established religions, but to those who wish to carry out practices that most people would regard as abhorrent. They will enjoy a protection from criticism that the Home Secretary will come to regret.
  I very much hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members in general, while supporting the principles that the Government are trying to achieve, will give the Bill close scrutiny. We will support the Government only on that condition. We will want the Bill to be amended to ensure that when it leaves Parliament it is in a state of which we can be proud and not, as it stands at present, in a state that causes great disquiet for our civil liberties.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I want to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the spirit in which they have made it their business to get to grips with the Bill's detail so quickly after publication to enable us to have a good debate. I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to take part. I hope that those who were not able to will stick with it and make their contributions in Committee. I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and the members of their respective Committees for their work in analysing the Bill and producing their reports so expeditiously.
  Before I comment on the contributions on the Bill's detail, I want to refer to the three over-arching issues that were raised. Some hon. Members expressed concern about the timetable and the procedure for considering the Bill, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We have taken 10 weeks to consider what is necessary. During that time there has been considerable debate and consultation, especially after the Home Secretary's statement on 15 October, when the Government's intentions were set out in detail.
  On the timetable in the House, I remind hon. Members that we still face an emergency. The Bill's powers are necessary to increase the protection and security of people here. Members have to consider whether the public will expect all of us to ensure that the issues are considered not only as thoroughly as possible but as quickly as possible in accordance with a timetable that reflects the urgency of the situation.
  The second general point was that the Bill's content is not restricted to terrorism. I fail to understand that concern. All the measures are designed to enhance intelligence and information gathering, to restrict people suspected of involvement in terrorism, to prevent abuse of asylum and to give law enforcement and security agencies powers to tackle the problems that we face. We cannot

  113
  draw a firm line between terrorism and crime. Crime funds and fuels terrorism, and the links between serious crime and terrorism are clear.
  Mr. Hogg: The Minister is saying that the entirety of the Bill is connected with terrorism. What connection with terrorism has the provision designed to make it an offence to say religiously offensive things? What connection with terrorism exists in the part that deals with bribery and corruption abroad?
  Beverley Hughes: I was getting to that, but I can tell the right hon. and learned Member now that we need to prevent people from exploiting the events of 11 September and inciting disorder on the grounds of religious hatred precisely because of those events.
  The Bill will ensure that enforcement agencies, security services and Government Departments are able to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, and improve the security of industries that may be vulnerable. Terrorism's connection with crime means that the Bill covers a wide range of Government measures. It is not only one part out of 14 that deals with terrorism, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham maintained; all 14 are relevant to the tasks facing us.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: If those connections are so clear, why does the Bill not apply to terrorist acts involving parts of the United Kingdom?
  Beverley Hughes: We already have powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 that apply to UK nationals and people who are resident here. This Bill is about international terrorism, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman appreciated that by now.
  Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, also raised the perceived need for more sunset or review clauses. We believe that only the measures that need regular review—those concerning detention and the possible mandatory requirement on communication service providers—require an expiry or review date. I can say to my hon. Friend that the derogation provision, which is linked to the detention measures, will fall after five years unless it is reviewed, and a sunset clause would mean that the Bill would have to be reintroduced. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, there will be a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House every year. That has been agreed by the Leader of the House.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Beverley Hughes: No, I am sorry, but I will not give way again.
  The Bill is a proportionate and balanced package that relates clearly to the situation that we face. There has not been a great deal of debate about some of the measures, including the provisions on terrorist finances, measures on weapons of mass destruction, pathogens and toxins, police powers and measures on communications data. I say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that it is particularly in relation to those issues that the links between terrorism and crime are most evident, and that is the reason for their inclusion. The same is true of the measures on bribery and corruption, and I am surprised
  114
  that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) did not seem to know that his Front-Bench colleagues had proposed that those measures be included.
  I turn now to the three issues of most contention. The first is the proposal that Justice and Home Affairs Council provisions be incorporated in this country's laws through the affirmative resolution procedure. It seems to us right that, when European Union Heads of Government agree on measures to tackle terrorism and serious crime, we should be ready to meet our commitments as quickly as we can. The Bill will enable third pillar measures to be made law through the route already used for environmental and other measures.
  In addition to scrutiny in the European Scrutiny Committee, where proposals are being developed, the measures will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), claim that this would be a major constitutional change. They do not seem to have read the detail of the Bill or to have realised that the provision will be circumscribed.
  Let me now deal with the measures on religious hatred. It is important that we tackle those who would exploit the tensions which inevitably, because of the nature of the events and their perpetrators, arise from 11 September. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the measures on incitement to religious hatred will not undermine free speech and the normal activities that we take for granted, but the Bill will cover those who indulge in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention, or the likelihood, of stirring up hatred of others because of their religious beliefs. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will not shout at the Minister.
  Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing to the injustice experienced by members of the Muslim community, who are excluded from current provisions on racial hatred, unlike other groups such as Jews and Sikhs. I noted the reservations of some of my hon. Friends; however, we need to prevent people from exploiting those events.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Beverley Hughes: I will not give way.
  Turning to the measures on detention, there is clearly misunderstanding of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the way in which it works under legislation passed unopposed in the House in 1997. Many features criticised by some Members tonight were not criticised then. Under the Bill's provisions, SIAC fulfils the purpose that it already fulfils. The difference is that, under the powers proposed in the Bill, the Home Secretary will take the power to detain somebody when that person is adjudged, not only by the Home Secretary but by SIAC, to be a threat to national security. I must tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that that is not internment but something completely different; those people can leave whenever they choose.

  115
  The proposal to detain people who are a threat to our national security is not one that we make lightly. Members have rightly pointed out that it is a serious power. Under the Immigration Act 1971, we already have the power to deport such people, but if they refuse to leave or if we cannot deport them to a safe country that would respect their right to reasonable treatment, we face a real and difficult dilemma. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for pointing out and acknowledging that dilemma.
  The events of 11 September marked a step change in the kind of threat posed by international terrorists; there was a deliberate intention to claim the lives of thousands of innocent people with a highly organised, no-warning suicide operation. The lengths to which those terrorists will go, including their own certain death, makes new demands on our ability to anticipate their plans and therefore protect our people. I agree with my hon. Friends the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) who pointed out that, as Members of Parliament, we should be asking ourselves a critical question: what do members of the public—our constituents—expect us to do? That is the critical test, but it was not advanced by a single Opposition Member in our debate.
  In the aftermath of 11 September, while we do not need a wholesale revision of existing laws, we do need new levels of security and intelligence as well as exceptional temporary measures. The package of measures introduced in the Bill is balanced; it is a proportionate approach to the extraordinary circumstances that we now face. We are all striving to strike the best possible balance between the right of all our citizens to protect their safety, freedoms and liberties and the right of individuals whom we suspect of wrongdoing to due process and fair treatment. I believe that the Bill strikes that balance, and I believe the vast majority of ordinary people in this country think so too. I ask all Members to support the Bill tonight, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 458, Noes 5.

  Division No. 65]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Battle, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Amess, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Bellingham, Henry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benn, Hilary

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bercow, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Betts, Clive

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Bacon, Richard

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Baird, Vera

  Blizzard, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Banks, Tony

  Blunt, Crispin

  Barker, Gregory

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  116

  Borrow, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, Peter (Vie Wrekin)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brady, Graham

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brazier, Julian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brennan, Kevin

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Bryant, Chris

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burnham, Andy

  Edwards, Huw

  Burns, Simon

  Efford, Clive

  Burt, Alistair

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butterfill, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fallen, Michael

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cameron, David

  Feid, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Cash, William

  Flight, Howard

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chope, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Francois, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gale, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clelland, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  Coaker, Vernon

  Goggins, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Goodman, Paul

  Cohen, Harry

  Gray, James

  Coleman, Iain

  Grayling, Chris

  Collins, Tim

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Colman, Tony

  Greenway, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Conway, Derek

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Grogan, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cousins, Jim

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cran, James

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Crausby, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hammond, Philip

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hanson, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cummings, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Havard, Dai

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hayes, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Heald, Oliver

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Healey, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hendry, Charles

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  117

  Heppell, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hesford, Stephen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Hill, Keith

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hoban, Mark

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hodge, Margaret

  MacDougall, John

  Hoey, Kate

  McFall, John

  Hope, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Horam, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  McIsaac, Shona

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  McNulty, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hunter, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Hurst, Alan

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Illsley, Eric

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mann, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Maples, John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Marris, Rob

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Jamieson, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Martlew, Eric

  Jenkins, Brian

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Meale, Alan

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Miliband, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Miller, Andrew

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Kelly, Ruth

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Kemp, Fraser

  Moran, Margaret

  Key, Robert

  Morgan, Julie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Morley, Elliot

  Kidney, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Mountford, Kali

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Mullin, Chris

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Lammy, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Norman, Archie

  Laxton, Bob

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Leigh, Edward

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lepper, David

  Olner, Bill

  Letwin, Oliver

  O'Neill, Martin

  Levitt, Tom

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Owen, Albert

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Page, Richard

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Paice, James

  Lidington, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Linton, Martin

  Pearson, Ian

  Lloyd, Tony

  Perham, Linda

  Loughton, Tim

  Picking, Anne

  Love, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Lucas, Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Luff, Peter

  Pike, Peter

  Luke, Iain

  Plaskitt, James

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pollard, Kerry

  118

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Streeter, Gary

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Swire, Hugo

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Syms, Robert

  Purchase, Ken

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Todd, Mark

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Touhig, Don

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ross, Ernie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Ryan, Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Salter, Martin

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Watkinson, Angela

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Watson, Tom

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whittingdale, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simmonds, Mark

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simon, Siôn

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wills, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Southworth, Helen

  Winnick, David

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wood, Mike

  Spink, Bob

  Woodward, Shaun

  Spring, Richard

  Woolas, Phil

  Squire, Rachel

  Worthington, Tony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Steen, Anthony

  Wyatt, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Yeo, Tim

  Stevenson, George

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  NOES

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Galloway, George

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Mr. Richard Shepherd and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.

  ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill:

  ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    Programming of proceedings
    2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

    Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
    3. (1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second day.
    (2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day.

    Programming Committee
    4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 74.

    Division No. 66]

    [10.14 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burden, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Burgon, Colin

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Burnham, Andy

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Baird, Vera

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Banks, Tony

    Caton, Martin

    Barron, Kevin

    Cawsey, Ian

    Battle, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Bell, Stuart

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Benn, Hilary

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Benton, Joe

    Clelland, David

    Berry, Roger

    Clwyd, Ann

    Betts, Clive

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blackman, Liz

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cohen, Harry

    Blizzard, Bob

    Coleman, Iain

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Colman, Tony

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Connarty, Michael

    Borrow, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Corston, Jean

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cousins, Jim

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cranston, Ross

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Crausby, David

    Cruddas, Jon

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Browne, Desmond

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bryant, Chris

    Cummings, John

    120

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

    Davidson, Ian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kelly, Ruth

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Khabra, Piara S

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kidney, David

    Dowd, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Edwards, Huw

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Lammy, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ennis, Jeff

    Laxton, Bob

    Farrelly, Paul

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lepper, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Levitt, Tom

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flint, Caroline

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Flynn, Paul

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lloyd, Tony

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Love, Andrew

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lucas, Ian

    Foulkes, George

    Luke, Iain

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gapes, Mike

    McCabe, Stephen

    Gardiner, Barry

    McCafferty, Chris

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Goggins, Paul

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    MacDougall, John

    Grogan, John

    McFall, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McKechin, Ann

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hanson, David

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McNulty, Tony

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Havard, Dai

    McWilliam, John

    Healey, John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mann, John

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marris, Rob

    Heppell, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Martlew, Eric

    Heyes, David

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    Hodge, Margaret

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoey, Kate

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hope, Phil

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Moran, Margaret

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morgan, Julie

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Hurst, Alan

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Mountford, Kali

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Illsley, Eric

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    121

    O'Hara, Edward

    Squire, Rachel

    Olner, Bill

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    O'Neill, Martin

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Stevenson, George

    Owen, Albert

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pearson, Ian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Perham, Linda

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Picking, Anne

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stringer, Graham

    Pike, Peter

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pond, Chris

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pope, Greg

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Timms, Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Todd, Mark

    Purchase, Ken

    Touhig, Don

    Purnell, James

    Trickett, Jon

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Truswell, Paul

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rammell, Bill

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rapson, Syd

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Robertson, John

    Vaz, Keith (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Rooney, Terry

    Watson, Tom

    Ross, Ernie

    Watts, David

    Roy, Frank

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Ryan, Joan

    Salter, Martin

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wills, Michael

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wilson, Brian

    Sawford, Phil

    Winnick, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wood, Mike

    Sheerman, Barry

    Woodward, Shaun

    Simon, Siôn

    Woolas, Phil

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Soley, Clive

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Southworth, Helen

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Nick Ainger.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Baker, Norman

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Barrett, John

    Dodds, Nigel

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Bennett, Andrew

    Doughty, Sue

    Brake, Tom

    Fisher, Mark

    Breed, Colin

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brooke, Annette

    Galloway, George

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Garnier, Edward

    Burnett, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Burstow, Paul

    Gerrard, Neil

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Gidley, Sandra

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Green, Matthew (Ludlbw)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Harvey, Nick (Chipping Barnet)

    Heath, David

    Chidgey, David

    Holmes, Paul

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cotter, Brian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    122

    Keetch, Paul

    Sanders, Adrian

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lamb, Norman

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

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Thurso, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Tyler, Paul

    Webb, Steve

    Moore, Michael

    Weir, Michael

    Öpik, Lembit

    Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

    Pugh, Dr John

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Willis, Phil

    Rendel, David

    Wishart, Pete

    Robathan, Andrew

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Mr. Douglas Hogg and

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mr. Andrew Stunell.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY BILL [MONEY]]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Beverley Hughes.]

  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to motion No 4.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would be good enough to confirm first that the vote on this motion will be a deferred vote, and secondly that, when the deferred voting procedure was debated on the Floor of the House, it was made very clear that no deferred votes would apply to anything that could be regarded as controversial legislation.
  You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of the arguments advanced on this particular measure—which many will regard as extremely controversial—if the procedure applies, the measure will be voted on not tonight, once the debate has taken place, but later. I understand that various members of the Government have said that it would be unfortunate if the procedure did not apply, because that would be seen as ascribing unnecessary importance to the order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will indicate whether you think the deferred voting procedure suitable for what is plainly an important decision.
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. That has enabled me to check what the Modernisation Committee said about deferred Divisions when it recommended them. It listed various types of business in the case of which it would be

  123
  possible and sensible to defer Divisions after 10 pm. They included motions to approve statutory instruments, and this is a motion to approve a statutory instrument.
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have now voted on Second Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Last week, unusually, the House agreed that amendments to that legislation could be tabled before Second Reading, for debate in Committee on Wednesday. Hon. Members tabled amendments yesterday, and they—including some Liberal Democrat Members—have tabled more today. So that the maximum number of hon. Members on both sides of the House can contribute to that debate, would you and the Chairman of Ways and Means consider not excluding from debate on Wednesday amendments that are tabled tomorrow?
  Finally, and linked to the above point, until hon. Members have heard the next debate, on the order, they obviously cannot table amendments to the legislation on the basis of the issues that arise in that debate. It may not be possible or practical for hon. Members to table those amendments until tomorrow, and I hope that they will be given the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: Those matters are the responsibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record, and I have no doubt that the Chairman of Ways and Means will take note of his comments.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it on record that Conservative Members, too, hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will attend to the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Human Rights
10.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move,
That the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (S. I., 2001, No. 3644), dated 11th November 2001, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
We are about to debate a very significant order which concerns the derogation that the United Kingdom proposes to make from article 5 of the European convention on human rights—the right to liberty and security. It is not a step to be taken lightly, and I make it clear now that the Government have given very careful consideration to the matter before embarking down this road. I shall address three issues: the technicalities of what the order does; the domestic powers that we are proposing to take, which require the order to be made; and the conditions that have to be satisfied for a state to derogate from an article of the European convention, and why we believe that those conditions are met.
The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 was made on 11 November, laid before Parliament on 12 November and came into force on 13 November. The power to make such an order comes from section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 1(1) of the 1998 Act sets out the articles of the convention that constitute "the Convention rights" for the purposes of that Act. Section 1(2) provides that those articles are to have effect subject to any designated derogation. Section 14(1) of the Act provides that a "designated derogation" includes any derogation by the United Kingdom from an article of the convention that is designated in an order made by the Secretary of State. The order that we are debating today is such an order.
The consequence of making this order is that the meaning of the convention rights as they have effect in our domestic law is amended in the manner set out in the order. The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 has attached as a schedule the proposed derogation which the UK intends to make from article 5.1 of the convention. It is considered that, as we have discussed earlier today, a derogation from that article is required to the extent that some of the measures in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are inconsistent with article 5.1.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Lady explain something that is causing me some difficulty? If we have to derogate—as I am sure we do—how could the Home Secretary put on the face of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill the statement that its provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights? We know that they are not, because we are having to derogate.
Beverley Hughes: Because article 15 provides for that, and the sequence in which we are taking the various stages means that it is perfectly in order for the Home Secretary to put that on the face of the Bill. That is why we are debating the order tonight.
Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady explain to the House why, rather than laying the order that brings derogation into force for

125
40 days last week, the Government did not wait? They could have waited, first, until the Select Committee on Home Affairs had reported; secondly, until the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which is of central importance to this deliberation—had reported; and thirdly, until the House had had an opportunity to debate this motion. There was no need for an order to be laid last week; it could have been laid at the end of the debate. Why did the Government not proceed by taking account of Parliament first, rather than legislating first and coining to Parliament later?
Beverley Hughes: Although this is a very important order, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is technical in the sense that—[Interruption.] He is aware of this; I know he is.
Mr. Andrew Turner: We are not.
Beverley Hughes: If we do not pass the measures in the Bill, the order will fall. The debate on the Bill that we have had today and will continue to have, and the debate in another place, will be about the principles that underpin the reasons for the order. In that sense, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is making an irrelevant point, because the order, and the need for it, is dependent on the existence of the powers in the Bill. If the provisions establishing those powers are not passed, the order will fall.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Beverley Hughes: No, I shall make some progress. I shall give way later.
I now turn to the domestic powers that we are taking. Clauses 21 to 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill provide for the detention, subject to judicial oversight, of certain individuals in circumstances that are likely to conflict with article 5.1 as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal. They extend existing detention provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 to cover a circumstance in which the following three conditions are met.
First, the Secretary of State must certify an individual as being a "suspected international terrorist"; that is, he must believe that a person's presence in the UK is a risk to national security, and suspect that the person is an international terrorist. Secondly, action must have been taken with a view to removing that person from the UK. Thirdly, removal must have been temporarily or indefinitely prevented by a point of law relating to an international agreement or by a practical consideration.
Although it is possible to detain people and be consistent with article 5 of the ECHR where we are seeking to remove someone on national security grounds, that detention would cease to be permissible if the duration of such proceedings extended beyond the time that would reasonably be required to secure the deportation. In the cases of some of the individuals who might be detained under those powers, it is possible that delays in removal would exceed a period acceptable in convention terms. That is why we need the order, which modifies our domestic obligations under the Human Rights Act to match the modifications that the UK will
126
make to its international obligations under the ECHR when the proposed derogation is formally notified to the Council of Europe.
Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Lady aware that according to that principle, in the 1940s and early 1950s, members of my family who were not British citizens could have been arrested and detained without trial, simply because they supported the liberation of a country to which they could not possibly have been repatriated—Estonia? What response, and what comfort, could she give such people concerning the principle from which she seeks a derogation?
Beverley Hughes: I just laid out three conditions that would have to be met, and the first was that the Home Secretary would have to certify that such individuals were suspected of being international terrorists. I am sure that that was not the case with the hon. Gentleman's parents. If an individual were to be suspected of being an international terrorist and removal was temporarily or indefinitely prevented—and the three conditions were met—that individual would fall within the province of the powers that we seek and the need for this order.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am sorry to make a nit-picking point, but I think that the Minister inadvertently misled the House, and I hope that she will take this opportunity to correct the point—unless I am mistaken. She said that the order would fall unless both Houses approved part 4 of the Bill, but if both Houses approve the order and the derogation, as an act of prerogative power, is made, whether the House and the other place approve part 4 of the Bill is an irrelevance. The order would stand.
Beverley Hughes: There would be no point in continuing with a derogation if we were not to get the powers in the Bill. [Interruption.] Okay, the hon. Gentleman is technically correct—[Interruption.] He is technically correct in the sense that we would have to remove the order. There would be no need for the order and we do not want to take this course of action unless we need to.
I turn now to the issue of derogation. Hon. Members will be aware that there are restrictions on the scope for derogating from an article of the convention. For some articles—such as article 3, which provides that no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—there is no scope to derogate. For other articles, such as article 5, derogations may be made when a public emergency threatens the life of the nation, provided that the measures taken are strictly required by that emergency.
Mr. George Osborne: Can the Minister tell me the difference between a state of public emergency, as defined by the European convention on human rights, and a state of national emergency, defined by the Emergency Powers Act 1920? Apparently, they are different.
Beverley Hughes: They are different. I shall come to the definition of a state of public emergency under article 15, but the state of national emergency as determined by the 1920 Act is one that mobilises special powers. We do not need those special powers in this case. Indeed,

127
the last time that the Act was used was by the Conservative Government during the miners' strike, and we shall not go down that road.
Mr. John Gummer: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: No, I wish to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on the first test, which is whether such a public emergency exists in the UK.
We have taken the view that the UK is currently facing a public emergency within the meaning of the convention. The attacks in the USA represent a further escalation in the scale and scope of the international terrorist threat to western interests. I am grateful that that was recognised by Opposition Front Benchers earlier this evening. Although to date no attacks have been mounted against the UK, there have been a number of public threats made by bin Laden and his supporters against western interests. The British role in the US-led coalition against international terrorism also raises the overall risk of attack. It would be wrong to conclude that the threat has been diminished by recent events in Afghanistan. In addition, there is evidence to show that international terrorist organisations have links with the UK and therefore constitute a threat.
Mr. Gummer: During the debate about the European convention on human rights, Ministers pooh-poohed any suggestion from Opposition Members that there would be any circumstances in which these derogations would be necessary for the United Kingdom. Can the hon. Lady explain why they have changed their mind and why no other European Union country thinks that the derogations are necessary?
Beverley Hughes: That was dealt with extensively in the previous debate by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as he points out from a sedentary position. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard it.
Different sets of legislation in other European countries mean that the contexts are different. Each country must evaluate the risk that it perceives and make a judgment about the measures that are necessary, which is what we are doing here.
Mr. Gummer rose—
Mr. Mark Fisherrose—
Beverley Hughes: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the Minister. Is she saying that the risk that undoubtedly arises for all European countries following 11 September is the same thing as a test of proof of a threat to the life of this country? A risk is one thing, but I cannot imagine that the Minister really means that it threatens the life of this country. The test is a great deal more severe than the recognition of a risk.
Beverley Hughes: I think that the risk we face does, or could, threaten the life of the country. If we sustained
128
an attack of the kind sustained by the American people, that would clearly threaten the life of the nation. Acts of terrorism outside this country can also threaten the life of the nation in threatening our economy and well-being. I believe that my hon. Friend must look more broadly at the question of defining whether the risk threatens the life of the nation. We have taken the view that it does; a public emergency threatens the life of the nation and the first test of article 15 has been met.
Mr. Simon Thomas: It is proposed that we review the clauses in 15 months. How many people does the Minister expect to be affected by this derogation? Knowing that will help us when we come to examine the level of risk and threat, and how matters have been dealt with, in 15 months' time.
Beverley Hughes: I will not give a figure, because I think that that would be wrong. In giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Home Secretary and I both said—and my right hon. Friend has also said it consistently elsewhere—that we expect the powers to be used sparingly and that a relatively small number of people will have to be detained under the powers for which the order is required. However, I shall not put a figure on it tonight.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—the moment had, in fact, almost passed. In her reply to the Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), she seemed to make a distinction between good and bad terrorists. She said that people who supported the liberation of Estonia, as it then was, would not be regarded as terrorists but that others would be. A distinction between good and bad terrorists would be very subjective. Many of us believe that good people engaged in legitimate aspirations to attain their freedom may well be regarded as terrorists by the Government of their country.
Beverley Hughes: I made no such distinction between good and bad terrorists, as my hon. Friend suggests. I simply pointed again to the criteria that would have to be met, including certification and action, to enable people to be brought under the powers that it is proposed to take.
In its report last week, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed some concerns about the lack of specifics as regards the threat that we face. As the Committee acknowledged, the specific information on which these judgments have to be based necessarily cannot be shared. However, what the public will readily be able to see, following the terrible events in the USA, is that the devastation that international terrorists can wreak is large, and that our active support of the USA's response means that we must be fully on our guard.
The second test in article 15 is whether the detention powers we propose are a necessary and proportionate response to this emergency. We believe that they are. The powers are necessary because we must do something to protect the public against individuals who contribute to the terrorist threat. If it is not possible to present sufficient admissible evidence to bring a successful criminal charge, and if legal or practical considerations prevent removal from the UK, another option needs to be found.

129
The extended but clearly circumscribed detention powers fill that gap. The only alternative, which has had to be used in previous cases, is to release such people back into the community. Members of the public would find that unacceptable.
Vera Baird: Is it not the case that article 5.1(f) of the European convention on human rights authorises the detention of a person so long as
"action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition"?
As long as that process is in place—for instance, as long as due process is being followed, appeals are being heard and the authorities are seeking a third country, if it is not possible to deport straight away—detention is in fact lawful throughout that time. If that is the case, will the hon. Lady explain why, if these dangerous people are about, they have not already been detained and why they are not undergoing that process?
Beverley Hughes: I have already explained the fact that we believe that the powers available already under article 5.1 to detain somebody, pending effecting their removal, would not be sufficient for the periods that may be involved when there is no third country to which we can deport that person. That is why we propose derogation, so that we do not risk falling foul of article 5.1 in those circumstances.
Vera Baird: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Beverley Hughes: No, I shall carry on a bit longer—[Interruption.] I have explained that point fully. We believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am going to carry on a little longer. I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend if I have not addressed her point.
We believe that the measures are also proportionate. The powers will be targeted on a small group of individuals who nevertheless constitute a major threat to national security: suspected international terrorists. Furthermore, with all due respect to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose work always greatly aids discussions in the House, we do not share its conclusion that there is a lack of safeguards in the Bill.
As the Select Committee on Home Affairs accepted, albeit reluctantly, there may be a small category of persons who are suspected international terrorists but who cannot be prosecuted, extradited or deported and therefore will have to be detained. A number of important safeguards will apply to the use of these powers, as they relate to that small target group.
First, a detainee will be able to end his or her detention at any time if they find a country to take them. They can leave; they can take their freedom. Secondly, the powers exercised by the Secretary of State will be subject to full judicial scrutiny.
Mr. Hogg: Not proper review.
Beverley Hughes: I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who shouts from a sedentary position. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is already well suited for considering such matters, having both judicial and security expertise.
Mr. Fisher: How does the Minister think we will be assisted by deporting such people to Holland, Germany or
130
elsewhere, where they can plot exactly the sort of actions that we are frightened they will carry out here? She seems to think that deportation will be good, but it would be frightening to let those people loose on the wider world.
Beverley Hughes: It would be equally bad to let them loose in this country, which is the only alternative. If my hon. Friend wants to pursue that line of argument—
Mr. Hogg: Charge those people.
Beverley Hughes: Let me make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done already, that where we can prosecute, we will prosecute. That will always be the route of choice, but where the threshold of evidence or the nature of the evidence makes that difficult, that course of action may not be open to us.
Mr. McNamara: On the first point that my hon. Friend makes, she says that such people are free to go to a country that will take them. I understand that, but has she any indication of which countries are ready to take such people in those circumstances, given that the United States Government have already said that they will pursue such people wherever they go? Which country will risk being carpet bombed?
Beverley Hughes: That depends on the circumstances of the case, on the nationality of those involved, on what they are suspected of doing and on which country might offer them a haven. I cannot possibly answer that question in that general way this evening.
Secondly, as I have said, the powers exercised by the Secretary of State will be subject to full judicial scrutiny.
Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: No, I shall pursue this point because the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) interrupted me on it earlier, and I need to ensure that it is well made. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is already well suited to consider such matters, as it has judicial and security expertise. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, the commission's decisions will be capable of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords on a point of law.
Furthermore, the oversight of the detention powers will be on-going. There will be an immediate right of appeal against the issuing of a certificate, with six-monthly reviews thereafter and the additional safeguard of an earlier review where a change of circumstances warrants it. Finally, the continuance of the powers will be subject to renewal by Parliament, initially after 15 months and annually from then on. The order will expire after five years, unless Parliament agrees to its extension.
Simon Hughes: I obviously do not disagree with the Minister's description of the process, which is a fact, but will she explain how she can tell the House that the right to judicial review will not be removed, given that clause 29 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is headed "Exclusion of legal proceedings" and states:
"No court or tribunal may…entertain proceedings for questioning…a decision…of the Secretary of State"?

131
How will the facts or the reasonableness of the decision be reviewed? If clause 29 were deleted from that Bill, would the Government still need to seek such a derogation from the European convention on human rights?
Beverley Hughes: As we made clear in the earlier debate, we regard the process under SIAC as the equivalent of the judicial review of an executive decision by the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with that. As we have also said, no judicial review was sought in the three cases that have already gone to SIAC. It seems to us preferable to make the position absolutely clear that SIAC is that process of judicial scrutiny and that it will be the only option for judicial scrutiny of the Home Secretary's decision.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is a serious measure that addresses a very serious situation. Clearly, in the sense that we see a need for the powers that we have outlined in the Bill, there is a need for the order. The proposed derogation is necessary in view of the measures in relation to detention that we propose to take. The order is necessary, but I believe that it is a proportionate response to the situation. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support it tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that the debate must finish at two minutes past midnight? An awful lot of Members are seeking to catch my eye and, unless contributions are reasonably brief, many of them will be disappointed.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You heard the Minister say a moment ago that she hoped that the House would support the order tonight. Can you confirm that we will be unable either to support or oppose it tonight because it is subject to the ghastly deferred Division procedure? That means that we shall not have an opportunity to give a view on it until Wednesday. Can you confirm that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, the Question will still be put this evening but, if there are dissenting voices, a deferred vote will take place on Wednesday.
11.1 pm
Mr. James Paice: I thank the Minister for her attempts to explain and justify an order that has created such a furore both inside and outside the House. Some of my remarks will, I hope, be seen at least by the Minister as supportive of her, but I would not want her to get too carried away by that.
Perhaps the best place to start is with a quotation from the order and an issue on which the Minister has just touched. The Home Secretary has signed the order, which states that
"there are foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom who are suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism…and who are a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom."
Therefore, it is clear that we are not just discussing future arrivals in this country, but an unknown number of existing residents.
132
The majority of Members on both sides of the House are debating the order, rightly, in ignorance of the security and intelligence information that has given rise to that statement in the order. Therefore, it behoves us all to accept that there must be some such information and to ensure that safeguards are properly in place.
The Opposition believe absolutely firmly that, when there is sufficient evidence that a criminal offence under British law has been or is being committed, prosecution should take place in preference to any other possibility. However, we accept that there are cases in which the evidence is strong but may not be strong enough for a conviction or in which no offence under current British law has been committed. The question therefore is how we deal with such cases. Can any responsible politician say that, despite strong evidence, the liberty of an individual is more important than the security of the vast majority of the people? That is the invidious balance that we have to strike, but it is one that a Home Secretary in any Government always has to strike in a number of ways.
In this context, the Home Secretary is proposing one weapon, namely, internment without trial subject only to appeal to SIAC and to the six-monthly reviews and the annual renewal of the provisions. The Minister referred to public opinion and, of course, all of us in the House must pay heed to that. However, almost always the public are in favour of curtailing other people's civil liberties. The problem arises when, for whatever reason, it is their own that the House proposes to curtail. That puts an onus on us all to give careful consideration to such curtailment because we know not whom it may affect.
The Government's proposal will have a draconian impact on civil liberty. Whatever one's perspective, we must agree on that. However, it is occasionally necessary to have such measures for public safety and protection. As I implied earlier, we will propose further safeguards, including an element of judicial review and a tightening of the criteria under which the Home Secretary can issue a certificate. The official Opposition reluctantly accept part 4 and, in that context, the order is necessary.
As deportation is not possible in many cases, arrest and detention with the intent of subsequent deportation does not stand as a viable option, much as we might like it to. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said in the Second Reading debate on the Anti-terrorism Bill, deportation should also be available and, indeed, would be preferable in many cases. Although clause 22 covers deportation, there is no provision under the convention to derogate from article 3, as we all know. First and foremost, a crime may have been committed in a friendly country with a sound legal system, such as the United States, but article 3, as interpreted by the judges in the Soering and Chahal cases, would prevent deportation because of the existence of capital punishment there.
The Home Secretary—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—said that we have a good extradition treaty with America which could be used were bin Laden to arrive here. Is the Government's legal advice such that the treaty could continue to be used despite article 3 even if, as seems highly likely, the US refuses to set aside the death penalty for that case? Our advice is clear: article 3 overrides the extradition treaty.
The Home Secretary also interjected into the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that the judges have interpreted article 3 in a way that was not

133
intended. We agree. In fact, the Home Secretary has for months been making speeches and writing articles bemoaning the power of judges, rather than Parliament, to make law. Although I do not in any way accept all his strictures, we will nevertheless offer him the opportunity to reassert the will of Parliament over the judges' interpretation of article 3.
Mr. Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend remember the debates on this very accession to the European treaty, in which the Labour party told us that none of these things would occur? They said that everything was all right because no judge would reach such a decision. We now have a ludicrous situation in which we are busy trying to kill bin Laden directly, but if he were to arrive in this country we would not be able to send him to the US in case he was killed after the due process of law. I am opposed to capital punishment, but that is ludicrous.
Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes the point more effectively than I could. The situation is anomalous. I hope that the Minister will tell the House whether the Government's advice is that the extradition treaty supersedes article 3 or whether, as we believe, article 3 takes precedence.
We are going to offer the Home Secretary the opportunity to reassert the will of Parliament on article 3. The Government should give notice that we will denunciate the convention and rejoin immediately after entering a reservation on article 3. It is beyond doubt that that is legally possible. Our legal opinion says so, as does paragraph 19 in today's report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which states:
"The Government cannot therefore derogate from Article 3 without 'denouncing' the Convention as a whole and then re-entering with a reservation relating to Article 3."
That is precisely what we propose, and the power to do so is clear under article 57.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Have the other 42 members of the Council of Europe agreed to accept such a procedure? Is he certain that he would get a majority in the Parliamentary Assembly to accept it?
Mr. Paice: I was just coming to that precise point. I believe that it was raised this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman, speaking sotto voce, from a sedentary position, and by the Home Secretary. It seems from the right hon. Gentleman's comments that he too knows that denunciation can be done, but has decided that it should not be done. He resorted to the argument that the hon. Gentleman has just repeated. Our legal advice, such as it is, is that, under article 59, as long as the United Kingdom remains a member of the Council of Europe, we would be able to re-accede after denunciation.
We can go beyond that. Today's report from the Home Affairs Committee also refers to the issue, and paragraph 20 clearly says:
"It would be desirable for the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament, to be able to exercise his discretion within the framework of Article 3."
134
Again, we agree. However, the Committee states that after having said that it thinks
"that the Government should engage in a review with our European partners, with a view to finding some acceptable solution that might avoid the need to exercise a power of indefinite detention."
That would indeed achieve the same ends. If, by following that proposal, we could avoid denunciation, which I accept is a fairly dramatic option, that would be more acceptable. However, unless the Minister can convince us otherwise, there is no evidence that the Government have embarked on any such discussions with fellow members of the Council of Europe.
Mr. McNamara: I apologise to colleagues for persisting with this point, but paragraph 3 of article 58 says:
"Any High Contracting Party which shall cease to be a member of the Council of Europe shall cease to be a Party to this Convention under the same conditions."
If we cease to be a member, how can we, under article 59, resurrect rights that we no longer have?
Mr. Paice: Our advice is that we could do so if, on denunciation, we announced that we intended to re-accede, having entered a reservation. Article 59 says:
"This Convention shall be open to the signature of the members of the Council of Europe. It shall be ratified."
Mr. A. J. Beith: Even if that were legally possible, what example does the hon. Gentleman think it sets to countries who have joined the Council of Europe in recent years and others who now wish to join if we advocate denunciation whenever we are faced with a conflict, instead of seeking a specific derogation and having to satisfy certain conditions for that?
Hon. Members: What about France?
Mr. Paice: As my hon. Friends suggest, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the French situation. What we are proposing is certainly no worse and no different. We are considering a very serious security situation, and sometimes in response to such situations we have to take unpalatable measures. In the normal course of events, nobody would advocate this proposal or indeed, I suspect, the order that we are debating, but serious situations may require extraordinary actions.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Paice: No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to conclude because I know that many hon. Members want to contribute.
The effect of the order, taken with part 4 of the Bill, is that only internment will be available. As hon. Members said this afternoon, every internee would become a cause celebre in their group. They would become a target for future atrocities and hostage taking to secure their release.
Wherever possible, that risk should not have to be faced by the British people. If at all possible, those individuals should be deported to countries with sound legal systems, where we can be assured that they will be reasonably treated, according to law. Because it will take six months

135
for our proposed denunciation and re-accession to take place, because there are urgent cases now, and because there will be cases where there is no suitable country to which to deport the individual, internment is, regrettably, necessary. Reluctantly, we support the order, but believe it to be wholly inadequate in addressing the wider issue.
11.15 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I shall vote for the Government, and urge everyone in the House to do likewise, but I hope that colleagues will vote for the order with a heavy heart and little joy. We know why we must do so but, equally, we all know that it is a small victory for the terrorists.
Tonight, we are suspending the right to trial. Bizarrely, we are doing so through an Executive order, which cannot be amended and came into force last week. The order is being debated after 10.30 pm; there will, perhaps, be 40 to 45 minutes of Back Benchers' speeches in a mere hour and a half's debate, at the end of which there will be no immediate vote. There has been scant, if heroic, pre-legislative scrutiny of the order by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. That would be insulting for some obscure weights and measures order but, as the order before us compromises one of our basic freedoms, it is wholly unacceptable. It reveals all too accurately the contempt in which Parliament is held by the Executive; it could only happen in Britain. I hope that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), will, as a matter of urgency, propose better safeguards in future, as the next attempt at abrogating part of the European convention on human rights may come from quarters more sinister than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In future, tougher obstacles will be needed, when the threat to our liberties may be more genuine and widespread.
The United States, which has a separate legislature and Executive, has done things slightly differently. I was informed by the House of Commons Library that the Americans spent six weeks deliberating on the issue, and that that involved intense bipartisan negotiations and bicameral negotiations. Many of the provisions first introduced by Attorney-General John Ashcroft have been dropped or diluted, including a request for the authority to detain indefinitely non-USA citizens suspected of posing a terrorist threat. In the final version of the Americans' bill, detention is limited to seven days. Senator Patrick Leahy, the senior member of the Senate judiciary committee, said,
"The bill that we have brought back to the House and Senate is a far better bill than proposed to us by the administration and a better bill than either body passed initially. We have done the White House a great favor by taking the time to actually read and improve this bill before passing it."
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will continue, as I know that many colleagues wish to express their opinion.
136
In the USA, there has been a partnership. The country was afflicted by the tragedy to an even greater extent than the United Kingdom, yet it has found the ability to resolve the matter, with the legislature and the Executive working together. It took the House more than 50 years to incorporate the ECHR in English law—I say "English" advisedly—but now it is to be compromised after just one year. One of John Smith's ambitions was to incorporate the ECHR to give domestically enforceable rights to British citizens for the first time. It was intended that incorporation would be followed by a home-grown British Bill of Rights. I had the privilege of working on that policy when I was a Front-Bench member of the shadow home affairs team led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Where I had hoped for further progress, the events of 11 September have forced a step backwards.
The House should not mince its words. The Executive are in effect suspending habeas corpus and ending trial by jury, a right that can be traced back more than 700 years to the Magna Carta. We are bringing in indefinite internment and introducing to the English mainland something that we never did even at the height of the IRA offensive. As with internment, the normal burden of proof will be reversed: people will be treated as guilty unless they can prove their innocence. Those who are detained will not be able to see the evidence gathered against them, and will therefore not be able to challenge its accuracy.
None the less, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister say that they believe the measure is necessary to combat terrorism, and I will trust their judgment. I am certain that they have no other motive. Indeed, it would be unlawful for them to have any other motive. However, the Prime Minister intriguingly said last Wednesday, at column 878 of Hansard, that when he meets other world leaders, they pressure him to do something about those in the UK who plot against them. When the Minister winds up, could she be a little more specific about who such people are and whether those world leaders have given Her Majesty's Government their list of plotters who seem so to embarrass them in conversation with the Prime Minister?
Many questions have been answered during the debate earlier today, so I can move on fairly quickly. I still fail to understand why none of the other 40 European countries that are party to the European convention has found it necessary to suspend the right to trial. What are the special factors that have led the UK alone to require such protection? Even in the USA, as I said, the constitution has not been abrogated or suspended, and detention has been limited to a relatively short period. The person must then be charged or released. Despite their pain, the Americans have adopted a balanced approach.
The Home Secretary's new powers can be applied only to people whom he knows to be in the country and whom he can correctly identify. The powers will provide no protection whatever against terrorists who are in the country illegally, or under false identities, or who simply have not made themselves known. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether she already knows the people whom she would wish to detain. Can she confirm reports that have appeared in the press that there is a maximum of 16 or 20 individuals against whom the power is to be used?
The new powers to detain are to be applied to people who have not so far given cause for arrest or committed any offences of incitement, attempt or conspiracy. In other

137
words, the intelligence information against them is not substantial enough to sustain any of those charges, even at the conspiracy level. We will rely on information from the security services.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the security services had a rather patchy record leading up to 11 September and on the activities of the al-Qaeda network. Is she fully reassured from her contacts with the security services that the quality of the information that they will provide to her will form a firm basis for holding people in detention? Could some of those people be held on the say-so not of security service operatives working for the UK, but of operatives working for other security agencies? I hope that my hon. Friend will find time to answer that question.
I am keen to let others speak, so I shall end with these remarks: the Government are using their muscle today to force the House to extinguish for certain people a fundamental liberty. The House should have been enabled to do everything it could to satisfy itself that the measure is necessary for the prevention of greater evil. Although the penalties are to be applied to foreign nationals, we owe them the same duty to scrutinise and question the measure as we owe our own citizens and constituents.
As I trust the Prime Minister, and because of the need to show no flinching in the face of terrorism, I shall vote for the order, which has a life of 15 months. However, I urge the Government not to bring it back for renewal unless there is compelling evidence to show that the security gains have massively outweighed the appalling precedent of suspending one of our key human rights. For the future, I ask the Prime Minister to accept that an empowered and vigilant House of Commons should not be feared, but should be his strongest ally against terrorism. I look forward to this House being treated more seriously in future on these questions of fundamental human rights.
11.25 pm
Norman Baker: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his contribution? If he is truly one of the Government's supporters, I suggest that they are in some considerable difficulty with the order.
I find it deeply depressing that, so soon after the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, we are already being asked to approve a derogation from it. Furthermore, we were asked to give our approval when an order had already been introduced and before this debate. We must consider the order in only an hour and a half, late on a Monday evening, and before Royal Assent is given to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. The Minister confirmed in response to an intervention that derogation will still stand even if the Bill is refused Royal Assent.
The Government rightly won credit for introducing the Human Rights Act 1998. In those heady days, we were even assured that the Act was not a ceiling, but a floor. Tonight, it is not even a floor. The Home Secretary is proposing that the state should have the power to lock up individuals, in theory for up to five years, without charge, trial or even the right to see or hear the evidence, such as it is, against them. We are told by him that the law will be used only against a handful of people—maybe about 20 of them—as if that somehow makes it all right.
138
The liberty and rights of one are the liberty and rights of us all. If we are to protect our historic rights, we must when we consider legislation have regard to its impact not on the majority, but on the minority and the irksome, unpopular and different, even if they are not British.
Hon. Members throughout the House are uncomfortable with the idea of effectively reintroducing internment. As the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) mentioned earlier, it might have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. Indeed, it might provide a recruiting ground for the very people whom the Home Secretary wishes to contain and neutralise. There must, therefore, be a very good reason to introduce the order. In law, the Home Secretary needs to demonstrate that we are in a time of war or that another public emergency is threatening the life of the nation. Where is this emergency? I do not see it. That point was made very well by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), whom I forgive if he means by normal life the fact that Stoke knocked Lewes out of the FA cup yesterday. Surely, an emergency is an invasion, a barrage of bombing, a mass poisoning of the water supply or something rather more tangible than what Ministers have so far described. Where is this emergency? Is not it the truth that the Home Secretary wanted to introduce the new power and had to argue that there was a public emergency as is defined in law, as that was the only way of introducing it in anything approaching a legal manner?
Now we are told that the Home Secretary cannot share with us the information that justifies his position. I accept that some information from our security services must remain secret. However, if he wants to convince the House that this drastic step is the only way forward, he will have to do better than simply to say, "Trust me." I will trust him if he asks to borrow a tenner from me. In fact, I will trust him a good deal, as he is a rather trustworthy fellow and a decent human being, but I will not trust him when he tells me that he has to lock up people without charge or trial, potentially for years, and that we in this House cannot be told why.
The Home Secretary has consistently failed to explain why this drastic legislation is needed in this country, when no other European country has announced an intention to introduce such measures. Many hon. Members have made that point today and no answer has been given by him or any Minister. The best that he could do was suggest to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that some other European countries might be thinking about introducing the measures—which countries, we are not sure. Again, we are asked to trust him.
I find it slightly surprising—I put it no higher than that—that after all the powers that successive Governments have taken unto themselves in recent years to deal with terrorism, we still apparently need yet more emergency legislation and yet more draconian legislation. Surely if an individual has committed or is plotting a terrorist offence, there are existing laws under which he can be charged through our normal legal procedures. I presume that as we are considering only a handful of individuals, they are subject to continuous surveillance by our security services. Cannot they find evidence that will stick in a court of law, with proceedings held in camera if necessary?

139
If the inadmissibility of wire taps is a problem, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) suggested earlier, let us reconsider them if the alternative is to lock someone up without trial. We are being asked to lock up the people against whom there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction in the courts. Do not the Home Secretary and the Minister find that worrying?
The Home Secretary seems keen to eliminate the courts—clause 29 of the Bill is entitled "Exclusion of legal proceedings". My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred to that earlier. Are we here to defend or attack civil liberties? Why is the Home Secretary so afraid of judicial review? Is it because he anticipates that the evidence against those whom he wishes to incarcerate for up to five years might be so flimsy that no judicial process would uphold it? To emphasise my hon. Friend's point, if clause 29 were omitted, would derogation be required? The Minister should deal with that point later if not today.
The Home Secretary's case for justifying his internment proposals is far from sufficient. He also falls short on the safeguards. The alleged terrorists—who remain "alleged" until we have proof that they have committed an offence—will not have the right to know the details of the evidence that has caused them to be accused, to choose their legal representation or to appeal, apart from on a point of law.
Furthermore, the vehicle that the Home Secretary chose to handle the cases was never meant for the specific road that we are considering. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission was set up to deal with appeals against deportation, not extended incarceration. Even the United States, the country directly attacked on 11 September, has limited itself to a much shorter detention period, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said.
Like other hon. Members, I refer the Home Secretary and the Minister to paragraph 30 of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I am proud to serve. It states:
"The tests against which a derogation must be judged to be valid are very stringent. They require that there is an emergency which threatens the life of the nation. The test for the extent of measures taken under a derogation is equally stringent—that the measures are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. In this context we also note that the United Kingdom's armoury of anti-terrorism measures is already widely regarded as among the most rigorous in Europe, and yet no other Member State of the Council of Europe has so far felt it to be necessary to derogate from Article 5 in order to maintain their security against terrorist threats."
Why is the Home Secretary prepared to ignore that? The Minister has said nothing to convince me that the measure is anything other than flawed.
The Home Secretary proposes a step too far and a dangerous erosion of fundamental liberties, which he and others say that they are trying to defend from terrorists. We may be at risk from terrorists, but the civil liberties of this country are more at risk from the Home Secretary. Liberal Democrat Members will vote against the order, and I urge other hon. Members to do the same.
11.33 pm
Vera Baird: I want to raise at greater length a point that I made to my hon. Friend the Minister earlier to ascertain whether I can be helped out of my current
140
state of confusion. As I understand it, the specific problem is that article 5.1(f) authorises the detention of a person against whom
"action is being taken with a view to deportation"
or extradition. That is fine. The Home Secretary says that he will unlawfully detain somebody if, after taking him in and going through due process to deport him, he is unable to send him to his country for fear of torture and cannot find a third country. Surely the detention will only then become unlawful. That is common sense, and I know of no English or Strasbourg case against that.
While the Home Secretary is going through due process and searching for a third country, he is taking action
"with a view to deportation"
during which detention is permitted under article 5. When the Home Secretary is stumped, boxed in, has nowhere to go and can do no more, he cannot be described as "taking action" and the detention becomes unlawful.
Mr. Chahal, a Khalistani separatist, had been detained for six and a half years by the time the European Court of Human Rights said that if deportation proceedings were not prosecuted diligently, the courts could say that the detention may have been for too long.
That judgment seems to make it clear that, at the outset, the detention of a person such as Mr. Chahal—a suspected terrorist who could never have been sent to the Punjab, but who was none the less detained with a view to his ultimate deportation to somewhere—was lawful. It was lawful all the time that the problem of finding him somewhere to go was being worked on, and it remained lawful right up to the time when nowhere could be found. Does not that make it clear that foreign nationals suspected of terrorism can already be arrested and lawfully detained? That lawfulness will continue as long as real efforts are being maintained to go through due process, or to find such people a place to go.
Furthermore, that lawfulness may simply never run out. Times change; people might be able to go to countries in six months' time that they cannot go to now. A third country that is not available now might be available in six months' time. The political climate in the suspect's homeland might change, enabling him to return there. The lawfulness of the detention will not, in any event, run out on its own, at a particular point in time. It will run out only when a suspect brings an action to a court and asks for his detention to be declared unlawful. The Home Secretary could then be given more time to find a place for him to go, as happened in the Chahal case. It was six and a half years before that detention became unlawful.
On that basis, I wonder whether we need to derogate at all. The Bill's sunset clause will apply only to the next 18 months. There is certainly no need for dangerous foreign nationals to be on the streets, as I was shocked to discover that the man at the top of the Home Secretary's hit list is—if a report in The Observer is right—when he could be subject to detention now if he is so dangerous. I do not understand why that is not happening. It seems entirely consistent with what the courts have decided, and I seek assistance from the Minister and an answer to the question: if people are dangerous, why are they not being detained now?
11.37 pm
Mr. John Gummer: I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who made an important point that shows that this is not a necessary or urgent matter to be agreed now. She also made the point that it might become one at some time in the future. However, if those people are on the streets now, the Home Secretary has all the necessary powers to detain them for what may be as long as the hon. Lady suggested.
I also want to respond to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who listed the problems that we face. We are debating this measure for an hour and a half, late at night. We shall vote on it later and—a point that the hon. Gentleman did not make—the Minister has failed to answer any of the questions that have been raised. [Interruption.] The Minister can say, "Ooh!" from a sedentary position as much as she likes, but the questions have been asked and they are very clear.
Why has no other member state of the European Union or the Council of Europe found it necessary to make this decision? The Minister said that her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had answered that question. I remind her that her right hon. Friend said that he had not had time to go through all the laws of those countries to show that they did not need to make this change, or to show why they had not done so. Frankly, if he has not had time to do that, it shows that he cannot answer the question. If he cannot show that there is something unique in this country that makes it necessary for us to do this in a way that is not necessary for any other country, he is failing in his duty to the House. We cannot take him on trust if he cannot give us that information.
It is peculiar for the Home Secretary not to be able to give us that information, because we have been going round the world making the point that our laws are better in this area. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been making rather unattractive comments about the willingness of our neighbours in the European Union and beyond to take the same measures on terrorism that we have been taking. That has been the permanent and continuous refrain of Governments of both parties. It is not acceptable to say to the House, "We do not know why nobody else has done this and we do not know what their laws are on the subject." Why on earth say that their laws are inadequate? It does not make sense.
We must consider that in context. A year ago, the Government told the House that there was no conceivable circumstance in which our adhesion to the European convention on human rights would put us in such a position. I must tell the Minister that although I was one of those who thought it advantageous to be able to adhere to the convention, I had considerable concerns about the way in which judges were extending the operation of such conventions. It is a perfectly good convention, but all the experience is that judges appear, in an odd way, to extend such documents in a fashion that may give us considerable cause for concern.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien rose—
Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment. The difficulty was that Labour Members told us absolutely assuredly—there was no scintilla of doubt—that we were being xenophobic and that we should be ashamed of
142
ourselves, although they found it difficult to say that I was being anti-European. Yet within a year, we face this issue. Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall explain why that is serious.
If a country does not adhere to a convention because, for one reason or another, it is worried that the provisions extend beyond what it can reasonably support, that is understandable. However, if a country signs up to a convention and tries to get out of it the moment difficulties arise, what example does that set for the rest of the world? After all, the only genuine reason for joining the convention in the first place was not that we needed it or that we thought there was something nasty about Britain, but that we wanted to help those countries where there was something nasty or which had a nasty history.
We wanted to give those countries the opportunity to join. We did not want to give the opponents of joining in those countries the advantage of saying, "If Britain is not a member, why should we join?" However, within a year we have created the opposite effect by giving succour to those who are least attractive in the countries that have most difficulty in defending human rights.
Mr. O'Brien: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. In support of that point, he will have heard, as I did, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) contest from the Front Bench the legal advice about the primacy of article 3. What is worrying is that the legal advice obviously exists. It would be helpful to have it placed in the Library at the very least. We are being forced to end the debate and are unable to vote on it for two days, so we cannot reach a conclusion on valid points such as those my right hon. Friend has made about context. Surely that is another example of why the deferred voting procedure is inadequate for such extremely important issues.
Mr. Gummer: I very much agree, and I want to make three other points briefly.
Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No. Given the time, and if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I ought to continue.
Every time we asked the Minister to answer a question, she used the phrase, "We have taken the view", which is most unusual and most unparliamentary. Of course the Government have "taken the view". It is their order, but saying, "Actually, we have taken this view" does not help to answer a question. It may be so, but it is not proof. The words "We have taken the view" are merely her opinion, so it is not surprising that she attracted many attacks from both sides of the House. She clearly cannot answer the questions, which is serious on such a matter.
I also remind the Minister that it is not good enough to say that there will be full judicial scrutiny. Those are her words, but that is not true. She told us that when she said that the Government have decided to assume that this wholly different procedure is equivalent to full judicial review, but that cannot be so if the person seeking the review does not know what he is accused of. What kind of review is that? What sort of legal system is that? She must apologise to the House for referring to full judicial

143
scrutiny. That is not true and in her next sentence she showed that she knows it to be untrue. That is why Opposition Members found her answers so hard to accept.
Lastly, we must return to a simple question. Had a Government of a different kind proposed to the House, when the Minister was on this side of it, that—despite the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, despite the advice of the Home Affairs Committee and despite the view of every other country in the European Community and the wider Europe beyond—we should proceed with what appeared to be a gross curtailment of human rights, what would Labour Members have said? They would have talked of the most dreadful infringement that we had seen since Magna Carta.
The truth is that the Government should not have produced the Bill. They know, and their members and supporters know, that they should not have produced it, and they would not have allowed any other party to produce it without the most outrageous attack possible. That is why the Minister is letting her side down by not answering the serious questions asked by the Opposition: as we know perfectly well, she would never have let anyone else get away with it.
11.46 pm
Ms Oona King: Having sat in the Chamber for more than nine hours, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for five minutes or less.
I wanted to speak because of my concern about the precedents set by derogation from article 5 of the European convention, and the permitting—even in only a minuscule number of cases—of detention without trial. Several respected QCs, including one employed by the Government to review SIAC cases, argue that there may be a way around derogation. I shall return to that later, but first let me specify where I think the Government are right. They are right to act against the tiny minority—perhaps fewer than 50 of our island's 60 million inhabitants—who plot violent terrorist acts and cannot be prosecuted or deported.
I think that the Government are mistaken in concluding that the only way in which they can act against a handful of fanatics is by derogating from article 5 of the convention and curtailing judicial review—enshrined in our law, as we have heard, since the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. If this most reasonable Government can invoke an emergency when—again, as we have heard—people are rushing out to see the Harry Potter film and virtually no one has altered their daily routine, imagine what a less charitable Government might do in much less pressing circumstances.
Having said that, I do not want to be mistaken for someone who does not want to bang up suspected terrorists, or for someone who does not understand the difficulty of undertaking a successful prosecution of someone engaged in terrorist activity. Sometimes the obstacles faced by the police in securing a prosecution are insurmountable, and that should worry all of us—especially those of us who work in places such as this, a prime terrorist target. I feel, however, that we should revisit our options.
The Home Secretary said today that, when dealing with people suspected of terrorist activity who could not be prosecuted or deported, we faced a number of options.
144
We could release them into the community and allow them to go on organising their terrorist networks, we could deport them to possible torture or death, or we could detain them. That was the Government's choice.
I hope the Minister is pleased—certainly my Whip will be—to learn that I fully support the Home Secretary's and the Government's choice. I do not want such people to be released into the community, and I do not want them to be deported and then tortured to death; I do want them to be detained. The million-dollar question is whether it is possible to detain someone without suspending habeas corpus when the state has clear but sensitive evidence that cannot he disclosed, and the person therefore cannot be brought to trial. We have heard that we can detain people—that we have detained people. In my view, and in that of several very distinguished QCs who know far more than me, the answer to the question is yes. I believe that we must explore that possibility, and avoid derogation.
Let us take an example. The authorities arrest an al-Qaeda suspect whom they wish to deport. The Home Secretary says that owing to the nature of the threat the suspect must be detained. He argues that the detention is not arbitrary in the sense implied by article 5, because it is connected to the deportation. The suspect then takes his case to Strasbourg. It is highly unlikely that Strasbourg would rule that he had to be released, as the British Government's only alternative would be derogation from the European convention on human rights. Either way, however, it would be a better outcome than the suspension in this country of the rule of law.
In theory, therefore, the order reduces civil liberties. In practice, however, in the short term, it will do no such thing. If it is approved we shall still live in one of the most democratic countries in the world, with one of the most progressive Governments in the world. However, my concern is not the short term but the long term, when the precedent that we set today comes home to roost. For that reason, I do not think that we should set the precedent.
11.50 pm
Mr. David Cameron: The Select Committee on Home Affairs grudgingly accepted the need for this derogation, stating that
"We reluctantly accept that there may be a small category of persons who are suspected international terrorists who cannot he prosecuted, extradited or deported and therefore will have to be detained".
I accept that the Government's answer deals with that problem. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) has just pointed out, the Home Secretary will be able to lock up those who pose a risk. That is why the Government are opting out of article 5 and why we are debating this order. In the few minutes that I have to speak, however, I should like to consider whether that is the right answer.
Surely we have to ask why we are in this mess in the first place. The answer is that, in very many cases, because of article 3 and the jurisprudence under article 3, the Home Secretary cannot deport those who are potentially a danger to this country. The limitation, however, is not caused by article 3 itself—which is the shortest article in the European convention on human rights and simply states:
"No one shall he subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

145
Nowhere does article 3 mention deportation. What has happened is that, over many years, jurisprudence has been developed that has prevented deportation. The problem, therefore, is jurisprudence under article 3, whereas the solution that we are being offered is derogation under article 5. It is a bit like having mumps but taking a treatment for measles. We are not treating the long-term problem. I profoundly believe that the long-term problem will get worse.
In the Chahal case, the Home Secretary stated that he should be able to balance the risk of deporting someone to a third country and the risk that that individual poses to this country. The Strasbourg court found that
"the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration."
The Home Secretary cannot simply think of the individual in such a case. Consequently, the Home Affairs Committee has said that the Home Secretary should be given greater discretion.
The problem will become much worse in two respects. First, after the Soering case, article 3 applies to every country regardless of whether that country has signed the convention. The Soering case involved a German who was wanted for murder in the United States but could not be deported. Secondly, our courts discriminate against other signatories to the ECHR in relation to article 3. In the Adan case, for example, which involved two asylum seekers whom we were trying to return to Germany, the British courts feared that the Germans would more narrowly interpret the ECHR. The problem will therefore become far worse unless we consider the ingenious solution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
D v. United Kingdom is the last case that I shall cite in the remaining time that I have allotted myself. That case involved not a terrorist but a drug dealer whom we were trying to deport back to the West Indies. The court thought that deportation would infringe his article 3 rights because he was HIV positive and would not receive the right treatment in the West Indies. Such treatment is nothing to do with article 3. It is not inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or torture. That was a very wide interpretation.
My conclusion is that the Government's answer will not work in the long term. They have to deal with the problem, which is that the Home Secretary cannot deport those whom he believes are a danger to this country. The option of opting out and suspending habeas corpus is the wrong answer to the question. In many ways, the Government had a choice between this country's ancient rights of habeas corpus and the right not to be detained without charge or trial: between Magna Carta and the ECHR. They have taken wholly the wrong decision. They should very carefully reconsider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.
11.54 pm
Beverley Hughes: With the leave of the House, I shall try to address some of the more substantive points that have been made by hon. Members tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised several points, and asked how many people we
146
expected the powers that we seek to be applied to. A number of people have already been arrested since 11 September under the Terrorism Act 2000. As I said earlier, I do not want to cite an actual number of people against whom the powers would be used immediately, but I can say that we expect the number to be small.
In response to my hon. Friend's points about other Governments and the Prime Minister, I can say that we are in frequent contact with other Governments who share information, and share our abhorrence of terrorist activities. Where we receive information alleging the presence of terrorists in the UK, we investigate those allegations. We believe that there are people here who are involved in international terrorism. Indeed, we have set that out in the schedule to the order. That is part of the basis for the evidence which, taken in the round, we feel meets the first test of article 15—that there must be a public emergency.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked, "Where is the public emergency?" In current circumstances, I find that an extraordinary question. Again, the evidence that we cite for the existence of a public emergency is set out in the schedule—but to reiterate what has already been said, the answer is: the events of 11 September; the two UN Security Council resolutions that pointed to the threat to international security and gave permission, as it were, for states to take measures to protect themselves; engagement in conflict in Afghanistan as a close ally of the United States; the presence of suspected terrorists here; further threats by Osama bin Laden and his supporters; and their preparedness to use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; and the material found during the conflict in Kabul. I think that in view of all those circumstances, any reasonable person would conclude that there was a state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Norman Baker: Does the Minister recall that on 15 October, over a month after the terrible attack on New York, the Home Secretary said that there was no immediate threat to this country's security? Can she say what has changed since then to justify the claim that the very essence of this nation is now under threat?
Beverley Hughes: The fact that there is no specific and immediate threat to this country of which we are aware does not mean that there is not a state of public emergency in the sense outlined by the UN Security Council resolutions and endorsed a few weeks ago by the House of Lords, which clarified both the threshold of evidence and the nature of the assessment that the Home Secretary was entitled to make, in the round, of the threat to national security and the extent to which that constituted a public emergency—
Several hon. Members rose—
Beverley Hughes: I have only a short time left, and I want to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said. While accepting the need for detention in the circumstances that we have outlined, she and several other Members questioned the need for derogation.

147
I have two further points to make to my hon. Friend, in addition to those that I made earlier in the debate. First, current arrangements as they stand, and article 5.1, have inhibited the use of removal. Secondly, and more substantively, case law subsequent to the Chahal case, concerning two other people who have been through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission process, has made it clear that article 3 is an absolute bar to removal if a person is likely to face torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment. Currently, if a person is detained pending removal and article 3 is relevant to the case, that person would be able to challenge detention immediately and be released, because there would be no realistic prospect of removal at that time. Therefore, to ensure that we are not inconsistent with article 5 in the detention powers we seek, we have to make sure that our position is regularised. That means that we have to derogate from article 5.1.
The official Opposition have argued that a better course of action—what they would have done were they in government—would have been to renounce the ECHR in its entirety and then rejoin immediately. We take the view that that is a much more extreme measure than we propose—even if rejoining the convention with reservations would be allowed—both in terms of our international obligations and in terms of the subsequent ability to send people back to torture or death. Derogation from article 5.1 is a more measured and proportionate approach and it preserves unequivocally—this is an important point—our international obligations under the ECHR, while enabling us to implement the detention measures that we feel are necessary in the event that we cannot deport a person consistent with the provisions of article 3. It is precisely because the Government—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 21 November, pursuant to Order [28 June].

Human Rights

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

  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.

  DENTISTS
  That the draft Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

  FINANCE AND SERVICES
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Finance and Services Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  INFORMATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Connarty and Julia Drown be discharged from the Information Committee and John Mann and Jim Sheridan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Dibden Bay Port
  12.1 am
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In just over a fortnight, more than 2,000 signatories have been added to the petition of Residents against Dibden Bay Port, including representatives of Fawley, Hythe and Dibden and Marchwood parish councils and Totton and Eling town council.
  The petition declares
  'that the Public Inquiry into Associated British Ports' application to build a Container Terminal at Dibden Bay should not take place in premises owned by the applicant nor at a location which will preclude the attendance of the local population, owing to the time and cost of travel.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to delay the start of the Inquiry until the New Forest District Council can find a suitable venue close to the communities which are affected by the proposed development.
  To lie upon the Table.

Chester Street Insurance Holdings
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
12.4 am
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I begin by reassuring my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that I would quite understand if she began her response to our debate with the protest that we must stop meeting like this. During the past few weeks, I have detained the House, and my hon. Friend, in Adjournment debates with observations on the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company, the debacle of Equitable Life and now the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings. Those are three bombshells that have hit the financial services industry particularly hard. They have prompted independent inquiries, appeals to the House of Lords, special industry compensation schemes and regulatory reviews. Above all, they have led to a severe undermining of confidence in the insurance industry, whose only tangible product, after all, is confidence itself.
Insurance gives us the confidence to engage in the commercial world without becoming paralysed by the potential liabilities that such engagement might bring—the confidence to employ staff whose work is intrinsically dangerous and the confidence to manufacture products, whose unforeseen failure would trigger crippling liabilities. In life assurance, it means the confidence to plan for a future that is financially secure beyond a lifetime of work.
The failure of these companies to furnish their policyholders with the benefits they undertook to provide has caused enormous distress and suffering. However, their failure goes further in so far as it has undermined confidence in the industry. By undermining that confidence, they have weakened the system of protection for everyone else.
I turn now to the failure of Chester Street Insurance Holdings. I have no intention of restating in detail the company's history. It is already known to the Minister and the House, and was the subject of an Adjournment debate in March. Stated simply, Chester Street Insurance Holdings Inc., after selling its interest in the subsidiary insurance company that was its main asset, concluded that it still was unlikely to be able to meet all its future liabilities. The company therefore proposed a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985, and on 5 February this year creditors approved the scheme by the necessary 75 per cent. vote in favour. The declared percentage pay-out to creditors under the scheme was 5 per cent.
Chester Street's book of business was employers' liability which, since the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 came into force in 1972, has been a compulsory insurance. Under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, policyholders are protected by statute when an insurance company is unable to meet its liabilities. The Policyholders Protection Board pays 90 per cent. against valid claims for non-compulsory insurances through a fund raised by levy on the insurance industry. However, it pays compulsory insurances in full.
The combined effect of those two Acts of Parliament is to ensure that although virtually all Chester Street's valid claims arising after 1 January 1972 are met by the PPB in
150
full, claims arising before that date can only be paid out at the 5 per cent. rate under Chester Street's scheme of voluntary liquidation. Of course, the injured employee still has a valid claim against the employer concerned, and that caused enormous concern among those large engineering firms such as Corus, British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff that were some of Chester Street's major policyholders. It gave rise to even greater distress among individuals who had suffered industrial injury through such long tail liabilities as vibration white finger, noise-induced hearing loss or asbestosis.
Where the employees' former employer was still in business, there was a prospect of hugely delayed and compromised payments. Where the former employer had subsequently gone into liquidation, the chance of recovery was virtually nil.
I commend the Government and the Association of British Insurers for the way in which they worked to put together a compensation scheme to benefit those individuals who fell between the stools of the PPB and Chester Street because they had contracted their illness prior to 1972 and found that they had no one to claim from because not just their insurer but their former employer had gone into liquidation.
The financial services compensation scheme announced by the ABI on 8 August this year is funded by a levy on insurance companies and will ensure that victims receive 90 per cent. of the value of their award in such cases. It is not quite the 100 per cent. provided for under the PPB, but for those who, less than a year ago, thought that they faced a maximum of 5 per cent. of their rightful claim, it is a tremendous and welcome improvement.
Although I do not want to minimise what has been achieved, the House must express its concern that the collapse of Chester Street is yet another major insurance failure, and that our financial regulation system failed so manifestly not only to anticipate it but to provide for it. The Government and the Financial Services Authority must look again at the regime of solvency and capital requirements placed on insurance companies. Later in my remarks, I shall direct the Minister's attention to those aspects.
First, I want to examine the paradox that is the Policyholders Protection Board itself. The PPB penalises good insurers and rewards bad ones. The insurance market is one of extreme competition where consumers have increasingly made the mistake of regarding insurance cover as a product—a commodity that may as well be purchased from any provider—and where the sole consideration is to achieve the lowest price. There will always be companies, such as Independent Insurance and Chester Street, that are desperate to win market share by slashing premiums to unsustainable levels or by paying unsustainable commissions to intermediaries.
Regulators need to address the fact that responsible insurance companies suffer a double jeopardy: not only do they lose business when those companies are trading, because they are not prepared to pursue business at any price, but they have to bail out the self-same companies by contributing to the PPB levy when they go under. The cost of that for major insurance companies runs into millions of pounds.

151
It has even been suggested that some brokers cited the PPB as a reason for not advising their clients to switch from Chester Street long ago. They said that even if the company failed, the PPB would still provide full cover, so it did not matter.
I grant that the current PPB framework makes the insurance industry self-funding and thus accountable, in aggregate, for its financial soundness. However, the operation of the PPB is ad hoc and inconsistent. Levies are raised only on an as-needs basis. Indeed, between 1993 and 2000 there were no levies. That means that levies are entirely unrelated to the risk that each insurance company is running. They are entirely unrelated to the expected economic cost that each company imposes on the rest of the industry by its own risk of failure.
The first result of that is freeloading: bad companies make a short-term profit, go bankrupt and contribute nothing to the industry levies that are required from the good companies to bail out the victims of bad companies. Secondly, there is a lack of regulatory incentives to improve risk management. As long as the industry is prepared to bail out the victims, the regulator fails to address the fundamental problems that produce the victims in the first place.
The Minister must focus on two aspects of regulatory failure. There is a lack of clear accountability for the funding of insurance failures. The ad hoc nature of the PPB levies combined with the potential for catastrophic losses that could result from several insurance company failures suggest that there is no clear accountability as to how such catastrophic losses might be funded. This year, the Government negotiated with the ABI. The FSA should be given that clear responsibility.
There is a lack of any analytical framework for assessing the aggregate financial condition of the insurance industry. At present, it is not possible to assess the likelihood of the failure of an individual insurance company in the UK. It is certainly not possible to assess the likelihood of multiple failures, hence it is not possible to assess the adequacy of the PPB fund, or to link its capitalisation to an explicitly defined level of confidence in the market. The FSA should be given that clear responsibility.
In order to fulfil that role the FSA will have to focus on key issues relating to the solvency regime and capital requirements. On 1 December, we will have a new single regulator with more extensive powers of intervention, a single ombudsman and compensation scheme, group solvency monitoring, earlier deadlines for the completion of annual returns and an approved persons regime. The recent consultation has indicated the FSA's intention to move towards a risk-based approach to regulation and to introduce an integrated prudential source plan. Those are formidable advances in the regulatory armoury, but they must be brought to bear on the following problems.
First, reserving is inconsistent. The FSA's failure to require any benchmarking of reserve levels to industry standards or loss ratios is a major problem. It is compounded by the freedom given to the actuaries and underwriters to manipulate their own reserve levels. In particular, external actuaries have only one very crude weapon in their armoury when they validate the reserves—to refuse to sign off. As with most nuclear weapons, it is practically useless and hardly ever used.
152
Secondly, reinsurance standards are inadequate. The Minister is well aware of the ineffectiveness of regulation on such issues, and we have discussed before the way in which the Independent Insurance Company was legally able to reinsure its portfolio in an ultimately circular deal that ended up with a wholly owned subsidiary company of Independent itself. Indeed, 70 per cent. of Independent's outstandings were reinsured, for all the good that it did that company or its victims.
Thirdly, minimum regulatory solvency levels are inadequate. There are few better examples of gross regulatory failure than the fact that an insurer that held the minimum solvency margin would have approximately a one in 40 chance of insolvency every year. The failure to set formal target and intervention trigger levels for insurers means that the regulatory solvency margins do not have any material impact on the way that the insurance industry manages risk. I have had occasion before to disparage the European solvency margins in front of the Minister. It is clear to me from my discussions with the German insurance regulator that even the author of the infamous Muller report has difficulty in maintaining any longer that those solvency requirements are sound in principle and in practice.
Fourthly, there is a lack of differentiation. Solvency margins do not significantly differentiate the different risks run by different insurance companies. Required margins should vary according to premium income, by line of business.
Fifthly, there is a one-size-fits-all framework. At present, the regulator takes no account of any sophisticated internal risk measurement framework implemented by various market-leading companies.
I have presented the Minister with several detailed complaints and observations about how I consider that the insurance industry is failing the public and how the FSA, as regulator, is failing the industry. It is perhaps not incumbent on me to offer solutions to those problems, but, equally, it is only fair to those about whom my remarks are critical that I at least present a marker that can be shot at.
I believe that the FSA should establish ratings for individual insurance companies. Those ratings should be published and should take account of an insurer's risk profile and financial strength. Private sector rating agencies, such as Standard and Poor's, already measure each insurer's financial strength, but the main problem with most of those commercial rating agencies is that they are based on primarily public information and do not reflect internal information about the controls and processes to which a regulator should have access. Moreover, rating agencies do not have the same resources as regulators. S and P has only a handful of people covering the entire United Kingdom insurance sector. There is no reason why regulatory financial strength ratings would not be possible, and I believe that they would represent a significant improvement on the current regulatory minima and private sector ratings.
I believe that the FSA should ensure that there is accountability in the industry for solvency. In particular, the industry as a whole should finance all the costs associated with insurance failures with no subsidy, explicit or implicit, from the taxpayer. The fund for that should be reviewed annually on the basis of the FSA's assessment of the aggregate financial conditions of the industry.

153
Cross-subsidisation between industry participants should be minimised so far as possible, so that those insurers that are most at risk of failure should pay proportionately more for the additional benefits that they derive from schemes such as the PPB.
To enable it to do that, the FSA needs to have its performance measured in a way that is aligned with its accountability for the stability and soundness of the insurance industry. That will give it an incentive to take a more robust and sophisticated approach. An effective regulatory framework should not just incorporate a rules-based system, as is currently the case, but should balance that against a bottom-up supervision of reserving and internal risk models and controls.
The current regulatory framework allows cases such as Chester Street to go unanticipated and poorly provided for. Companies such as Chester Street and the Independent Insurance Company are able consistently to under-capitalise themselves and get away with poor or minimal risk management techniques. When they realise their losses and collapse, they leave the better companies in the industry, the Government and the public to pick up the bill. The current situation is bad for the public, bad for the industry and does not provide the country with the systemic stability and financial security that it needs.
At the beginning of my remarks, I suggested that it would be understandable if, in my hon. Friend's response, she were to express the hope that we might stop meeting like this. I would certainly share that hope, not because I do not enjoy spending time with her but because we all want an end to the spate of disasters that has struck the insurance industry and resulted in our recent debates. I hope that she will also indicate that she considers that the remedies I have proposed may be of some help in preventing future failures. What is far more important, though, is that she should suggest that she shares my analysis of the problem and that she should commit our Government to tackling it.
12.21 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He is clearly an expert on these matters, and I am sure that we shall continue to meet from time to time, whether in this forum or outside.
First, I wish to restate the Government's great sympathy for victims of asbestos-related diseases, which are particularly unpleasant and distressing for both sufferers and their families. This suffering is made even worse when compounded by financial uncertainty. That was the case for a group of people whose no longer existent, or now insolvent, employers insured with Chester Street. That group faced the possibility of being ineligible for the compensation due to them following Chester Street's insolvency on 9 January.
The consequences of Chester Street's insolvency were particularly worrying for victims of asbestosis and their families whose former private sector employers had insured with Chester Street, but no longer existed or were insolvent. In particular, there were fears that those whose injuries had been sustained during employment in the private sector before 1972—or 1975 in Northern Ireland—would not receive the compensation for which their employers would have been liable.
154
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government worked extremely hard in partnership with the insurance industry in the spring of this year to end the uncertainty. The arrangements were set out on 10 May by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Under these arrangements, the Government are meeting their liabilities to former public sector employees, and the insurance industry is covering claims from former private sector employees.
The insurance industry will fund claims as follows. First, the PPB is making payments in accordance with its statutory powers if the compensation award or settlement was made prior to Chester Street's insolvency. Secondly, if the award or settlement was made on the day of, or after, Chester Street's insolvency, the insurance industry is funding equivalent payments pending the implementation of the new financial services compensation scheme—FSCS—at midnight on 30 November. The FSCS will supersede the PPB. Thirdly, the rules of the FSCS will ensure continuity of cover in respect of awards and settlements made after 30 November. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks that this is a tremendously welcome improvement on the situation that existed before the spring of this year when the deal was negotiated.
My hon. Friend raised several points relating to the PPB and, in particular, to the way in which it is funded. Of course, the PPB will be superseded by the new financial services compensation scheme at midnight on 30 November. As I explained earlier, the particular problem that Chester Street raised in relation to compensation arrangements under the PPB has already been addressed by the Association of British Insurers and will be resolved by the new rules. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that sound insurers pick up the bill for those that become insolvent—companies which, as he points out, may have been in fierce competition with each other prior to the insolvency.
The FSA has long been familiar with the arguments that contributions to compensation schemes should be risk based. I understand that it considered a range of alternatives for the new compensation scheme, including a system of individually risk-weighted premiums, but concluded that at the present time funding arrangements similar to current arrangements were the most suitable and cost effective, relative to the available alternatives. Individually risk-weighted premiums were particularly expensive due to the prohibitive cost to the FSA and the FSCS of implementing an appropriate and objective risk assessment system on the basis of current information.
Risk-based premiums may turn out to be inappropriately weighted, cause competitive distortions and increase financial pressures on already weaker firms, particularly in a pay-as-you-go funded scheme in which contributions are collected only following an insolvency. Conversely, a scheme in which a fund is built up in advance may see a loss of capital from the industry, representing a deadweight cost, especially, as we would hope, if failures are low. I should also point out that the existence of a compensation scheme benefits the whole industry by boosting policyholders' confidence that, come what may, most if not all of their claims will be met.
None the less, the FSA has committed itself to reviewing that matter again as part of a wider review of compensation arrangements. It will consider their effectiveness three years after the scheme comes into effect. At that point, it will consider further international

155
and domestic experience, the activity of the FSCS and levies in practice and ongoing academic analysis in this area.
My hon. Friend also set out a number of concerns about the regulatory framework and the FSA. I note his observations on the issues on which he believes the FSA's integrated prudential sourcebook should be brought to bear. I shall cover as many of those as I can in the time available.
First, my hon. Friend is concerned about the FSA's requirements for reserving. I understand that it recognises the importance of benchmarking and already takes it into account in its supervision of individual firms. It will, however, be further enhancing its expertise in that area and will be considering the role played by the actuaries and auditors of insurance firms.
Secondly, on reinsurance requirements, my hon. Friend made an interesting point on independence insurance. The FSA plans to review the use of financial reinsurance within the insurance market and the extent of the industry's reliance on it. That issue has also arisen in the context of other parts of the insurance market and I am sure that the FSA will comment on its prevalent use. Particular attention will be paid to arrangements that do not result in a material transfer of risk to the reinsurer and those that are, in effect, regulatory arbitrage.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend mentioned solvency standards. The FSA agrees that the current European solvency margin requirements for insurance firms are inadequate. It expects almost all firms to hold buffers in excess of the European minimum levels to meet its adequate financial resources requirement. The European solvency margins are also under review and there may be further improvements on that score. However, change at an international level will clearly take time. In the meantime, the FSA is making a number of enhancements to its capital adequacy requirements for insurance firms.
As my hon. Friend noted, the FSA issued a consultation paper on an integrated prudential sourcebook in June 2001. It sets out proposals for integrated prudential standards that will apply to all types of firm. It is proposed that, for insurance firms, these proposals will take effect from early 2004.
My hon. Friend expressed concern that solvency margins do not significantly differentiate between the different risks run by different insurance companies. The FSA's view is that determining required margins according to premium income by line of business would perpetuate inappropriate rigidity in the determination of solvency requirements. A better approach is to take account of all the risks in the business, including, for example, the adequacy of systems and controls and firms' own measurement of risk.
The FSA's risk-based approach to regulation is designed to take account of the full range of risks within each firm, and it is strengthening its expertise to carry
156
out such assessments. It is also working to develop and consolidate the current approaches used in different sectors for setting individual capital requirements for firms, with the intention of extending that to insurance firms.
On the "one size fits all" framework, which my hon. Friend mentioned, it is not correct to say that the FSA currently takes no account of any sophisticated internal risk measurement frameworks implemented by insurance companies. It frequently discusses with the larger companies the outputs of their internal risk models, and the new regulatory regime for Lloyd's, for example, explicitly recognises the value of its risk-based capital model.
The FSA plans to take more account in future of firms' internal measurement of risk. As I have already explained, the draft integrated prudential sourcebook proposes placing a requirement on all firms to take a view of the overall level of financial resources required to enable them to meet their liabilities. The FSA also plans to add insurance risk expertise to its risk review department, thus further equipping it critically to assess risk models used by the industry.
My hon. Friend made a number of suggestions that he believes would address his concerns. The FSA accepts that insurance firms' risk profiles and financial positions should be more transparent and easier to interpret, especially for life business. However, it believes that this would be best achieved by improving information in the public domain, for example in the regulatory returns and in the accounting treatment of insurance business in accounts under the Companies Acts. Some improvements in the regulatory returns have already been made or are being consulted on; others will be proposed as part of a fundamental review of regulatory reporting, starting next year.
It would be inappropriate for the FSA to publish confidential regulatory information. However, it is considering the need to improve its environmental analysis of the insurance sector, and it will also consider whether to publish that type of analysis for the benefit of consumers and the market.
It is not possible in the time available to address all my hon. Friend's points. However, these are important issues and I undertake to pass on his comments to the chairman of the FSA, who I am sure will be delighted to respond more fully than I can. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I am sure that he agrees that there are great strides to be made in the regulation of insurance companies and the move to a more risk-based regime. I recognise the points that he made about the regulatory and compensation regimes that affected Chester Street, and I hope that I have addressed the most important of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o'clock.

House of Commons

  House of Commons Passes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many ex-hon. Members have been allowed a House of Commons pass; how long an hon. Member must serve to qualify for such a pass; and when this system was last reviewed. [15301]

  Mrs. Roe
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently 117 ex-hon. Members with House of Commons photo identity passes. Ex-hon. Members with 15 years' pensionable service are entitled to apply for a photo identity pass.

  The system was last reviewed at a meeting of the Administration Committee on 27 February 2001 in the context of access to the House by Members of devolved legislatures.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe (NGOs)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Government of Zimbabwe regarding their decision to prohibit non-governmental organisations from operating in Zimbabwe. [15778]

  Clare Short
  No such decision has been communicated to us or to NGOs operating in Zimbabwe. NGOs are providing much needed relief to some of Zimbabwe's most vulnerable people. We would hope that any Government who were serious about the welfare of their people would allow such work to continue.

  Older People (Discrimination)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken to tackle discrimination against older people. [14955]

  Clare Short
  My Department's aim is the elimination of poverty in poorer countries. Discrimination and marginalisation is frequently a cause of poverty. We are seeking to ensure that poor people are consulted on policies and decisions that affect them. We are using participatory methods to understand people's perception of their rights and the obstacles they face in accessing entitlements. By adopting such rights approaches, we are promoting social justice, including tackling discrimination against older people.
  2W
  We are supporting the African Union's leadership in promoting and guiding national policies on ageing in their membership, as well as assisting the policy development process in the preparations for the Second World Assembly on Ageing next spring.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences (Russia)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences have been issued to(a) Russian companies to the United Kingdom and (b) United Kingdom companies to Russia in the last 12 months. [14727]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Between 9 November 2000 and 9 November 2001, 50 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 15 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export of goods and technology to Russia.

  In addition, Russia is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences (OGELs) covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are placed in the Library of the House. More information on export licences for Russia can be found in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls (also available in the Library of the House).

  Any export licensing requirement for the export of goods and technology to the UK would be a matter for the authorities in the exporting country. We have no information on export licensing decisions made by the Russian authorities.

  3G Licensing Sale
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the 3G licensing sale conducted by her Department on(a) employment, (b) growth and (c) debt in the United Kingdom telecoms sector. [14385]

  Mr. Alexander
  We believe that the medium and long-term prospects for the UK telecoms sector remain strong. The current down-turn is part of a global phenomenon, not limited to countries in which there have been auctions of third generation mobile licences. UK mobile operators are continuing to work towards launch of third generation services as rapidly as is practicable.

  WTO Conference (Doha)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive with respect to the preparation of the position of the UK Delegation to the 4 World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in November in Doha. [15064]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: Regulation of international trade is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. The Scottish Executive receive invitations to the Whitehall-wide Trade Policy Group, and through this process of information exchange and consultation, the Scottish Executive are involved in trade policy.
  3W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if a representative of the Scottish Executive formed part of the UK Delegation to the fourth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in November in Doha. [15065]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: Regulation of international trade is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. and there was no representative of the Scottish Executive in the delegation. The DTI is in discussion with the Scottish Executive on a number of issues in line with the agreed Memorandum of Understanding and Concordats.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha to meet the concerns of the least developed countries. [14408]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: I refer to my Statement to the House on 15 November, reporting on the successful outcome of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha.

  As well as launching a development-focused trade round, which we believe offers the best route for the developing world to escape from poverty, the Doha Development Agenda includes a number of measures specifically focused on developing countries, with particular extra benefits in some areas for the least developed countries.

  The WTO Ministerial Conference also agreed a Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which clarifies the action that WTO members can take to secure access to essential medicines during public health crises, and a Decision on Implementation-related Issues and Concerns, which contains many provisions specifically intended to benefit least developed countries.

  Fireworks
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to restrict the sale of fireworks to those organising professional fireworks displays; and if she will make a statement. [15377]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: We have no plans to restrict further the sale of fireworks.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the Ilisu Dam project from the Secretary of State for International Development. [15129]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: I have received no representations on the Ilisu Dam project from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Turkey is not a country where the Department for International Development has a programme.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library copies of the consultants' reports on the Environmental Impact Assessment report and the Resettlement Action Plan on the Ilisu Dam project. [15131]
  4W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: I will place copies of the consultants' reports on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report and the Resettlement Action Plan on the Ilisu Dam project in the Library after showing them to the Turkish Government and the other Export Credit Agencies considering support for the project. The reports will also be placed on ECGD' s website.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions there have been on the Ilisu Dam project; and if he will make a statement. [15316]

  Ms Hewitt
  Discussions have recently taken place between officials of the Government Departments with an interest in the project (ECGD, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Trade Partners UK and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport) regarding the assessment of both the reports produced by independent consultants on the Environmental Assessment Report (EIAR) and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and the comments received from the public and other interest groups. The consultants' reports will be made publicly available in due course. However, Balfour Beatty have now withdrawn from the project.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultation documents were issued by her Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12875]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the introduction of the Consultation Code on 1 January 2001, consultation documents have been issued as follows:

  Date

  Number

  1 January to 14 January

  1

  15 January to 14 April

  23

  15 April to 14 July

  10

  15 July to 14 October

  17

  15 October to date

  2

  Records relating to consultations issued before the introduction of the Consultation Code on 1 January 2001 are held not centrally, but by the management unit responsible for the policy area concerned. The information requested in relation to this period could be obtained and collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Consignia
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Consignia staff are employed at the Nine Elms Royal Mail sorting office; and what plans she has for the future of this sorting office. [14953]

  Mr. Alexander
  As an operational issue, plans for the future of the Nine Elms site are a matter for Consignia.

  Consignia have informed me that some 3,000 staff are employed at the Nine Elms site of which approximately 1,500 are employed on mail processing.
  5W
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to encourage Consignia to make greater use of rail freight for mail deliveries. [15027]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is an operational issue for Consignia.

  I have been informed that the company is currently undertaking a review of its countrywide road, rail and air transport links as part of plans to reshape the entire network to meet the demands for faster, cost effective services in the future.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of mail was carried by(a) road and (b) rail in each of the last five years. [15026]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is an operational issue for Consignia.

  Consignia has informed me that, for each of the last five years prior to the Hatfield rail disaster in October 2000, 20 per cent. of mail was carried by train, 5 per cent. by air and the remaining 75 per cent. by road; and that figures since October 2000 are not available.

  Consumer Councils
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total costs were for operating(a) the National Consumer Council, and (b) the Scottish Consumer Council in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000. [15545]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total expenditure of the National Consumer Council was, in:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  3.306

  1997–98

  2.976

  1998–99

  3.029

  1999–2000

  3.29

  This included the expenditure of the SCC which, for the same period, was:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  464,993

  1997–98

  601,168

  1998–99

  679,365

  1999–2000

  761,132

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the salaries are of(a) the chairman and members of the National Consumer Council, and (b) the chairman and members of the Scottish Consumer Council. [15546]

  Ms Hewitt
  The chairman and board of the NCC and the SCC are public appointees. The salary of the chairman of the NCC is £30,900 per annum and the salaries of the NCC members are £10,000 per annum. The salary of the chairman of the SCC is £15,450 per annum. The members are unpaid, but receive an attendance allowance of £87 per day.
  6W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the salaries are of the chief executive of the(a) National Consumer Council and (b) Scottish Consumer Council. [15547]

  Ms Hewitt
  The salary of the director or chief executive of the National Consumer Council is given in the annual report. It is currently set at £61,498 per annum. The director of the SCC is an employee of the NCC. The individual salaries of NCC employees are not in the public domain.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the role of the Scottish Consumer Council since 1999. [15630]

  Ms Hewitt
  The role of the Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) (an independent sub-committee of the National Consumer Council (NCC)) is to make all Scottish consumers matter by ensuring that all consumer interests, particularly those of disadvantaged groups, are heard by people who can make a difference in business, the public sector and in Government.

  Solicitors' Costs
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total solicitors' costs to her Department was of the action of the right hon. Member for Tyneside North (Mr. Byers) against Associated Newspapers and Simon and Schuster. [16391]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total solicitors' bill was £20,385.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees of(a) her Department and (b) agencies sponsored by her Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16110]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is as follows:

  Employees in

  Department

  Agencies

  Total

  London

  3,529

  1,646

  5,175

  Objective 1 areas

  1

  219

  220

  Transitional objective 1 areas

  0

  6

  6

  Objective 2 areas

  543

  1,692

  2,235

  Transitional objective 2 areas

  0

  35

  35

  Other areas

  198

  651

  849

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many publications were issued by her Department in each of the last four years. [11841]
  7W
  Ms Hewitt
  The number of publications notified to the Department's Publications Unit during the last four calendar years were:

  1998: 802

  1999: 919

  2000: 967

  2001: 771 (to date).

  Aviation Industry
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has(a) to underwrite insurance premiums and (b) to seek suspension of the operation of airline passenger duty following the events of 11 September. [15621]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government set up a temporary replacement insurance scheme for UK and Isle of Man airlines following the withdrawal of commercial cover for third party liabilities in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the US. The scheme underwrites third party, war and terrorism liabilities above $50 million for the majority of airlines for a commercially based premium, but will waive the premium for airlines that choose to buy $100 million of cover on the commercial insurance market. The scheme was extended for 30 days on the 24 October and will now expire at midnight on the 23 November. If it is clear that adequate commercial insurance has not returned to the market, the scheme will again be renewed.

  The Chancellor reviews all taxes in the context of his pre-Budget and Budget statements.

  Bonus Payments
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average increase in the earnings index in the 12 month period to February was as a result of bonus payments; and(a) what proportion of that was due to a growth in the financial sector and (b) what proportion of those bonuses went to (i) men and (ii) women. [15726]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Barbara Follett, dated 19 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the average increase in the earnings index (15726).
  The rate of growth in the Average Earnings Index for Great Britain in the year to February was 6.8 per cent. Excluding bonus payments, the index showed annual growth of 4.1 per cent. The published "bonus effect" is therefore 2.7 percentage points.
  The Financial Intermediation sector contributed approximately 3.0 percentage points to this effect.
  Information is not available from the Average Earnings Index by sex.

DEFENCE

  Alternative Landing Ships Logistic
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with placing a contract for the additional two alternative landing ships logistics. [16268]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am pleased to announce that, further to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 26 October last year,Official Report, columns 414–15, the Ministry of Defence has concluded negotiations with BAE Systems Marine and has today placed a contract worth an estimated value of £120 million with the BAE Systems Marine Govan Shipyard on the Clyde to construct two Alternative Landing Ships Logistics. This is in addition to the first two ships in the class which are to be built by Swan Hunter at its Tyneside yard. BAE Systems Marine will build their vessels to Swan's design.

  This represents an important enhancement to our Amphibious Capability, as each ALSL has more than twice the carrying capacity of the ships that they will replace. This significantly increases our specialist amphibious lift capacity. The vessels being built by Swan Hunter are due to enter into service in 2004 and 2005. Work at Govan on the further two vessels should commence later this month with a planned in-service date of 2005.

  This represents positive news for Clyde shipbuilding and should sustain 600 jobs at the Clyde shipyards and 200 other jobs in the region until the planned Type 45 Destroyer construction commences.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the consultant's report recommending the relocation of the fixed wing aircraft repair business of DARA from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff international airport. [16389]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 July 2001,Official Report, columns 707–08W.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been to his Department of the use of MOD police in connection with RAF Menwith Hill since 5 July; and what the preset departmental budget was for this function. [15878]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding the cost of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) deployed at RAF Menwith Hill in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence Security) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The financial arrangements governing the MDP presence at bases made available to the United States visiting forces in the UK, including RAF Menwith Hill, are covered by a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and US Governments. The costs incurred by Her Majesty's Government for the MDP presence at RAF Menwith Hill are reimbursed by the US Government, except where overtime is occasioned by the activities of protesters, which is a direct cost to the UK.

  Missile Trials
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what missile trials involving live firing of missiles have been undertaken by(a) HMS Marlborough, (b) HMS Lancaster and (c) HMS York in the past three years. [14627]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no specific missile trials involving the named vessels in the past three years. A number of routine practice firings have been undertaken. However it is not our policy to comment on the details of the live firing programme and I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what missile trials involving Trident class submarines have taken place in the past three years. [14628]

  Mr. Ingram
  One trial has been conducted in the past three years when HMS Vengeance successfully conducted a post-build firing of a Trident missile with an inert warhead.

  Departmental Sites (Planning Applications)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is towards submitting planning applications for his Department's sites the use of which is already subject to a local plan public inquiry. [15713]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is obliged to optimise receipts to the Exchequer from the disposal of its surplus estate and adopts strategies which ensure that this objective is achieved while taking full account of local issues and concerns. Planning permission is sought in advance of disposal in order to release the site at the most beneficial value to the taxpayer.

  In some cases where a local plan inquiry is in progress or has been completed it may be necessary to submit a planning application in order to determine development proposals in a reasonable timescale. This course is particularly useful if the principles of development have not been previously challenged at the local plan inquiry.

  Defence Estates Disposal Programme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has conducted a review this year of Defence Estates' disposal programme; what was the conclusion of that review; and if he will make a statement. [15715]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Estates disposal programme is managed carefully to ensure that the targets set under the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and subsequent public service agreements are achieved. Best practice and lessons learned from post project reviews help to ensure that our disposal process and procedures are taut and provide best value. The SDR target of £700 million by March 2002 will be achieved and we expect property to make up the majority of the current PSA target of £600 million in asset disposals in the three years to March 2004.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made of the capability of the Territorial Army to provide aid to the civil powers. [R] [9674]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House on 4 October that, following the attacks on 11 September, we are conducting work designed to ensure that we have the right capabilities in place to deal with international terrorism. The range of options being considered includes how the TA may be used in providing assistance to the civil community in an emergency.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to the suitability of former civilian aircraft being purchased or leased directly by his Department for conversion to the future strategic tanker aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [13836]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: It is intended that the future strategic tanker aircraft will deliver the RAF's air to air refuelling capability from around 2007. Bids for this prospective PFI project were received from two consortiums on 3 July 2001. Potential aircraft solutions include both new and former civilian airliners. We are currently examining the suitability of these options as part of a detailed assessment phase.

  Porton Down Volunteers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have contacted the Porton Down volunteers helpline since February 1998. [14761]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since February 1998 the helpline has received requests for information relating to 750 individuals.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, are employed to answer queries in the form of letters and telephone calls by former service personnel about experiments in which they took part. [14760]

  Dr. Moonie
  Currently, two full-time and three part-time members of Porton Down staff work exclusively on volunteer inquiries. Additionally, five other members of staff devote a significant proportion of their time to volunteer issues.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make ex-gratia compensation payments to service volunteers who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, because they believed that they were volunteering for common cold research; and if he will make a statement. [14835]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. Despite in-depth searches of the Ministry of Defence archive, no evidence has been found to substantiate the allegation that volunteers were recruited under the pretext that they were attending Porton Down for common cold research. Indeed, Porton Down has never conducted work on the common cold.
  11W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have visited the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, to inspect records of their experiments and discuss their test with members of staff since 6 April. [14752]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 6 April 2001, staff at Dstl Porton Down have hosted visits from seven former Porton Down volunteers.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the War Pensions Agency is being kept informed of the plans to set up an epidemiological study to explore the health of volunteers who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down; and what meetings have taken place between the War Pensions Agency and(a) the Medical Research Council and (b) the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit with regard to this matter. [14763]

  Dr. Moonie
  The War Pensions Agency is aware of the planned research but has not been involved in meetings with the Medical Research Council or the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit on this matter.

  The Agency's core function is delivery of the War Pensions Scheme, with decisions on war pensions claims based on case specific facts, the relevant law and contemporary medical understanding.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times since 9 April staff at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, have supplied information about former volunteers to the War Pensions Agency in response to claims for disablement by such individuals. [14764]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 9 April 2001, Dstl Porton Down has supplied information relating to 25 individuals following requests for information from the War Pensions Agency.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 2001,Official Report, columns 415–16W, regarding Porton Down, if his Department's officials conducting the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, have made a decision on whether to interview (a) former scientists and staff at Porton Down who conducted the experiments and (b) former service personnel who took part in the experiments. [14751]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decision has yet been taken.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Professor Ian Kennedy will meet representatives of the Operation Antler team of Wiltshire Police as part of his supervision of the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down. [14756]

  Dr. Moonie
  Professor Kennedy is acting in a supervisory and advisory role with respect to the comprehensive survey. It would not ordinarily be part of such a role to have discussions with representatives of a police investigation team, and thus Professor Kennedy has no plans to do so.
  12W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 936–37W, regarding Porton Down, if he will place in the Library papers relating to the War Pensions Agency's decision of 19 February. [14745]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 2 (Internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the titles and dates of films held by the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, which recorded the establishment's trials with the chemical agents CS and CR tear gas in the 1960s and 1970s. [14798]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 May 2001,Official Report, column 197W. An attempt to collate a list even of the trials involving the tear gases CS and CR undertaken in the 1960s and 1970s could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he Will place in Library a list of the(a) common and (b) chemical names of the eight nerve agents which have been tested on service volunteers at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, during the service volunteer programme; and how many service volunteers were tested with each of the nerve agents. [14754]

  Dr. Moonie
  The eight nerve agents known to have been used in trials involving volunteers at Porton Down, together with their common and chemical names, are as follows:

  GA; common name, Tabun; chemical name, O-ethyl N-dimethyl phosphoramidocyanate:

  GB; common name, Sarin; chemical name, O-isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate:

  GD; common name, Soman; chemical name, O-pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate:

  GE; common name, Ethyl sarin; chemical name, O-isopropyl ethylphosphonofluoridate:

  GF; no common name; chemical name, O-cyclohexyl methylphosphonofluoridate:

  VX; no common name; chemical name, O-ethyl-S-[2(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate: and radio-labelled versions of GB and VX.

  At present there are no definitive figures detailing the numbers of service volunteers who have been exposed to each of these agents. It is hoped that these details will become apparent during the forthcoming epidemiological study, which is being overseen by the Medical Research Council. It is intended that the results from this study will be published in the open literature.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, in 1972 entitled, The Effect of Wind Speed on the Mitogenic Potency of GB and VX Valpour. [14759]

  Dr. Moonie
  This report is still classified as confidential and contains information which could have a direct bearing on operational effectiveness. I am therefore
  13W
  withholding this information in the interests of national security in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down in 1984 entitled, Experience in Man with Nerve Agents with Reference to Generalised Symptoms—A Review and Proposals for Further Experiments. [14758]

  Dr. Moonie
  This report is still classified and contains information which would be of use to a potential aggressor or terrorist. I am therefore withholding this information in the interests of national security in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were detained in Japanese camps in World War Two as British but have now been ruled as ineligible for compensation because of a lack of a blood link with the United Kingdom. [15017]

  Dr. Moonie
  Precise numbers of people who were detained in Japanese camps in World War Two as British, but have now been ruled as ineligible for payment under the ex-gratia scheme because of a lack of a blood link with the United Kingdom are not available, as records have not been maintained in this form. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on restrictions placed by Her Majesty's Government on the eligibility for compensation of former British civilian internees in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. [15028]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 517W to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the letter of 24 October from the hon. Member for Buckingham to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), will be answered. [15764]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence aims to answer its Ministerial correspondence within 15 working days of receipt in the Department. The hon. Member's letter was received on 30 October and I replied to him on 12 November.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons learned have been made available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs based upon the Army's experience of the foot and mouth outbreak. [15365]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The foot and mouth epidemic has been brought under control by the joint efforts of a number of Government Departments and agencies. Throughout the epidemic, there was a constant interchange of information and
  14W
  advice, based on past and present experience, between armed forces personnel and those other agencies and Departments, including DEFRA. The Ministry of Defence is committed to supporting the work of the foot and mouth disease inquiries announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 August.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of Fair Trade goods. [15203]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The supply of food for the armed forces has been contracted out to "3663" and we require them to seek the best price in the open market, consistent with meeting our quality standard; indeed to do otherwise would contravene European law. In the case of Fair Trade products, it is my Department's policy to require the contractor to give full consideration to such goods whenever they meet these criteria.

  Naval Hospital, Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has in relation to the naval hospital in Gibraltar. [14294]

  Dr. Moonie
  At present the naval hospital is a unit of the Defence Care Agency. Existing plans for replacing the hospital with a new-build facility have been under review by the Agency to assess, among other things, whether there might be scope for improved integration with the primary care facilities at Gibraltar. We expect ownership of the hospital to change in line with the recommendation by the Medical Quinquennial Review (MQR). I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1224W to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). It was noted in the summary of emerging findings of the MQR that responsibility for the management and funding of all medical functions, including secondary care, in Cyprus and Gibraltar should be vested in the respective overseas commands. Consequently the studies into a replacement for the existing hospital will now be taken forward by the Permanent Joint Headquarters.

  Exercise Saif Sareea 2
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the causes of breakdown in armoured vehicles on exercise Saif Sareea 2; when such breakdowns had been anticipated in advance by(a) his Department and (b) service staff; and if he will make a statement. [14809]

  Mr. Ingram
  Detailed information on the causes of the limited number of breakdowns among the 395 armoured vehicles deployed during the six weeks of Exercise Saif Sareea 2 has not yet been collated but should be available early next year as part of our standard post-deployment assessment. Providing the information at this stage would incur a disproportionate cost.
  15W
  We did not anticipate any specific causes of breakdown for individual armoured vehicles types although some unplanned maintenance was inevitable given the challenging environment.

  Overall the armoured vehicle fleet deployed on Exercise Saif Sareea 2 performed very effectively. The experience gained from the exercise will provide valuable lessons for future deployments.

  Sovereign Bases (Equal Opportunities Legislation)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 380W, on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to service personnel, if he will list the overseas military bases where the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 do not apply to service personnel working wholly there; [15639]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2001, Official Report, column 380W, on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to service personnel, what plans he has to amend sections 75(2)(c) and 75(10)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976 to ensure that service personnel asked to serve on sovereign bases outside the European Union are protected by the Race Relations Act 1976; [15638]

  (3) what assessment his Department made of Article 6(1) and Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the case of Surinder Nath Saggar of Brompton on Swale, North Yorkshire. [15640]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 404W. I hope that I will be in a position to write to the right hon. Member with a full substantive reply shortly, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the personnel operational and retained task requirement for each medical specialty within the Defence Medical Services, indicating the current strength in each specialty. [13705]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The operational and retained task requirement for each medical specialty within the Defence Medical Services and the strength in each as at 1 October 2001 are shown in the tables:

  Consultants

  Specialty

  Operational and retained task requirement1

  Trained consultants in specialty1.2

  Specialists undergoing training3

  Anaesthetists

  120

  26

  63

  General medicine

  51

  18

  27

  Paediatricians

  5

  2

  1

  Neurologists

  1

  0

  0

  General surgeons

  44

  16

  52

  Obstetricians and gynaecologist

  3

  0

  1

  Urologists

  2

  1

  1

  Orthopaedic surgeons

  28

  10

  21

  Burns and plastic surgery

  11

  3

  5

  Accident and emergency

  23

  3

  20

  Psychiatrists

  31

  11

  11

  Ophthalmic surgeons

  10

  3

  8

  16W

  Consultants

  Specialty

  Operational and retained task requirement1

  Trained consultants in specialty1,2

  Specialists undergoing training3

  Oral maxillofacial surgeons

  10

  8

  8

  Ear, nose and throat

  10

  3

  8

  Rheumatology and rehabilitation

  6

  6

  3

  Radiologists

  11

  8

  3

  Pathologists

  18

  7

  1

  Aviation medicine

  2

  1

  2

  Occupational medicine

  50

  8

  24

  Public health

  2

  8

  3

  General medical practitioners

  Specialty

  Operational and retained task requirement1

  398

  Vocationally trained GMPs1

  160

  GMPs undergoing vocational training4

  73

  No vocational training5

  186

  1 Command and staff posts are excluded from the Operational and Retained Task Requirement and trained manpower figures.

  2 In addition to the figures shown there were five Associate Specialist anaesthetists and one Staff Grade general surgeon who would be deployable under the supervision of a consultant.

  3 The figures provided comprise Specialist Registrars and Senior House Officers. Specialist Registrars within two years of accreditation are deployable within their specialty under the supervision of a consultant while all others are deployable as general duties medical officers.

  4 GP Vocational Trainees are deployable as general duties medical officers.

  5 This figure comprises medical officers who have yet to start training in a primary or secondary care discipline or who qualified prior to the introduction of GP vocational training.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of Afghan civilians killed as a result of allied coalition use of bombs and missiles since military action began; and if he will publish the total of civilians killed in Afghanistan as a result of allied forces for each day until military action ends. [14264]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 432W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been provided to the(a) print and (b) broadcast media in respect of the (i) publication and (ii) broadcast of details of the activities of (A) British armed forces and (B) the SAS since military activities started in Afghanistan. [14690]

  Mr. Hoon
  Guidance to the media on areas where public disclosure could damage UK security and other interests is set out in standing Defence Advisory Notices. These are established by the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC) which consists of representatives from Government and the media. The Committee's main task is to oversee a voluntary code which operates between Departments who have responsibility for national security and the media. Further information is set out in the DPBAC website www.dnotice.org.uk.
  17W
  Since the terrorists attacks of 11 September, the Secretary of the DPBAC has written twice to editors, enlarging on the general advice in the standing Defence Advisory Notices and reminding them to consult him if considering publication of details which might endanger lives and/or operations.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what languages were used for the labelling of(a) cluster bombs, (b) food parcels and (c) leaflets dropped in Afghanistan; [15773]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the labelling on (a) cluster bombs, (b) food parcels and (c) leaflets dropped in Afghanistan with reference to the literacy rate among the Afghan population. [15820]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  MOD Police Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the purchasing policy of the MOD police on UK-built vehicles is; how many MOD police vehicles are operated; and what makes of vehicles are used by the MOD police. [15169]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Procurement Agency purchases vehicles for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Police, on a best value for money basis, looking at whole life cycle costings, through competition. As at 13 November 2001 the MOD Police are currently operating 520 vehicles from various manufacturers, as shown in the table:

  Vehicles

  Number

  Citroen

  105

  Daihatsu

  2

  Ford

  183

  Glover

  4

  Honda

  30

  Isuzu

  7

  Iveco

  7

  Landrover

  46

  Long distance vehicles

  1

  Leyland

  3

  Mercedes

  5

  Mitsubishi

  1

  Nissan

  23

  Renault

  40

  Rover

  1

  Subaru

  46

  Toyota

  1

  Vauxhall

  15

  NBC Warfare
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what liaison takes place between his Department and the NHS regarding preparations for nuclear, biological and chemical attack. [16160]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 October 2001,Official Report, columns 239–40W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

  Defence Academy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the names and appointments held by the board selecting the head of the Defence Academy; [15346]

  (2) what the (a) salary and (b) budget of the head of the Defence Academy is; [15351]

  (3) how many candidates were interviewed for the post of head of the Defence Academy; [15353]

  (4) if the head of Defence Academy was an internal Ministry of Defence appointment; [15352]

  (5) who has been appointed as head of the Defence Academy. [15364]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The head of the Defence Academy, Sir Roger Jackling, was appointed on the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Defence, fully supported by the chiefs of staff who had previously considered a number of military candidates in the Senior Appointments Committee. The recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State for Defence and subsequently reported to the Cabinet Office Senior Appointments Selection Committee.

  Defence Ministers had previously decided that, in the overall context of Defence training, the first head of the Defence Academy should be either a senior military officer or a MOD civil servant. Since all of the candidates for consideration were internal and their suitability was well recognised within the MOD, no interviews were held.

  Sir Roger Jackling, presently the second permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, will take up this appointment in January 2002. Sir Roger will be paid within the band of £100,000 to £110,000 in the appropriate salary range for civil service appointments at this level. The head of the Defence Academy's budget will be established with effect from 1 April 2002. The precise size of the budget has yet to be determined but it is expected to be in the region of £90 million.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next review of warplane low-flying practice zones covering North York Moors and East Cleveland area will be held. [16048]

  Dr. Moonie
  Military Low Flying takes place within a number of Low Flying Areas (LFAs) which together form the UK Low Flying System (UKLFS). The UKLFS is kept under regular review and this work is supported by a rolling programme of detailed inspections on the ground. LFA 11, within which my hon. Friend's constituency lies, will be inspected next year as part of this programme.

  Vaccines Research Programme
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of research conducted by(a) his Department and (b) consultants on behalf of his Department, into the health effects of the multiple immunisations programme implemented for service

  19W
  personnel and medical auxiliaries who served in the Gulf War; and what resources are allocated for future research. [15577]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 14 November 2001, £3,045,188 (including VAT) had been spent by the Ministry of Defence on the Vaccines Interactions Research programme being undertaken by the Defence Scientific Technology Laboratory (Dstl), Porton Down. Of this, £366,152 (including VAT) was in respect of work completed on behalf of Dstl by non-Ministry of Defence bodies. MOD anticipates that at least a further £1,566,100 (including VAT) will be required to complete the Interactions research programme.

  Battlefield Surveillance Capability
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Thales Sensors enhanced battlefield surveillance capability will be operational; and if he will make a statement. [7318]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our battlefield surveillance capability has a number of different elements. Assuming the hon. Member's question refers to the Interim Non-Communications Electronic Support Measures system (INCE), for which Thales Sensors were recently awarded the contract, the planned in-service date is December 2002. INCE will provide land commanders with an air-portable system for rapid interception, direction finding and position fixing of opponents' transmissions, primarily targeting radar systems.

  Princess Mary Hospital Site, RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many homes Defence Estates was seeking permission to build on the site of the Princess Mary hospital, RAF Halton, in(a) ts evidence to the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale local plan, and (b) ts recent planning application to Aylesbury Vale district council; and if he will make a statement; [15707]

  (2) who authorised the planning application to Aylesbury Vale district council for the Princess Mary hospital site, RAF Halton; [15710]

  (3) by whom (a) his Department and (b) its agents were legally represented at the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale local plan; what was the cost of such legal representation; and if he will make a statement; [15712]

  (4) when (a) his Department and (b) its agents decided to submit a planning application to Aylesbury Vale district council for the redevelopment of the Princess Mary hospital site, RAF Halton; [15708]

  (5) when his officials last met (a) Wendover parish council, (b) Halton parish council and (c) the Wendover Society to discuss the future of the Princess Mary hospital site, RAF Halton; [15717]

  (6) for what reasons Defence Estates has submitted a planning application for the site of the Princess Mary hospital, Halton, before the outcome of the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale local plan is known; [15714]

  (7) what has been the cost to date to (a) his Department, (b) Defence Estates, (c) their agents and (d) representatives of (i) preparing and (ii) making representations to the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale local plan; [15711]
  20W
  (8) if he will place in the Library a copy of the evidence about the future of RAF Halton submitted by his Department to the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale draft local plan; [15716]

  (9) when he notified (a) Aylesbury Vale district council, (b) Halton parish council, (c) Wendover parish council and (d) Buckinghamshire county council of the decision of Defence Estates to submit a planning application for the Princess Mary hospital site, RAF Halton. [15709]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is the Ministry of Defence's normal practice to sell surplus property with the benefit of outline planning permission, or a development brief.

  The original decision to submit a planning application for this site was made by the Defence Estates agency during 1997 in consultation with our planning consultants GVA Grimley.

  In June 1997 a proposal for the development of up to 500 dwellings was submitted to the pre-deposit consultation for the Aylesbury Vale local plan. As part of our consultations for the current planning application discussions took place with Buckinghamshire county council concerning the traffic impact assessment and similarly consultations took place with Aylesbury Vale district council concerning the environmental statement which accompanies the application.

  In evidence to the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale local plan, the Department suggested that the site might be suitable for at least 330 dwellings.

  GVA Grimley represented MOD at the Aylesbury Vale local plan public inquiry. The direct costs of this amounted to some £67,500. The proof of evidence submitted on the Department's behalf at the public inquiry is available for public inspection at Aylesbury Vale district council.

  I understand that the local plan in question is not expected to be adopted by the district council until November/December 2003. However, the Department is required under Government accounting rules to dispose of surplus sites as quickly as possible. So, Defence Estates authorised the current planning application (under the Department of Environment 18/84 procedure) for 480 dwellings, to facilitate marketing during 2002.

  So far as liaison with the local community is concerned, the Officer Commanding the Administration Wing at RAF Halton has regular meetings with Halton parish council. The Wendover Society inspected the Princess Mary hospital site during the public inquiry into the Aylesbury Vale local plan in 2000.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Benefice Glebe
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, when a list of landholdings specified in the legislation transferring parish glebe land to the Church of England dioceses was(a) compiled and (b) published; and where a copy can be viewed. [15635]
  21W
  Mr. Bell
  The obligation to produce lists of benefice glebe was fulfilled by all dioceses by 31 July 1978. They were not published as there was no legal requirement to do so. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to inspect the Commissioners' copies at their offices.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Wembley
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures Sport England will take to retrieve money given to the Wembley project. [14291]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is for Sport England to decide whether to initiate action to recover the lottery grant invested in the Wembley project. Patrick Carter is currently holding discussions with the Football Association and Sport England to find a mutually acceptable basis for moving the project forward.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the legal basis of the power of arrest of officers in the Royal Parks Constabulary. [15655]

  Dr. Howells
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency and I have asked its Chief Executive, William Weston, to reply.

  Letter from William Weston to Peter Bottomley, dated 19 November 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about where the powers of arrest of the Royal Parks Constabulary derive from, because this is an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency.
  The Royal Parks Constabulary originated as park-keepers appointed to maintain order in the Royal Parks. The position of park-keeper was replaced with that of Park Constable with the passing of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1974, which amended the Parks Regulation Act 1872. Section 7 of the 1872 Act (as amended) gives Park Constables the same powers, privileges and immunities and makes them liable to the same duties and responsibilities, as any police constable in the police district within which the park is located. Park Constables therefore have the same powers of arrest within the parks where they operate as do ordinary police constables in the surrounding police district. These powers of arrest derive from the common law, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and many other statutes.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money is held in the national lottery distribution fund which is not committed to projects; and if she will make a statement. [15315]

  Mr. Caborn
  Currently £264 million held in the national lottery distribution fund (NLDF) is not committed to specific projects. This figure represents 8 per cent. of the current NLDF balance. Lottery distributing bodies have forecast that the balance will reduce considerably over the next three years and the Government attach high priority to ensuring that happens.

  All-seater Football Stadiums
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will consider relaxing regulations requiring football stadiums to be all-seated. [15782]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government believe that the present requirement for Premier League and First Division football grounds to be all-seater is still necessary for reasons of safety and public order. This policy will remain in place unless or until new technical evidence becomes available which convincingly demonstrates that it is no longer needed.

  Gambling Machines
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning the proposals to remove gambling machines from non-profit-making members' clubs. [16217]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 5 November 2001 to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett),Official Report, column 14.

  Gambling Review
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the recommendations of the Gambling Review Body. [15747]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have received over 2,200 comments on the report of the Gambling Review Body. We are giving them careful consideration, and intend to announce our conclusions early next year.

  New Opportunities Fund (Middlesbrough)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the number and social background of beneficiaries from the new opportunities fund in Middlesbrough South and Cleveland, East. [15783]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information is not available in the form requested. I will, however, write to my hon. Friend with details of awards made by the new opportunities fund, which are of direct benefit to his constituents.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which(a) Ministers and (b) officials from (i) her Department and (ii) other Departments attended the 2001 World Athletics Championships in Edmonton on an official visit; and what were the (a) dates and (b) purpose of such visits. [16651]

  Mr. Caborn
  As Minister of Sport, I attended the World Athletics Championships in Edmonton accompanied by my Private Secretary, two other DCMS officials, and an official from the British Consulate General in Vancouver. Our delegation arrived in Canada on 2 August and returned to the UK on 7 August. The purpose of the visit was to assess the requirements for staging a World Athletics Championships, to meet key members of the International Athletics community gathered in Edmonton for the
  23W
  Championships and to support the British Team. I also held discussions with representatives from Canadian business and Government.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the programme of all(a) events and (b) activities that the Minister for Sport attended at the 2001 World Athletics Championships in an official capacity. [16652]

  Mr. Caborn
  In my official capacity as Minister for Sport my itinerary of events and activities attended relating to the World Athletics Championships in Edmonton was as follows:3 August—Meeting at the Accreditation Centre followed by lunch with the UK Team ahead of the UK Team meeting. I also attended the opening ceremony and met the Honourable Denis Coderre PC MP, Canadian Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.
  4 August—I attended the Games and undertook a tour of the backroom facilities at the stadium. In the evening I attended a reception and dinner in the presence of the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Honourable Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta.
  5 August—I attended the Games and attended a meeting with UK Athletics.
  6 August—I attended the Games, met representatives of the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) and attended an IAAF reception.
  7 August—I attended the Games and the UK Sport and Birmingham City Council reception for IAAF members.

  I also stayed in the same accommodation in Edmonton as the UK team which enabled me to meet and discuss issues with athletes and officials.

WALES

  Employment Policies
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) representations he has received and (b) communications he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales in respect of the employment policies of (i) public bodies and (ii) broadcasting bodies in Wales. [15582]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Secretary when we discuss a range of issues including issues that affect employment in Wales. The employment policies of public and broadcasting bodies are a matter for the bodies themselves.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU objective 1 status, (iii) areas with objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16114]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has a complement of 48 posts. 40 staff usually work in London and eight usually work in an area with objective 2 status.

  My Department does not sponsor any agencies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking regarding the treatment of Christians in the Moluccas region of Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [12154]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United Nations has made several assessment visits to Maluku since 1999. They have found concrete evidence of only a small number of forced conversions, including the most highly reported cases in Kasiui and Tior. Many of the Christians evacuated from the province in January are now reported to be voluntarily returning to their homes. Also, many Muslim and Christians who fled their villages to escape the violence are returning, and Muslim leaders in some villages have asked for help in encouraging Christians to return. In Ambon, the two communities remain segregated and there has been very little violence there in recent weeks.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged more than £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The unit will build capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in the provinces torn apart by ethnic conflict, particularly in North Maluku. These new initiatives will complement DFID-supported humanitarian relief programmes by addressing the causes underlying conflict—abuse of power, alienation and loss of access to and control of resources essential for every day life. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation, begin wider reconstruction work and to offer practical assistance where appropriate.

  The UK's message to the Indonesian Government has been consistently clear: a long-term solution to regional conflicts can only be achieved through political negotiation and consultation with the people. I raised these issues with Hamzah Haz, the Indonesian Vice President when we met in Jakarta on 27 August.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12271]

  Mr. MacShane
  The amount spent on information literature, advertising and campaign literature by the FCO for the following financial years was:

  Year

  £

  (a) 1995–96

  2,735,969

  (b) 1996–97

  1,848,822

  (c) 1997–98

  3,510,151

  (d) 1998–99

  2,006,633

  (e) 1999–2000

  1,794,344

  (f) 2000–01

  1,921,031

  Costs from the British Council and British Trade International are not included. Advertising forms part of the cost of the FCO recruitment service. The FCO

  25W
  has advertised 275 recruitment campaigns since 1996. Separate costs for advertising cannot be ascertained without disproportionate effort and cost. These figures include expenditure on public diplomacy, consular publicity and annual reports. Minor additional expenditure in London and overseas cannot be ascertained without disproportionate effort and cost.

  Uranium Testing (Northern Cyprus)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the evidence in the trial of Jamal al Fadl relating to the military testing of uranium in 1994 by the Islamic National Front in Hilat Koko in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [14825]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We understand that A1 Fadl testified that he did not know whether the uranium had been tested. We have no independent evidence of our own to suggest that military testing of uranium by Sudan's National Islamic Front took place in Hilat Koko in 1994. Evidence provided by A1 Fadl is for the US courts to assess.

  Russian Federation/EU Co-operation
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from applicant states concerning close co-operation between the Russian Federation and the EU Political and Social Affairs Committee. [14811]

  Peter Hain
  The EU-Russia summit on 3 October 2001 announced that the EU Political and Security Committee Troika and Russia would have monthly meetings to take stock of consultations on crisis prevention and management. This is a reflection of the importance the EU attaches to constructive engagement with Russia across the board. A few representatives of applicant states have noted, mostly informally, to my officials the establishment of these meetings.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Kaliningrad in the context of the expansion of the European Union. [14827]

  Peter Hain
  The UK believes Kaliningrad should be able to benefit from EU enlargement. This will require an imaginative approach and constructive engagement on all sides. A Commission communication published earlier this year examined areas of Russian concern including trade, fishing and transport. The EU-Russia summit on 3 October agreed that Commission and Russian officials would take forward work at the EU-Russia Co-operation Committee on 30 November.

  The UK supports proposals for early dialogue between Russia and the EU applicants/neighbours concerned on the movement of people and goods through their territories. We also recognise that the onus is on Russia to take advantage of the opportunities offered by EU enlargement by promoting reforms in rule of law and investment.

  The UK has assured the EU applicant states that the Kaliningrad question will not delay their accession to the
  26W
  EU. We have also urged the applicant states involved to work closely with Russia to ensure that Kaliningrad benefits from EU enlargement.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made with the Spanish Government over the future of Gibraltar. [14814]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 88–92WH.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there shall be self-determination of the people of Gibraltar. [15277]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: HMG support the right or principle of self-determination reflecting the wishes of the people concerned. It should be exercised in accordance with the other principles and rights in the UN Charter and with other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar's case, that includes Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. This has been and continues to be the position of successive British Governments.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on plans to offer the people of Gibraltar a referendum on the subject of a change to the status of their territory; and if the result of such a referendum will be binding on the United Kingdom Government. [16222]

  Peter Hain
  The Government stand by the commitment set out in the preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar constitution that we will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the people of Gibraltar about the future status of their territory. [16120]

  Peter Hain
  A 'Declaration of Unity', signed by the Chief Minister and leading politicians, was handed to an FCO representative in Gibraltar on 4 October. This Declaration, which was mainly concerned with the decision to suspend Gibraltar from the EU Single Sky framework regulation, claimed to represent the views of the majority of the people of Gibraltar. I have placed a copy of this document in the Libraries of the House. For the record, since 1 September, 21 letters have been received from members of the public in Gibraltar on various issues, including the future status of the territory.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the Scottish Executive the Minister for Europe met on his most recent visit to Scotland; and what subjects were discussed. [15896]
  27W
  Peter Hain
  During my visit to Edinburgh on 5 November I met Jack McConnell MSP, Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and his Deputy, Nicol Stephen MSP. We discussed my programme of engagements and the importance of informing members of the public about European Union issues. We also discussed forthcoming ministerial meetings at which representatives of the Scottish Devolved Administration and the United Kingdom Government would discuss European issues.

  Israeli Exports
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the EU Association Council of 20 November will consider to stop the import into the EU under preference of goods labelled as made in Israel but which originate in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. [15893]

  Peter Hain
  EU Foreign Ministers will discuss this at the 19 November General Affairs Council. The Government continue to support EU efforts with Israel to resolve this issue.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the British Government at the EU Association Council of 20 November reviewing the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [15890]

  Peter Hain
  The UK will be represented by staff from the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library, the agenda for the meeting of the EU Association Council to be held on 20 November to renew the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [15888]

  Peter Hain
  A copy of the EU's proposed agenda for the Council, to be formally agreed with Israel at the meeting, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  A1 Barakat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his United States counterpart regarding the United States decision to freeze the assets of the Somali-owned money-transferring company, A1 Barakat. [15776]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign Secretary has not discussed with Colin Powell the decision, taken by the Treasuries of the UK, the US and many other UN member states, to freeze the assets of A1 Barakat under the terms of UNSCR 1333. Before being made effective or public, the freeze was discussed by Foreign Office and Treasury officials with their US opposite numbers. British Officials approved the freeze and implemented it simultaneously with the US.

  Al Barakat is a vital part of the Al Qa'ida's financial network. Usama Bin Laden provided Barakat's start-up finance. Al Barakat wittingly provides foreign exchange, banking and international transfer services for Al Qa'ida and Somali organisations affiliated with Al Qa'ida.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan on the UN Special Rapporteur's report on human rights abuses in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [15777]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The promotion of human rights remains one of our priorities in Sudan and our Embassy in Khartoum is in constant touch with the Government of Sudan. Human rights are also a key focus of the renewed EU-Sudan dialogue. We make representations to the Sudanese Government and to other parties to the conflict on a range of human rights issues, many of which are referred to in the Special Rapporteur's report.

SCOTLAND

  Campbeltown to Ballycastle Ferry Service
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when and where she will meet Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Executive Ministers to discuss the operation of a ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle. [15695]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I will be meeting Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers in Glasgow at the end of this month to discuss the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry link.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she expects to finalise the evaluation of the expressions of interest received to operate the ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle. [15693]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I expect to take a decision within the next few weeks, in conjunction with Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers, on how to proceed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Emblems and Flags
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the draft Police Emblems and Flags Regulations provided for in section 54 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 will be issued for consultation; and if he will make a statement. [16701]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have today launched the consultation process on these draft regulations, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  As the Government said in this House during the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, they will look to the representative Policing Board to see if it can reach a cross-community consensus on these sensitive issues. We very much hope that it can. But, if not, the Government will take the decision. We have consistently said that in that event we will not decide on an outcome which would deter recruitment or be objectionable to a substantial part of the community.

  Comments have been sought by 14 December. Our aim is that the Regulations are approved in time to ensure that the new emblems and new uniforms are ready by the spring for the new recruits.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons he has not set an eight week period of consultation on the Government's response to the Criminal Justice Review. [15537]

  Mr. Browne
  This is not a new issue. There has already been extensive consultation on the review recommendations, both before and after the report was published in March last year. There was widespread support for the review's conclusions, and we made no secret of the fact that we intended to implement them more or less in full. This period of consultation will be focused and proactive, and we will continue to take on board the comments we receive on our proposals as we take forward the implementation process.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many injuries from fireworks there were in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [14323]

  Jane Kennedy
  Firework injuries statistics in Northern Ireland have been monitored since 1996 and relate to people who have attended an accident and emergency department. The yearly figures are set out in the table.

  Number

  1996

  202

  1997

  93

  1998

  101

  1999

  1139

  2000

  100

  1 The 1999 figure includes statistics for the Millennium celebration period

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available as the monitoring period for injuries has just ended but they are due to be published in December.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of criminal damage were recorded in each year since 1997 in Northern Ireland relating to the use of fireworks. [14324]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised that criminal damage statistics relating to the misuse of fireworks are not held in a format that would enable the Police Service of Northern Ireland to answer the question.

  Police Recruitment Quota
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what estimate he has made of how long the recruitment quota for the Police Service for Northern Ireland will be necessary; what criteria he will use when determining whether it should continue; and if he will make a statement; [13978]

  (2) if he will stop the use of mandatory quotas for recruitment to the Police Service for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement [13979]

  Jane Kennedy
  The temporary provisions in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 enabling the recruitment of 50 per cent. Roman Catholic and 50 per cent. non-Catholic (50:50 recruitment) from the pool of qualified candidates are subject to review and a renewal by order 30W
  in Parliament every three years. The first review will be due in March 2004. In considering whether to renew the provisions, the Secretary of State will have regard to the progress which has been made towards securing a representative police service in Northern Ireland. He will consult as required under the Act.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12261]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Privy Council Office spent £3,406 on information literature in the financial year 2000–01.

  No moneys were spent on information literature, advertising or campaign material in the other financial years mentioned.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  M25
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when work is due to commence on the next phase of widening the M25. [12751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Work is anticipated to start on the next phase of the M25 Junctions 12 to 15 widening in Spring 2003.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans he made to provide extra resources to Railtrack prior to 5 October. [13213]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave due consideration to the option of providing extra resources to Railtrack—through their Project Rainbow proposals—when making his decision on 5 October. Consideration was given to the legislation that would be required to enable Railtrack's request for a suspension of the existing Regulatory regime.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the revenue that could have been raised from brought-forward payment of track access charges if the Rail Regulator had held an interim financial review on 5 October. [14782]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 November 2001): This would have been a matter for the independent Rail Regulator. The regulator did indicate to Railtrack his willingness to consider an interim review but Railtrack did not apply for one.
  31W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he had with the European Commission prior to his decision on placing Railtrack in administration. [15045]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor my officials had any discussions with the European Commission dealing with the matters which formed the basis for my right hon. Friend's decision to petition for a court order placing Railtrack plc into administration prior to that decision. On Monday 8 October 2001, my officials informed the European Commission that Railtrack plc had been placed into administration.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2001, reference 14783, on what basis his Department determined the value of assets of Railtrack plc for the purposes of assessing the company's solvency. [16092]

  Mr. Byers
  Under general accounting practice, the solvency of Railtrack plc was assessed on its ability to meet its debt liability payments. Railtrack plc was taken into Railway Administration on 7 October because it was, or was likely to become, unable to pay its debts. The evidence presented to the High Court showed that there would be a deficit of £700 million by 8 December this year, rising to £1.7 billion by the end of March next year. Railtrack plc attended the High Court but did not oppose the petition to place the Company in railway administration.

  The administrator will be seeking to obtain the best value he can for the assets in Railtrack plc.

  Road Clearance
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to introduce similar obligations to those in Scotland on highway authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent ice or snow making roads unsafe in winter. [13994]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are continuing to consider the legal position on the winter service provided by highway authorities in the light of the House of Lords judgment last year in the case of Goodes v. East Sussex. The judgment was that there was there was no duty on local highway authorities under the Highways Act 1980 to prevent ice from forming on highways.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council properties in London have rents above £100 per week; and how many he estimates will have target rents above £100 per week under the rent restructuring proposals. [14520]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on the number of council properties in London which have rents of over £100 per week is not collected centrally. We are considering proposals for tackling the potential problems associated with properties which have very high target rents under the reforms.

  Town Centre Housing Incentives
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the incentives he provides for people to live in town centres; and if he will make a statement. [14330]

  Ms Keeble
  Government planning policies (particularly PPGs 3 and 6) provide incentives by encouraging authorities to prepare town centre strategies, and to promote high quality, safe, attractive developments and places. Planning policies also encourage the provision of a wide range of housing types and sizes in urban areas, so as to meet the requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable housing.

  PPG3 (Housing) gives priority to re-using previously developed land within urban areas in preference to the development of greenfield sites. This significantly increases the attractiveness of town centre locations to residential developers.

  To support the redevelopment of vacant and under-used space over shops and other commercial premises, Budget 2001 introduced 100 per cent. capital allowances for owners and occupiers for the costs of creating flats in these locations for letting, enabling them to obtain up-front tax relief on their spending.

  In addition to these national measures, there is plenty of locally targeted activity sponsored by English Partnerships and the regional development agencies. In the centre of Newcastle the city council, English Partnerships and the One North East Regional Development Agency have provided incentives through the "Living Over The Shops" project, supporting creation of new flats in upper floors of commercial buildings. The aim is to double the population of the Grainger Town area of the city centre by 2003. Yorkshire Forward is working with city of York council to redevelop land behind the city's railway station as 'York Central', a mixed use development creating jobs and nearly 3,000 new homes, to provide a new business district for the historic city.

  Encouraging people to live in town centres is not just about housing, but also about the services and facilities they will find there. In Manchester city centre for instance the North West Development Agency has invested £1 million to enable the conversion of eight derelict railway arches into a vibrant leisure and retail development at Deansgate Locks.

  The renaissance of city centres has taken on its own momentum. Again in Manchester, following the substantial investment by the Central Manchester Development Corporation and the North West Development Agency, new developments now take place without public subsidy, and market-led growth continues. Manchester's city centre population has grown from 300 in 1998 to an estimated 6,000 in 2000.

  London Underground
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans are in place for the London Underground in the event that PPP is found not to be value for money. [14499]
  33W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have consistently made clear the PPP arrangements for the modernisation of London Underground will only go ahead if they provide value for money and the safety arrangements are accepted by the Health and Safety Executive. If the modernisation plans were not to proceed, we would expect that London Underground would transfer to Transport for London in its current form.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the annual average excess waiting time for passengers buying a ticket at the 10 stations on the London Underground with the greatest excess waiting time in(a) each year since 1997 and (b) for each month of 2001. [14599]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU). LU monitors Ticket Purchase Time at ticket offices as part of the "Journey Time Metrics process". The excess time for ticket purchase is the queuing time experienced when purchasing a ticket at a ticket window. LU have provided the information, set out in the following table, for each full financial year since 1997–98.

  Average excess queuing time (seconds) for 10 ticket offices with the greatest queuing time by financial year

  Year

  Excess time (seconds)

  1997–98

  188

  1998–99

  196

  1999–2000

  188

  2000–01

  206

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many

  £

  Year

  Train Operator annual salary

  Train Operator average annual earnings

  Station Supervisor Annual salary

  Station Supervisor average annual earnings

  Station Assistant Annual salary

  Station Assistant average annual earnings

  1991–92

  1—

  n/a

  2—

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  1992–93

  4—

  n/a

  5—

  n/a

  6—

  n/a

  1993–94

  23,345

  23,275

  25,376

  23,199

  14,109

  15,920

  1994–95

  23,812

  23,974

  26,009

  23,834

  14,462

  16,167

  1995–96

  24,647

  24,858

  26,789

  24,734

  14,896

  16,722

  1996–97

  25,017

  25,207

  27,646

  25,954

  15,373

  16,756

  1997–98

  25,192

  25,482

  28,392

  26,869

  15,788

  17,163

  1998–99

  25,545

  26,051

  29,641

  28,020

  16,483

  17,841

  1999–2000

  26,592

  27,177

  30,263

  29,026

  16,829

  18,782

  2000–01

  27,656

  28,077

  31,781

  30,491

  17,674

  19,597

  2001–02

  28,762

  7—

  33,052

  7—

  18,381

  7—

  1 @£19,250 made up of basic pay of £13,324 + unsocial hours and Sundays

  2 @£18,131 made up of basic pay of £11,879 + unsocial hours and Sundays

  3 @£10,214 made up of basic pay of £7,057 + unsocial hours and Sundays

  4 @£20,116 made up of basic pay of £13,924 + unsocial hours and Sundays

  5 @£18,948 made up of basic pay of £12,414 + unsocial hours and Sundays

  6 @£10,673 made up of basic pay of £7,374 + unsocial hours and Sundays

  7 Not available at this time.

  Note:

  1. Average annual earnings are not available for 1991–92 or 1992–93 because the systems to calculate these were introduced in 1993.

  2. Train operators average earnings figure based on both train operators and instructor operators.

  3. Station supervisor group includes four grades of staff.

  4. The annual salary shown for station supervisors is the maximum contractual sum that could be earned.

  5. Station assistant group includes two grades of staff.

  6. The annual salary shown for station assistant staff is the maximum contractual salary for the lower ranking station assistant grade. The maximum contractual salary for the other grade is about £2,T00 a year more.
  34W
  lost passenger hours were incurred by each of the shadow infrastructure companies of the London Underground in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) each month of 2001. [14600]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The information is as follows:
  (a) Full year information is not available for the 1999–2000 financial year.
  (b) London Underground (LU) have been "shadow running" the PPP contracts since April 2000. Lost Customer Hours will be the main means of calculating "availability", which is the reliability measure under the PPP, and will be one of the measures on the basis of which payments to the Infraco will be calculated. It should be noted that Lost Customer Hours can be the responsibility of either Infracos (for example as a consequence of asset failures) or LU (for example as a consequence of the non-availability of drivers).

  Service disruption—Lost customer hours 2000–01 by Infraco

  Infraco

  Lost customer hours (full year)

  BCV

  6,302,317

  JNP

  5,449,242

  SSL

  11,587,434

  Note:

  BCV = Bakerloo, Central, Victoria and Waterloo and City lines.

  JNP = Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines.

  SSL = District, Metropolitan, East London, Hammersmith and City and Circle lines

  (c) Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the(a) basic pay rate and (b) average annual earnings of London Underground (i) drivers and (ii) station staff in each year since 1991. [14601]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: London Underground have provided the information in the table and following notes:
  35W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which London Underground stations where new escalators have been installed within the past 10 years, these escalators have had to be taken out of use because of defects where the resulting closure was for a period of longer than one week; and who the manufacturers concerned were. [14594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU). LU does not hold the information requested in a readily available form, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date re-signalling of the Central Line was completed; how many signal failures on the Central Line there were in each month since the re-signalling was completed; and which company did the work. [14595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The majority of the re-signalling of the Central Line was completed in November 1998, but some features remain to be delivered. There are still two sites, Woodford and Ealing Broadway, where Automatic Train Operation (ATO) has to be fitted—this is planned for completion in December 2001. Automatic Train Regulation (ATR) is still to be fitted to the signalling control system and this is due by spring 2002.

  The number of signal failures on the Central Line each month since the major part of the re-signalling was completed in November 1998 is set out in the table.

  Number of signal failures on the Central Line since November 1998

  Year/month

  Number of signal failures causing delay

  1998

  November

  43

  December

  93

  1999

  January

  63

  February

  61

  March

  88

  April

  66

  May

  70

  June

  76

  July

  97

  August

  80

  September

  73

  October

  76

  November

  49

  December

  61

  2000

  January

  66

  February

  62

  March

  76

  April

  88

  May

  118

  June

  107

  July

  139

  August

  147

  September

  79

  October

  100

  November

  122

  December

  123

  36W

  Number of signal failures on the Central Line since November 1998

  Year/month

  Number of signal failures causing delay

  2001

  January

  122

  February

  92

  March

  132

  April

  106

  May

  128

  June

  102

  July

  106

  August

  117

  September

  121

  October

  40

  Total

  3,289

  Note:

  The work was carried out by Westinghouse Rail Systems of Chippenham, Wiltshire, (formerly Westinghouse Signals) a subsidiary company of Invensys

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if any train sets in use on the(a) Central, (b) Jubilee and (c) Northern lines of the London Underground have, in any month during the period since they were purchased, failed to achieve their original contractual requirements in terms of mean distance between failure; and what the relevant contractual figures are. [14593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Yes. Both Central and Jubilee Line trains have had months during the period since they were purchased where they failed to achieve the original contractual requirements in terms of mean distance between failure. The contractual figure for the Central Line is one failure attributable to the manufacturer every 25,000 kilometres. The comparable figure for Jubilee Line trains is 12,500 kilometres.

  Northern Line trains have fully met their contractual reliability performance. These trains have not been purchased but are leased under a PH arrangement.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what was the average annual mean distance between failure of trains on each line on the London Underground for(a) each year since 1996 and (b) each month of 2001. [14592]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: On (a) I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 529W.

  On (b), detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what, for each line of London Underground, was the average number of failures of(a) points, (b) signals and (c) trains in each year since 1997; and what the targets for improvement for each line are in the first five years of the public-private partnership. [14589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU).
  37W
  For the answers to (a) and (b), I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 18 July 2001, Official Report, column 24W.

  Service disruptions due to train failures:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Non LT

  167

  249

  134

  27

  Bakerloo

  1,144

  1,237

  879

  968

  Central

  2,423

  2,165

  2,304

  2,864

  District

  1,082

  995

  981

  834

  Jubilee and East London

  1,239

  2,376

  1,722

  1,709

  Metropolitan and Circle (Circle and Hammersmith)

  2,170

  1,380

  1,568

  1,463

  Metropolitan and Circle (main)

  1,238

  1,065

  1,047

  1,247

  Northern

  4,229

  5,942

  3,727

  1,674

  Piccadilly

  3,115

  3,886

  2,934

  2,609

  Victoria

  994

  821

  920

  1,053

  Total

  17,801

  20,116

  16,216

  14,448

  The PPP contracts incentivise the infrastructure companies to minimise the number of failures from points, signal, trains and other assets. The companies will be paid more for better performance and be penalised for causing delays. The penalties relate to how many passengers are affected by any delay, and there is no ceiling on the level of the penalties. This level of penalty will provide very strong incentives to improve the reliability of the infrastructure.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the London Underground weighted annual(a) predicted average passenger journey time and (b) passenger excess journey time for (i) each year since the inception of these measures and (ii) each month of 2001. [14597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: On (i) London Underground (LU) have provided the information in the table showing scheduled journey time and excess journey time collected as part of their "Journey Time Metrics" process for each full financial year since 1998–99. Annual data are not available before 1998–99.

  Annual percentage of peak trains operating

  Percentage

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Bakerloo

  94.5

  97.1

  95.8

  95.3

  88.4

  Central

  96.1

  97.1

  95.6

  96.8

  96.5

  Waterloo and City

  95.3

  99.6

  97.7

  99.3

  97.3

  Victoria

  97.2

  97.8

  97.8

  99.0

  97.1

  Jubilee

  96.5

  98.6

  98.7

  96.8

  93.3

  Northern

  95.8

  97.0

  91.7

  97.2

  97.7

  Piccadilly

  95.8

  96.6

  94.1

  94.5

  90.6

  District

  96.3

  99.2

  98.3

  98.8

  95.5

  East London

  96.3

  99.2

  98.3

  98.8

  94.4

  Metropolitan

  95.8

  98.5

  98.1

  97.7

  95.6

  Circle

  91.4

  92.6

  92.4

  90.8

  84.5

  Hammersmith and City

  93.5

  96.9

  96.4

  95.9

  93.8

  Total

  95.8

  97.5

  95.6

  96.8

  94.4

  (b) Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.
  38W
  (c) LU have provided the following information on the number of services disrupted due to train failures in each full financial year since 1997–98.

  Journey time (weighted minutes)

  1998–991

  1999–20001

  2000–011

  Scheduled journey time

  35.56

  35.58

  35.58

  Excess journey time

  6.46

  6.55

  7.45

  Total journey time

  42.02

  42.13

  42.83

  1 Full year

  On (ii) detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what average annual percentage of peak hour trains ran on each line of the London Underground in(a) each year since 1996 and (b) each month of 2001. [14596]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The information is as follows:

  (a) London Underground have provided the information set out in the table showing the percentage of peak trains operating in each full financial year since 1996–97, taking account of all cancellations, including those—such as security alerts and passenger action—which are outside their control.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans
  39W
  his Department has to increase the number of CCTV cameras in stations and train carriages on London Underground. [15566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the plans for a publicly run, privately built Tube, there will be improved CCTV in every station, monitoring exits, ticket halls, platforms, passageways. As trains are replaced or refurbished, CCTV will also be introduced in every train carriage.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ask London Underground to install the moving block computerised system in order to replace current signalling systems. [15567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Tube modernisation plans are based on infrastructure contracts for maintenance and renewal, which are output driven. As long as key improvements, such as shorter journey times and improved reliability, are made to London Underground's strict specifications, the method of achieving them will be a matter for the infrastructure companies. Moving block signalling is one possible option.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rolling stock failures have been reported on(a) the Jubilee Line and (b) the Northern Line in the past month. [15570]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains are run on(a) the Jubilee Line and (b) the Northern Line by London Underground. [15569]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. They have advised that there are up to(a) 59 train sets serving the Jubilee Line and (b) 106 serving the Northern Line.

  Fire Officers (Long-service Award)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the estimated cost is per medal of providing a 30 year long-service award for fire officers; [15174]

  (2) how many serving fire officers have 30 years or more service. [15240]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In September 2000 it was estimated that there were 400 firefighters and fire officers with over 30 years service, with an average of 275 reaching the 30-year mark each year. The estimated cost of an award would be £20.00 per medal or £1.00 for a bar to the existing long service and good conduct medal.

  Rail Improvements (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the revisions to the timetable for planned improvements to the(a) track and (b) stations in the Wycombe constituency in the last six months. [14879]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of revisions to the timetable from April 2001 to 29 November on the route through High Wycombe have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government Funding (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the allocation of central Government funds to(a) Wycombe district council and (b) Buckinghamshire county council in each of the last four years. [14870]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table lists the general grants (Revenue Support Grant, National Non-Domestic Rates and damping grants) and ring-fenced grants to these authorities in the last four years.

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Buckinghamshire

  21.229

  229.344

  235.763

  267.265

  Wycombe

  8.196

  8.264

  8.555

  9.144

  The information is taken from the returns which local authorities have provided to the Department. The figures in the table are on an unadjusted basis and do not reflect changes in financing or functions which may have occurred in that time.

  Local Government Funding (Hackney)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes have taken place in Government support for the London borough of Hackney, using 1994–95 as the base year, to 2000–01, including the Government general revenue support, revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and damping grants and specific Government grants but excluding housing subsidy, benefits subsidy and mandatory awards; and if he will make a statement. [15020]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table lists the general grants (Revenue Support Grant, National Non-Domestic Rates and damping grants) and ring-fenced grants to the London borough of Hackney since 1994–95.

  General and ring fenced grants

  £ million

  1994–95

  262.216

  1995–96

  243.744

  1996–97

  242.301

  1997–98

  245.175

  1998–99

  246.385

  1999–2000

  259.081

  2000–01

  272.945

  2001–02

  288.119

  The information is taken from returns which the authority has provided to the Department. The figures in the table are on an unadjusted basis and do not reflect changes in financing or functions which may have occurred in that time. Information on ring-fenced grants in 2001–02 is based on budgets and may be different from outturn figures when available.

  East London Line
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made by the Strategic Rail Authority in their investigation into the possibility of a third extension of the East London Line to Clapham Junction. [14952]
  41W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London are continuing to assess the options for the further extension of the East London Line, including a possible extension to Clapham Junction. A decision will not be taken until their studies are completed and considered next year.

  Social Housing
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the number of registered social landlord homes(a) built and (b) approved for building by London boroughs between April 2000 and April 2001. [14950]

  Ms Keeble
  Numbers of dwellings completed by registered social landlords, as reported by local authorities on their monthly housebuilding returns to the Department, and numbers of homes approved for building, as reported by the Housing Corporation, for the year 2000–01 by London borough are given in the table.

  London borough

  Reported RSL completions

  Approvals

  Barking and Dagenham

  1—

  318

  Barnet

  168

  199

  Bexley

  98

  199

  Brent

  251

  355

  Bromley

  1—

  235

  Camden

  256

  170

  City of London

  0

  0

  Croydon

  77

  412

  Ealing

  253

  303

  Enfield

  344

  590

  Greenwich

  147

  409

  Hackney

  112

  640

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  189

  Haringey

  359

  317

  Harrow

  0

  147

  Havering

  28

  130

  Hillingdon

  3286

  260

  Hounslow

  24

  170

  Islington

  344

  354

  Kensington and Chelsea

  355

  237

  Kingston upon Thames

  341

  61

  Lambeth

  1—

  260

  Lewisham

  150

  347

  Merton

  51

  146

  Newham

  138

  419

  Redbridge

  39

  125

  Richmond upon Thames

  20

  106

  Southwark

  26

  371

  Sutton

  161

  347

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  489

  Waltham Forest

  257

  979

  Wandsworth

  3

  255

  Westminster

  3358

  172

  1 Data not available because the local authority has reported for less than nine months.

  2 The local authority has reported for only nine months.

  3 The local authority has reported for only 11 months.

  Electoral Review
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to establish an independent review of local government electoral arrangements in England. [15312]

  Dr. Whitehead
  On 14 November we laid before the House a draft of an Order, under section 18 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, that,42W
  subject to parliamentary approval, will transfer the functions of the Local Government Commission for England to the independent Electoral Commission from 1 April 2002. From that date the Electoral Commission will be entirely responsible for the revision and updating of electoral arrangements in local government.

  Manchester—Leeds Freight
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage freight traffic on the Manchester to Leeds trans-Pennine rail links. [15333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our policy is to help establish an integrated, sustainable freight distribution system throughout the country to support economic growth and to bring social and environmental benefits. We set out our long term strategy in our 10-year plan and have established the Strategic Rail Authority with a duty to promote rail freight. The SRA's Strategic Agenda and Freight Strategy, published earlier this year, set out its plans for freight, and include proposals for delivering growth on trans-Pennine routes. The SRA will describe further how its freight objectives will be achieved in its soon to be published Strategic Plan.

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to give objectors more rights in the planning process; and which of those arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. [15593]

  Ms Keeble
  Local people already have the opportunity to comment on development proposals before the local planning authority decides whether or not to grant planning permission. Our forthcoming planning Green Paper will look at ways of improving community engagement in the planning process.

  We assessed the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) for planning legislation and procedures before the Act came into force. We do not consider that there is any need on HRA grounds for changes to the system generally or specifically in relation to third party objectors.

  EU-financed Projects (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what European Union financed projects are under way in the Greater London area. [15303]

  Ms Keeble
  There is a wide range of European funded projects running in the Greater London area, some of which are funded through the UK Government and some directly from the European Commission. These include the European Union Framework Programme, Eureka, and LEONARDO.

  The largest sources of funding available in London through the UK Government are the Structural Funds—the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. These are worth £570 million to London over the period 2000–06.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will increase the funding available for home improvement grants. [15606]

  Ms Keeble
  From 1 April 2002, local authorities' capital programmes, including the provision of home improvement grants, will be funded from within a 'single capital pot'. Subject to that overall allocation, it will be for each authority to determine spending priorities.

  For the years 2003–04 to 2005–06 the total capital funds available to local authorities will be decided as part of the Spending Review 2002, due to conclude next summer.

  Smoke Alarms
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has made a cost-benefit assessment of fire services making smoke alarms available free to households in their area. [15329]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No specific work has been done to assess the cost-benefit of fire services providing smoke alarms free of charge to householders.

  However, we do encourage the fire service to adopt a policy of smoke alarm installation work rather than give-away initiatives when offering free smoke alarms to the public as part of community fire safety activities. This is based on part-Government funded research work undertaken by the Institute of Child Health (now known as the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), which sought to determine whether door-to-door distribution of free smoke alarms to householders was effective in reducing the risk of residential fires, fire related casualties, and serious fire-related injuries.

  The evaluation of the work concluded that simply giving smoke alarms to households does not increase ownership of fully operational smoke alarms, nor reduce fire-related deaths and injuries. The research suggested that, in addition, correct installation and positioning is crucial to the effectiveness of initiatives to provide free smoke alarms to householders.

  Deprived Areas (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the rankings of(a) Newcastle City council and (b) each ward of Newcastle City council on the Index of Local Deprivation for the index of multiple deprivation, and for each of the six domains of deprivation. [16059]

  Ms Keeble
  Yes, the information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Regeneration Projects (St. Pancras)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) conducted and (b) commissioned concerning the (i) economic, (ii) social, and (iii) environmental impact of urban regeneration projects around St. Pancras Station. [15738]
  44W
  Ms Keeble
  The various impacts of the redevelopment of the former railway lands around King's Cross/St. Pancras are being carefully assessed as part of the master planning process being taken forward by London and Continental Railways and their development partner, a consortium of Argent St. George. My Department is very closely involved in this process, which includes extensive community liaison and consultation with business, transport and heritage interests. The process will also involve formal planning applications to the London borough of Camden as the local planning authority. They will closely scrutinise all the impacts of the proposed commercial, residential and leisure development including ease of access, community safety and the employment and housing opportunities offered.

  Euston-Northampton Rail Forum
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he next plans to meet the Euston-Northampton Rail Forum. [15793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority meets the West Coast Joint Forum on a regular basis and will be setting up a further meeting with them in the next few weeks.

  Flooding (River Roding)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of inundation of the River Roding on transport in Ilford, North; what steps his Department has taken in the last 12 months to minimise the potential impact; and what assistance is available from his Department in case of further flooding; [15522]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made in the last 12 months of Redbridge council's procedures in the event of inundation of the River Roding; and what assistance is available from his Department to Redbridge council in the event of further flooding. [15550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: We have made no such assessments. We have received no approach from Redbridge council on these matters. In the event of further flooding it would be open to the local authority to seek assistance from DTLR under the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance to local authorities.

  EU Physical Agents Directive
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the medical basis for the European Commission's proposed physical agents directive; and if he will make a statement. [15685]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The two proposed physical agents directives on vibration and noise are based on known health effects. There is an internationally accepted dose-response relationship between exposure to noise and the risk of hearing loss and between exposure to hand-arm vibration and the risk of hand-arm vibration syndrome. There is an association between exposure to whole body vibration and back pain, though the dose-response relationship is not clear.
  45W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations the Government have made to the European Commission regarding the proposed physical agents directive; and if he will make a statement. [15686]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The two proposed physical agents directives on vibration and noise have already reached common position in the Council of Ministers. The European Commission attended negotiations in the Council Working Group where the Government's views have been strongly represented. UK representatives have also met Commission officials separately during the course of negotiations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the European Commission's proposed physical agents directive on engineering premises; and if he will make a statement. [15684]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The Government have not costed the implications to individual industry sectors of the two proposed physical agents directives on vibration and noise. Regulatory impact assessments of the common position reached on both directives covering the costs to industry as a whole and the health benefits to workers have been prepared by the Health and Safety Executive. The RIA on the vibration directive has already been submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee and is available in the House of Commons Library; I will shortly submit the RIA on the noise directive and place it in the Library.

  Lewes-Uckfield Railway Line
  Norman Baker
  To as! the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the representations his Department has received since I May 1997(a) in favour of and (b) against the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. [15389]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am aware of 244 such representations, many of which have been received from supporters of the Wealden Line Campaign which is promoting the re-opening of the line between Uckfield and Lewes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the status of, and progress being made on, in the feasibility study being undertaken under the auspices of the SRA into the possible reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. [15388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the record of the Adjournment debate he secured on 31 October 2001,Official Report, columns 295–303.

  Rail Freight (Newhaven Railhead)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ask the SRA to consider the potential for switching freight from road to rail following the development of an improved railhead at Newhaven. [15387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am not aware of any proposal for enhancing the railway infrastructure at Newhaven. However, the SRA has a target to deliver a significant increase in rail's share of freight over the next decade and 46W
  is keen to ensure that potential opportunities to increase rail freight are taken. The authority's first Freight Strategy published in May this year, and their soon to be published Strategic Plan, describe how its freight target will be achieved.

  South Coast Multimodal Study
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the South Coast multimodal study is permitted to consider the impact of fare reductions on train services, underwritten by(a) the relevant train operating company, (b) the SRA and (c) his Department, as part of its remit to find ways to maximise use of the existing infrastructure. [15390]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our draft directions and guidance to the SRA require it to keep under review the level of regulated and unregulated fares. The South Coast multimodal study will consider rail options for the routes covered by the study in order to identify cost effective ways of improving rail travel in the study corridor. The Government Office and their consultants are working with the Strategic Rail Authority in identifying and developing rail solutions.

  Highways (Consultation Exercise)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) individuals who responded to the consultation on the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 section 64A—charges for occupation of the highway which closed on 12 October; and when the official Government response to that consultation will be published. [15954]

  Ms Keeble
  The list of those responding to the consultation under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991—charge for whole duration of works—is set out. The Government intend laying regulations under section 74A before Parliament within a few days. As these are affirmative regulations, they will need to be debated in both Houses.

  List of responses to the consultation held on draft regulations under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
  Local Authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Bexley Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  City of Westminster

  City of York Council

  Cornwall County Council

  Corporation of London

  Croydon Council

  Devon County Council

  Durham County Council

  Gateshead Council

  Hampshire County Council

  Kent County Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  47W

  Leeds City Council

  Leicester City Council

  Lincolnshire County Council

  London Borough of Camden

  London Borough of Ealing

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Borough of Harrow

  London Borough of Hounslow

  London Borough of Lewisham

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  Milton Keynes Council

  Norfolk County Council

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  South Gloucestershire Council

  Staffordshire County Council

  Surrey County Council

  Swindon Council

  Wigan Council

  Wiltshire County Council

  Wokingham District Council

  Utility Companies

  Anglian Joint Utilities Group

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water

  COLT Telecommunications

  Electricity Association

  Energis Communications Ltd.

  London Electricity Group—LPN

  London Joint Utilities Group

  National Joint Utilities Group

  ntl

  One 2 One

  Scottish and Southern Energy plc

  Slough Heat and Power Ltd.

  South Staffordshire Water plc

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  Three Valleys Water plc

  Thus plc

  Transco

  Wessex Water

  WS Atkins Services Ltd. on behalf of Cable and Wireless UK

  Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Services

  Yorkshire Water

  Other Organisations

  Automobile Association

  Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

  Confederation of Passenger Transport UK

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  Freight Transport Association

  Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers

  48W

  Institution of Highways and Transportation

  Institution of Structural Engineers

  International Society for Trenchless Technology

  Jason Consultants Ltd.

  Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People

  London Buses—Infrastructure Development

  London Buses—Tramlink Division

  London Transport Users Committee

  Motorists' Forum

  National Sewerage Association

  Nottinghamshire Police

  OFWAT

  Ofwat National Customer Council

  Pipeline Industries Guild

  RAC Foundation for Motoring

  Road Haulage Association.

  Hostel Beds
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions how many hostel beds were available in(a) London and (b) the rest of the country in each of the last 10 years. [16218]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Local Authority Repairs
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many landlords have been prosecuted for disregarding local authority repairs notices since 1990. [16100]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Homelessness
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which councils operate private leasing of unsold homes as a means of housing homeless families; and how many families are housed by each local authority in private leasing accommodation. [16097]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department seeks information about English local authorities' activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 on the quarterly P1 (E) housing returns. Data collected include the number of households being temporarily housed by the authority. These separately distinguish households in private sector accommodation that has been leased either by the local authority itself or by a registered social landlord, although the reason that the property became available for leasing is not collected.

  Supplementary tables produced with the Department's quarterly Statistical Release on homelessness activity, present reported information on individual local authorities' use of various types of temporary accommodation, and of the numbers of households accommodated in them, on the last day of the quarter. The latest tables, published on 12 September 2001, cover the period to the end of June 2001. Copies are available in the Library of the House and are also on the DTLR website.
  49W
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many homeless people there were in each of the last 10 years. [16220]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of households accepted by local authorities in England under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts, as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  139,630

  1992–93

  136,230

  1993–94

  125,360

  1994–95

  116,850

  1995–96

  116,550

  1996–97

  110,810

  1997–98

  102,650

  1998–99

  104,150

  1999–2000

  106,130

  2000–01

  114,350

  Source:

  DETR P1(E) housing returns (quarterly)

  National and some regional information on local authorities' activity is provided in a quarterly statistical release published by the Department. Copies are available in the Library, and also via the Department's website. The latest edition, published on 12 September, presents statistics up to the end of June 2001.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of school leavers(a) in the Buckingham constituency and (b) nationally entered higher education in each of the last four years. [14209]

  Margaret Hodge
  Figures for the number of school leavers who go on to higher education are not collated centrally on a constituency basis. The available figures for Great Britain, showing the proportion of under 21 year olds who enter higher education for the first time, are given in the table. The increase in the index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, total HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 83,000.

  Age participation index (API)1 for Great Britain

  Year

  API (percentage)

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–012

  32–34

  1 The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population.

  2 Projected: final data on initial entrants is not yet available.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the cost of the sure start programmes for parents and children in deprived areas in the last 12 months. [14218]

  Yvette Cooper
  Expenditure on sure start was £7 million in 1999–2000 as set out in the Department for Education and Employment Departmental Report 2001–04, published in March 2001.

  University College
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received on the denial of a full-time position to a senior cancer researcher at University college, London; and if she will make a statement. [13973]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have received no direct representations about Dr. Eva Link's position at University college, London.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the public service agreement targets for children to have normal spelling and language development at(a) 18 months and (b) three years. [14066]

  Yvette Cooper
  The only public service agreement target of this nature is that for Sure Start concerning children in Sure Start areas having normal speech and language skills at 18 months and three years. This is related to the previous PSA period 1998–99 to 2001–02, and has now been superseded with a similar target that can be better measured at a local level. The current Sure Start PSA target is:"To achieve by 2004 for children aged 0-three in the 500 Sure Start areas, a reduction of five percentage points in the number of children with speech and language problems requiring specialist intervention by the age of four."

  Improved speech and language development is a proxy measure for improving children's ability to learn as there is a strong positive relationship between normal speech and language development and readiness to learn. All Sure Start programmes work towards improving the speech and language skills of children under four. Systems are in place to monitor change in speech and language skills of young children in Sure Start areas and the first information on this will be available later next year.

  Early Excellence Centres
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is of the early excellence centres under her Department's pilot programme; and what assessment she has made of their value for money. [14101]

  Mr. Timms
  On 27 February we announced a major expansion of the Early Excellence Centre (EEC) programme, taking it out of its pilot phase, with plans to reach up to 100 centres by 2004. Funding for Early Excellence Centres comes from local sources, usually the local education authority, and through childcare and nursery education grants. The EEC programme typically provides additional resource to support a range of
  51W
  supplementary activities in line with the programme aims of disseminating good practice, delivering training and extending the scope and penetration of family services. So far, our contribution to EECs has been:

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1997–98

  123,000

  1998–99

  1,800,000

  1999–2000

  3,700,000

  2000–01

  6,200,000

  We plan further investment of:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  2001–02

  13

  2002–03

  16

  2003–04

  18

  The programme is being evaluated and we have published the first of three annual reports on the pilot phase. This shows that EECs have the potential for enhanced cost savings when compared with services that might otherwise have been provided separately. There is also powerful evidence demonstrating that EECs have made a positive difference to the lives of the children and families who use them, and affirming their role in supporting strategies for raising standards, increasing opportunities, supporting families, reducing social exclusion, increasing the health of the nation and addressing child poverty. The second year report is due to be published next spring.

  Head Teachers (Misconduct)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for each of the last five years, the number of(a) primary head teachers and (b) secondary head teachers dismissed on the grounds of gross professional misconduct. [14699]

  Mr. Timms
  DfES does not collect information about the reasons head teachers leave their posts.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for each of the last five years, the total number of(a) primary head teachers and (b) secondary head teachers found guilty by their governing body of gross professional misconduct but not dismissed. [14700]

  Mr. Timms
  DfES does not collect information about those head teachers found guilty by their governing body of gross professional misconduct but not dismissed.

  School Places
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations her Department has received from parents who have been denied a school place for their child as a result of the class size limits since their introduction. [14397]

  Mr. Timms
  We have received occasional representations from parents who believe they were not offered a place at a preferred school because of the infant class size limit. However, in implementing its infant class 52W
  size pledge, the Government have funded a net increase of 12,000 places at popular schools. This has helped more parents get a place for their child at a school they have chosen.

  Education Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 239W, on education spending, for what period this information is available. [14680]

  Mr. Timms
  The table sets out the information which is available on a comparable basis. Since most capital is not and never has been devolved to schools and colleges, the percentage of recurrent funding devolved is higher than the total of capital and recurrent funding.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Percentage of total funding devolved to schools and colleges

  79

  78

  79

  Percentage of total recurrent funding devolved to schools and colleges

  84

  84

  84

  School Exchanges (Russia)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on how many school exchanges there have been between United Kingdom and Russian schools(a) in the current year and (b) since 1991. [14728]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information of this type is not collated centrally. School exchanges can be arranged by a wide range of organisations, such as individual schools, local education authorities, Government funded organisations, educational trusts etc. Accurate statistics could only be obtained from the schools themselves. This would involve disproportionate costs and an unnecessary additional burden on school administration.

  I can say, though, that I know from Department for Education and Skills funding of organisations such as the British Council that there is on-going activity between UK schools and those in Russia, both through exchange visits and, increasingly, Information and Communications Technology projects. We expect and will encourage this activity to continue to develop and grow.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many people with political affiliations sit on learning and skills councils, broken down by major political party; [14572]

  (2) what proportion of members on learning and skills councils have known political affiliations. [14575]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Appointments to the LSC and its local arms have been made through fair and open competition, in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). We have sought to attract applications from individuals with a wide range of appropriate experience, regardless of any political affiliation they may have.
  53W
  We wrote to all English MPs last year, asking them to encourage suitable candidates to apply. The great majority of applicants for LSC membership and of those appointed as members decided that they had not been politically active within the last five years.

  145 (21 per cent.) of the 689 people who have been appointed and remain as members of the Learning and Skills Council declared political activity. These figures exclude Executive Directors of local Learning and Skills Councils as they were not required to declare political activity when applying for these posts.

  A breakdown by political party follows:

  Appointed

  (Percentage1)

  Total number appointed to the LSC: 689

  Conservative

  21

  (3.0)

  Labour

  111

  (16.1)

  Liberal Democrat

  10

  (1.5)

  Other

  3

  (0.4)

  Total

  145

  (21.0)

  1 Figure in brackets is the percentage of the total number of appointees

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the total cost of administration of each of the former training and enterprise councils in each of the last three years. [13336]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the total cost of administration of the former training and enterprise councils is not available. The amount spent by TECs on administration and its disclosure were a matter for individual TECs and varied between them. Some TECs showed no administration costs within their statutory accounts under this heading, while most excluded the costs of staff involved in the direct delivery of their programmes. However, all TECs had to show staffing costs as a note within their accounts. While this understates administration costs, as it does not cover expenditure on premises, information technology and other support systems, it is the only available indicator for the information sought. I have therefore provided figures for the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 showing spend on staffing costs of each of the former Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) in England as stated in their consolidated annual statutory audited accounts for the full range of activity TECs undertook. This information is not yet available for 2000–01.

  Any direct comparison of staff costs between TECs is misleading, both because there is no statutory definition of staff costs and also because the range of training and enterprise activities differed between TECs.

  £

  Staff costs

  TECS by region

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North East

  County Durham

  2,418,663

  2,445,110

  2,264,783

  Northumberland

  3,095,325

  3,242,676

  3,470,126

  Teesside

  2,706,000

  3,175,000

  3,804,000

  Tyneside

  4,887,000

  5,373,000

  5,191,000

  Sunderland

  2,530,218

  2,970,942

  3,090,144

  Total

  15,637,206

  17,206,728

  17,820,053

  54W

  £

  Staff costs

  TECS by region

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  2,745,104

  3,255,303

  3,542,121

  Manchester

  8,495,725

  11,080,599

  12,635,740

  Wigan

  2,963,066

  2,872,720

  3,124,399

  Oldham

  1,811,362

  2,146,895

  2,288,594

  Rochdale

  1,193,879

  1,499,157

  1,675,210

  SECTEC

  4,072,153

  4,537,011

  4,068,952

  Stockport

  2,284,839

  2,919,825

  3,642,684

  Cumbria

  4,148,320

  4,348,398

  4,167,719

  ELTEC

  2,712,421

  2,748,113

  2,844,807

  LAWTEC

  3,312,162

  3,934,181

  3,395,214

  NORMID

  1,959,869

  2,030,310

  2,276,603

  CEWTEC

  3,718,651

  4,096,319

  4,441,424

  Merseyside

  5,003,540

  5,981,867

  6,924,000

  St. Helens

  1,610,316

  1,879,467

  1,990,971

  Total

  46,031,407

  53,330,165

  57,018,438

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,445,000

  2,974,000

  3,328,000

  Bradford

  2,102,648

  2,272,563

  2,267,865

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  3,303,476

  3,654,117

  3,863,677

  Humberside

  3,641,593

  4,384,166

  5,941,686

  Leeds

  2,771,812

  3,049,722

  3,263,066

  North Yorks

  2,009,000

  2,418,000

  2,871,000

  Rotherham

  2,479,131

  2,842,753

  3,034,383

  Sheffield

  3,160,000

  4,215,000

  3,704,000

  Wakefield

  1,759,642

  1,456,005

  1,476,719

  Total

  23,672,302

  27,266,326

  29,750,396

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  2,074,747

  2,984,815

  3,749,095

  Cambs

  1,009,261

  1,632,060

  2,231,354

  Essex

  2,619,000

  2,832,000

  4,154,000

  Greater Peterborough

  2,253,241

  2,830,365

  2,881,068

  Hertfordshire

  3,266,000

  4,875,000

  5,744,000

  Norfolk and Waveney

  2,676,000

  2,714,000

  3,106,000

  Suffolk

  1,415,769

  1,488,925

  2,076,086

  Total

  15,314,018

  19,357,165

  23,941,603

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  1,442,000

  1,738,000

  2,313,000

  Leicester

  2,053,777

  2,190,371

  2,834,946

  Lincolnshire

  3,681,204

  4,067,859

  3,945,748

  Northamptonshire

  1,825,258

  2,228,847

  2,628,728

  North Derbyshire

  1,886,098

  1,827,427

  1,788,715

  North Nottinghamshire

  2,298,889

  2,525,876

  2,969,381

  South Derbyshire

  3,329,000

  3,663,000

  3,911,000

  Total

  16,516,226

  18,241,380

  20,391,518

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  3,306,000

  4,115,000

  4,911,000

  CENTEC

  1,177,224

  —

  —

  Coventry/Warwick

  4,453,813

  4,725,901

  5,061,723

  Dudley

  1,765,958

  1,838,992

  2,402,219

  HAWTEC

  3,169,812

  3,991,952

  5,258,626

  Sandwell

  2,077,656

  2,406,903

  2,587,877

  Shropshire

  1,897,373

  2,000,996

  2,055,106

  Staffordshire

  2,461,000

  2,682,000

  3,459,000

  Walsall

  1,580,134

  1,727,060

  2,197,035

  Wolverhampton

  2,022,000

  2,203,000

  2,156,000

  Total

  23,910,970

  25,691,804

  30,088,586

  South West

  WESTEC

  2,425,000

  2,017,000

  2,342,000

  Prosper

  5,559,000

  6,296,000

  8,282,000

  Dorset

  1,518,023

  1,939,118

  2,198,014

  Gloucester

  1,939,644

  2,879,008

  3,172,585

  Somerset

  1,618,554

  2,648,489

  2,813,010

  Wiltshire

  1,492,318

  1,501,086

  1,571,918

  Total

  14,552,539

  17,280,701

  20,379,527

  55W

  £

  Staff costs

  TECS by region

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  London

  AZTEC

  1,609,045

  2,002,548

  2,714,681

  FOCUS

  5,371,000

  6,259,000

  6,368,000

  LETEC

  4,521,474

  4,898,407

  5,617,403

  North London

  2,991,331

  3,750,158

  4,408,581

  North West London

  1,512,188

  1,967,655

  2,726,005

  SOLOTEC

  4,174,000

  5,492,000

  4,851,000

  West London

  5,684,669

  5,583,113

  5,244,201

  Total

  25,863,707

  29,952,881

  31,929,871

  South East

  Hampshire

  3,474,000

  4,399,000

  4,867,000

  Isle of Wight

  733,424

  1,241,925

  1,582,489

  Kent

  3,624,774

  4,138,710

  6,315,951

  Milton Keynes

  2,940,610

  3,022,377

  3,302,090

  Heart of England

  2,146,037

  2,354,176

  2,483,181

  Surrey

  1,827,970

  2,037,138

  2,259,269

  Sussex

  3,619,000

  3,952,000

  4,229,000

  Thames Valley

  3,757,432

  4,037,146

  4,432,670

  Total

  22,123,247

  25,182,472

  29,471,650

  Grand Total

  203,621,622

  233,509,622

  260,791,642

  Higher Education
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of school leavers(a) in the Wycombe constituency and (b) nationally entered higher education in each of the last four years. [14873]

  Margaret Hodge
  Figures for the number of school leavers who go on to higher education are not collated centrally on a constituency basis. The available figures for Great Britain, showing the proportion of under 21-year-olds who enter higher education for the first time, are given in the table. The increase in the index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, total HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 83,000.

  Age participation index (API)1 for Great Britain

  Year

  API (percentage)

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–012

  32–34

  1 The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19 year olds in the population.

  2 Projected: final data on initial entrants are not yet available.

  Teachers' Salaries (London)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the average salary of a teacher in London over the last 10 years. [14409]
  56W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: The average salary of teachers1 in the maintained schools sector2 in London were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990

  16,600

  1991

  18,600

  1992

  20,800

  1993

  22,400

  1994

  22,700

  1995

  23,200

  1996

  23,700

  1997

  24,500

  1998

  25,100

  19993

  26,200

  20003

  27,200

  1 All grades including heads and deputy heads.

  2 Excludes sixth form colleges.

  3 Provisional data.

  Literacy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the number of children who were judged to be illiterate on leaving school in England in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [13515]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: 99 per cent. of 15-year-olds have achieved a GCSE pass in English in each of the last three years. However, no separate assessment has been made of literacy rates among school leavers. The Government are committed to raising standards of literacy, particularly through the successful National Literacy Strategy in primary schools and the new Key Stage 3 Strategy in secondary schools.

  Fast-track Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications were received; how many applicants were accepted; how many applicants commenced training; and how many have failed to complete training in each of the years since the establishment of the fast-track teacher recruitment scheme. [15561]

  Mr. Timms
  The first round of recruitment to the Fast Track Teaching Programme was completed in Spring 2001. Over 40,000 inquiries were received by phone and internet; 1,574 applications were received; 135 places were offered to successful applicants; 111 chose to take up their places in September 2001 and a further nine deferred their places for a year. Three have withdrawn since the beginning of the academic year.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the cost of providing an internet-based application system for post-graduate teacher training. [15559]

  Mr. Timms
  The total cost of the Graduate Teacher Training Registry's electronic applications service was £146,640, including value added tax.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many rejected applicants for fast-track teaching were subsequently placed on other post-graduate
  57W
  teacher training programmes through the Graduate Teacher Training Register; what was the total additional resource allocation for this purpose; and if she will make a statement; [15560]

  (2) how many applicants who were rejected by the fast-track teaching scheme were referred to the Graduate Teacher Training Register for placement on other teacher training programmes for 2001–02. [15562]

  Mr. Timms
  There were 1,574 applicants to the Fast-Track Teaching programme in the first round. Details of 677 unsuccessful applicants were passed on to the Graduate Teacher Training Register (GTTR); of whom 105 secured places on other post-graduate teacher training programmes in 2001–02. The cost of processing these candidates through GTTR was £12,186 and was borne by the Teacher Training Agency.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students took part in the graduate training scheme for teachers in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [15556]

  Mr. Timms
  The table contains the numbers of people who started the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) during the calendar years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001:

  Number of new entrants

  1998

  305

  1999

  591

  2000

  1,185

  2001

  2,249

  Note:

  The Graduate Teacher Programme started in January 1998. The figures exclude overseas trained teachers.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency

  Trainees on the Graduate Teacher Programme can enter the programme throughout the academic year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications were received by the Graduate Teacher Training Register for postgraduate teacher training for the year 2001–02; how many applications were successful; how many applicants commenced training; and what was the cost per student of placing them on a graduate teacher training register scheme. [15563]

  Mr. Timms
  The Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR) received a total of 37,9631 applications, for postgraduate initial teacher training courses starting in 2001–02 in England. Of those, 20,0412 were accepted. The Teacher Training Agency's Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Trainees Numbers Census recorded a total of 21,1403 new entrants on postgraduate ITT courses in England, for 2001–02. Not all entrants to postgraduate ITT courses apply through the GTTR.

  The cost of placing a student on a GTTR scheme is not collected centrally.

  1 This the provisional end of year figure for applications to postgraduate ITT courses in England, from GTTR.

  2 This is the provisional end of year figure for accepted applications to postgraduate ITT courses in England, from GTTR.

  3 This is the provisional total from the TTA's ITT Trainee Numbers Census.

  Road Noise (Classrooms)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines she sets for the maximum level of background road noise in(a) classrooms and (b) classrooms in schools with special needs. [15069]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 state that
  "Each room or other space in a school building shall have the acoustic conditions and the insulation against disturbance by noise appropriate to its normal use."

  For new school buildings, the Department has published Building Bulletin 87 "Guidelines for Environmental Design in Schools". This contains the following acoustic standards.
  (a) Table la gives the recommended maximum background noise levels, from adjacent areas, ventilation and traffic noise, for various types of spaces found in schools. The figure quoted for general teaching, seminar and tutorial rooms and classbases is 40 dB LAeq, 1hr*
  (b) In specialist accommodation for pupils with hearing impairments, in special schools and in special units in mainstream schools, the maximum background noise level should be at least 10 dB lower than the figures given in Table 1a.

  Education School Standards Framework Act
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reform the Education School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and if she will make a statement. [15553]

  Estelle Morris
  As announced in the Queen's Speech, the Government intend to introduce an Education Bill during this Parliamentary session, in order to implement the White Paper "Schools—achieving success". The Bill is in preparation and will include amendments to a number of Education Acts, including the School Standards and Framework Act.

  Graduate Training Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools took part in the graduate training scheme for teachers in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [15555]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not readily available. Participants in the Graduate Teacher Programme may work in more than one school during their training in order to enhance the range of experience that they gain.

  School Admissions (Religious Practice)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she gives on school admissions arrangements that require children and their families to have practised a specified religion. [15417]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Admission authorities for schools determine their own admission arrangements, which must comply with all relevant legislation and have regard to guidance in the Code of Practice on School Admissions, which was approved by Parliament.
  59W
  Schools supported by religious foundations have generally been set up on trust deeds, which require them to serve their faith adherents. Their governing bodies must conduct the school in accordance with the terms of the trust deed, providing this does not conflict with general legislation.

  Such schools may give priority for admission to members of their particular faith or denomination. Where they do, their admission arrangements should make clear whether a statement of religious affiliation or commitment would be sufficient; whether it is to be "tested" for admission purposes and if so, how; and what, if any, references would be required and how they will be used.

  Teacher Vacancies (Maintained Schools)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in maintained schools in each local education authority area at the beginning of the current school term. [15619]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The information is not available for September 2001 Full-time teacher vacancies in the maintained schools sector in January 2001 in England were as follows:

  Teacher vacancies

  Vacancy rate (%)

  Gateshead

  6

  0.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  19

  0.9

  North Tyneside

  14

  0.8

  South Tyneside

  0

  0.0

  Sunderland

  20

  0.8

  Hartlepool

  5

  0.6

  Middlesbrough

  20

  1.7

  Redcar and Cleveland

  18

  1.5

  Stockton on Tees

  15

  0.9

  Durham

  37

  0.9

  Darlington

  8

  1.1

  Northumberland

  0

  0.0

  Bolton

  7

  0.3

  Bury

  4

  0.3

  Manchester

  0

  0.0

  Oldham

  16

  0.7

  Rochdale

  5

  0.3

  Salford

  4

  0.2

  Stockport

  25

  1.2

  Tameside

  23

  1.3

  Trafford

  0

  0.0

  Wigan

  11

  0.4

  Cheshire

  25

  0.5

  Halton

  6

  0.6

  Warrington

  11

  0.7

  Lancashire

  61

  0.7

  Blackburn with Darwen

  19

  1.6

  Blackpool

  5

  0.5

  Cumbria

  6

  0.2

  Knowsley

  12

  0.8

  Liverpool

  0

  0.0

  St. Helens

  8

  0.5

  Sefton

  15

  0.6

  Wirral

  20

  0.7

  Barnsley

  20

  1.3

  Doncaster

  10

  0.4

  Rotherham

  1

  —

  Sheffield

  14

  0.4

  Bradford

  0

  0.0

  Calderdale

  7

  0.4

  Kirklees

  10

  0.3

  Leeds

  47

  0.8

  Wakefield

  14

  0.5

  60W

  Teacher vacancies

  Vacancy rate (%)

  Kingston-upon-Hull, City of

  8

  0.4

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  6

  0.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  20

  1.6

  North Lincolnshire

  10

  0.8

  North Yorkshire

  12

  0.3

  York

  6

  0.5

  Derbyshire

  45

  0.9

  Derby

  16

  0.9

  Leicestershire

  30

  0.7

  Leicester

  42

  1.8

  Rutland

  0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  20

  0.4

  Northamptonshire

  20

  0.4

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0.0

  Nottingham

  41

  2.2

  Birmingham

  83

  0.9

  Coventry

  24

  1.0

  Dudley

  28

  1.1

  Sandwell

  49

  2.0

  Solihull

  32

  1.7

  Walsall

  17

  0.7

  Wolverhampton

  32

  1.6

  Herefordshire

  18

  1.6

  Worcestershire

  8

  0.2

  Shropshire

  4

  0.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  5

  0.4

  Staffordshire

  40

  0.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  20

  1.1

  Warwickshire

  42

  1.2

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  0.1

  Peterborough

  7

  0.5

  Norfolk

  71

  1.3

  Suffolk

  89

  1.8

  Bedfordshire

  76

  2.6

  Luton

  63

  4.2

  Essex

  220

  2.3

  Southend-on-Sea

  24

  2.0

  Thurrock

  69

  6.9

  Hertfordshire

  50

  0.6

  City of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  59

  5.2

  Greenwich

  63

  3.6

  Hackney

  101

  8.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  49

  5.9

  Islington

  56

  5.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  36

  6.6

  Lambeth

  51

  3.7

  Lewisham

  71

  4.2

  Southwark

  100

  6.0

  Tower Hamlets

  157

  8.6

  Wandsworth

  53

  3.7

  Westminster

  49

  4.8

  Barking and Dagenham

  24

  1.7

  Barnet

  100

  4.4

  Bexley

  85

  4.8

  Brent

  23

  1.2

  Bromley

  63

  2.9

  Croydon

  77

  3.2

  Ealing

  66

  3.4

  Enfield

  65

  2.7

  Haringey

  43

  2.5

  Harrow

  58

  4.5

  Havering

  38

  2.2

  Hillingdon

  52

  2.7

  Hounslow

  18

  1.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  23

  2.5

  Merton

  18

  1.7

  Newham

  103

  4.6

  Redbridge

  40

  2.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  30

  3.5

  Sutton

  10

  0.7

  Waltham Forest

  7

  0.4

  Bracknell Forest

  16

  2.4

  61W

  Teacher vacancies

  Vacancy rate (%)

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  34

  3.9

  West Berkshire

  10

  0.9

  Reading

  37

  4.4

  Slough

  62

  6.7

  Wokingham

  18

  1.6

  Buckinghamshire

  59

  1.8

  Milton Keynes

  21

  1.3

  East Sussex

  43

  1.4

  Brighton and Hove

  17

  1.1

  Hampshire

  175

  2.2

  Portsmouth

  59

  4.5

  Southampton

  50

  3.4

  Isle of Wight

  7

  0.7

  Kent

  196

  2.0

  Medway

  51

  2.6

  Oxfordshire

  16

  0.4

  Surrey

  104

  1.6

  West Sussex

  82

  1.6

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  9

  0.7

  City of Bristol

  25

  1.0

  North Somerset

  7

  0.5

  South Gloucestershire

  7

  0.4

  Cornwall

  0

  0.0

  Devon

  47

  1.1

  Plymouth

  1

  —

  Torbay

  9

  1.0

  Dorset

  18

  0.7

  Poole

  19

  2.0

  Bournemouth

  7

  0.7

  Gloucestershire

  14

  0.3

  Somerset

  11

  0.3

  Wiltshire

  19

  0.7

  Swindon

  20

  1.5

  England

  4,976

  1.4

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she gives to(a) schools and (b) local education authorities on the course of action to be adopted where it appears necessary for infants to be taught in classes of more than 30 pupils. [15384]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Since September 2001 schools and local education authorities have been responsible for ensuring that infant classes for 5, 6 and 7 year olds are limited to 30 or fewer except where permitted by legislation.

  How schools organise their classes is a matter for agreement between the LEA and the schools. The Department has issued no guidance to LEAs or schools on how classes which exceed the limit for permitted reasons should be organised.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15204]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The Department for Education and Skills takes every opportunity, like the Department for International Development (DFID), to promote fair trade products and also to support ethical trading in mainstream business. DfES seeks prices for both fair trade and non-fair trade
  62W
  products from suppliers during tender exercises for the provision of catering services. In line with Government procurement policy the evaluation of tenders is based on value for money considerations having due regard to propriety and regularity. We also encourage our current catering providers to offer fair trade products as an option to customers in staff restaurants.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is in 2001–02 of the implementation of recommendations in the social exclusion unit's report on neighbourhood renewal. [14083]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply

  The National Strategy Action Plan for Neighbourhood Renewal aims to develop common goals including better health, skills, housing and physical environment, and to narrow the gap on these measures between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. If these aims are to be fulfilled, efforts to provide direct support to deprived neighbourhoods must be combined with efforts to "bend" mainstream programmes that provide funding to ensure that challenges faced by deprived areas can be addressed. To this end the Government will be spending an additional £43 billion a year on core public services by 2004. The costs of implementing the recommendations on neighbourhood renewal are embedded in these and the other billions of pounds spent by Government Departments, and it would involve disproportionate costs to disaggregate this expenditure.

  Internet Access
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the number of schools with internet access(a) nationally and (b) in boroughs of (i) Middlesbrough, (ii) Redcar and (iii) Cleveland; and what were the Department's targets in each case. [16214]

  John Healey
  Statistics published by the Department for Education and Skills in October show that 97 per cent. of schools in England are now connected to the internet; significant progress from a position where only 28 per cent. were connected in 1998. Our target is that every school should have access to the internet in 2002.

  The Department does not maintain information about internet access in schools on a regional or local basis.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sellafield
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the latest OCNS advice on the manufacture and transportation of nuclear material to and from the MOX site at Sellafield. [8874]

  Margaret Beckett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I decided on 3 October that MOX manufacture is justified under the Basic Safety Standards Directive. We took account of all relevant issues up to that date, including security considerations. A copy of our
  63W
  decision is in the Library, including a summary of some of the main considerations taken into account. The advice of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security is contained in the decision document. Paragraph 67–69 of the document and paragraphs 25–33 of Annexe 1 describe security issues in detail.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of Meat Hygiene Service charges on the profitability and operation of small to medium-sized abattoirs. [9806]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the introduction of revised meat hygiene service charges for abattoirs on 1 April this year there has been no assessment made on their impact to small and medium-sized abattoirs. There is no doubt that there will be positive benefits for small and medium-sized abattoirs but it is too early to assess how the revised charging system will affect their profitability or future operation. Despite the reduction in abattoir numbers over recent years there remains considerable over-capacity in the slaughtering sector and a reasonable spread of abattoirs across most parts of the country. A recent study by the Meat and Livestock Commission found that, while larger abattoirs accounted for over 80 per cent. of the slaughterings of pigs and sheep in 2000–01, small and medium abattoirs increased their share of the numbers of cattle slaughtered. This stood at 46 per cent. in larger abattoirs.

  Cod Stocks
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has taken, and what further measures she plans to take, to preserve cod stocks. [10616]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The United Kingdom has played a full part with the Commission and the other member states concerned in developing the second stage of the cod recovery programme for the North sea and west of Scotland. These revised requirements come into force from 1 January 2002. The UK fishing industry has also been involved closely with the process.

  We stand ready to play a similar part in taking forward the Irish sea cod recovery programme on which we expect a proposal from the Commission, shortly, for a repeat of the spring spawning closure. We also expect the Commission to bring forward additional ideas to progress the recovery plan for the northern hake stock.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual grant to the Environment Agency for flood defence work has been in each of the last four years in(a) current and (b) real terms; what the projected figures for the remainder of the planning period are; and if she will make a statement. [10605]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: My Department provides funding to the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards for capital works that meet essential criteria and has also in
  64W
  recent years made funds available to the agency for other initiatives, for example to assist with flood risk public awareness and recently to assist in meeting the extra costs for emergency response and repair associated with last year's floods, and special funding for the design and feasibility costs of river defences.

  Allocations to individual authorities, such as the agency, within the total provision depends on the plans identified by those authorities and assessment against the Department's priority score arrangements. Actual outturn reflects the authorities' ability to deliver those plans. Allocations are decided in advance of the start of each financial year and I have just announced those for 2002–03. Therefore separate figures for the Environment Agency are not available for 2003–04 but otherwise the figures requested are:

  Environment agency

  £ million

  Current prices

  Real prices1

  Grants on capital works

  Contributions on other initiatives

  Total

  Total

  Actual outturn:

  1997–983

  43.0

  0.0

  43.0

  43.0

  1998–99

  33.5

  0.3

  33.8

  32.7

  1999–2000

  31.8

  1.2

  33.0

  31.4

  2000–01

  26.4

  15.5

  41.9

  38.7

  Current allocation:

  2001–02

  44.0

  19.1

  63.1

  256.9

  2002–03

  61.0

  4.0

  65.0

  257.2

  1 Using Retail Prices Index with the base year set to 1997

  2 Expected future RPI increasing at 2.5 per cent. per annum

  3 Allocation for this year was increased significantly in year by the redistribution of funds from elsewhere in the Department

  British Waterways
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to visit rivers managed by British Waterways. [11555]

  Mr. Meacher
  My noble Friend Lord Whitty visited the River Trent at Nottingham with British Waterways on 22 October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to visit rivers managed by British Waterways, but would like to do so at a future date if practicable.

  Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the level of the payments made under the livestock welfare disposal scheme; and if she will make a statement. [11740]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: My noble Friend Lord Whitty announced new rates of payment on Monday 29 October, applicable to applications posted on or after 30 October.

  Agriculture
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is
  65W
  of the total financial support from public funds for (a) United Kingdom and (b) English agriculture (i) directly and (ii) indirectly in each year since 1990–91. [12808]

  Mr. Morley
  The table provided gives estimates of(a) expenditure on CAP market support measures and (b) direct payments to the agricultural sector in the UK from 1990–91 to 2000–01. Equivalent data for England could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In any case, expenditure on market support measures, eg export refunds and intervention stock costs, could not be meaningfully allocated to particular regions.

  £ million

  Of which:

  Total public expenditure on agriculture in the UK

  Expenditure on CAP market support measures

  Expenditure on direct payments to the agriculture sector

  1990–91

  1,910

  1,262

  647

  1991–92

  1,959

  1,183

  776

  1992–93

  2,003

  1,050

  953

  1993–94

  2,869

  1,076

  1,792

  1994–95

  2,512

  454

  2,058

  1995–96

  2,897

  457

  2,440

  1996–97

  4,318

  1,621

  2,697

  1997–98

  3,583

  1,281

  2,302

  1998–99

  3,482

  1,013

  2,469

  1999–2000

  3,161

  710

  2,451

  2000–01(f)

  3,182

  761

  2,421

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of hill farmers in England who have second jobs outside farming; and if she will make a statement. [12698]

  Mr. Morley
  Our information on farmers with second jobs is incomplete and limited to farms of sufficient size to occupy a full-time farmer. From the data which are available, we believe that the proportion of such hill farmers in England with second jobs off-farm is in line with the national average for all 'full-time' farms of just under 10 per cent.

  Animal Health Bill
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to consult(a) the farming community, (b) conservation groups and (c) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the Animal Health Bill. [12346]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: To ensure that we are prepared for any emergency we have had to act swiftly in preparing this legislation. There has not therefore been time to consult our stakeholders in the way that we normally would.

  We nevertheless intend to consult representatives of those who are affected by these measures on how they will apply in practice. On foot and mouth disease in particular we will be consulting on the detail of the disease risk assessment, which is central to the new arrangements for compensation on infected premises.
  66W
  On TSEs, the national scrapie plan was subject to consultation in July 2000. That exercise indicated that genotyping would become compulsory at a future unspecified date. We will, however, consult organisations representing the sheep industry about the detailed use that should be made of the new compulsory genotyping powers and their timing.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the numbers of fuel poor households in England containing people aged 60 years or over under each of the definitions set out in the draft fuel poverty strategy; what estimate she has made of the number of older fuel poor households who are not eligible for a grant under the new home energy efficiency scheme; and what measures she will take to help these households improve their energy efficiency. [12431]

  Mr. Meacher
  The two main definitions of fuel poverty used are:(a) A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on all household fuel use.
  (b) A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on all household fuel use.

  The table uses data from the 1998 English House Condition Energy Follow-Up Survey (EFUS) to show the estimated number of fuel poor households aged 60 or more in social and private sector housing.

  Million

  Number of fuel poor households aged 60 or more in social sector housing

  Number of fuel poor households aged 60 or more in private sector housing

  Using definition (a)

  0.5

  1.4

  Using definition (b)

  0.8

  1.5

  All fuel poor households in the social housing sector will be assisted by the separate housing programmes designed to bring all such properties up to decent standard by 2010.

  Following a transition period, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (now marketed as the Warm Front Team) is now solely focused on private sector housing. All households aged 60 or more living in this sector and in receipt of one of the main income or disability-related benefits are eligible for assistance from HEES.

  Neither the 1996 English House Condition Survey, nor the 1998 EFUS, collected enough information to estimate the number of fuel poor households aged 60 or more in private sector housing that are ineligible for HEES as they do not receive an income or disability-related benefit. Such households are eligible for other assistance with energy efficiency, for example, through improvements under programmes operated by energy suppliers under the Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance (EESoPs) until 31 March 2002, and the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) from 1 April next year, and may be eligible for improvement grants from local authorities.
  67W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is also considering measures to encourage those aged 60 or more to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. These would further reduce the number of older households that are in fuel poverty but may not be eligible for HEES.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of English households containing people who are aged 60 years or over and claiming a means-tested benefit which are fuel poor under the two definitions set out in the draft fuel poverty strategy. [12430]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The two main definitions of fuel poverty used are: (a) A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on all household fuel use.

  (b) A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on all household fuel use.

  Using data from the 1998 English House Condition Energy Follow-Up Survey (EFUS) it is estimated that the total number of fuel poor households aged 60 or more was 1.9 million under the definition at (a); or 2.3 million using the definition at (b).

  Neither the 1996 English House Condition Survey nor the 1998 EFUS collected enough information to allow an estimate to be made of the number of fuel poor households that are in receipt of an income-related benefit. The 2001 EHCS will be the first to allow such an estimate to be made, with the initial results expected in autumn 2002.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of households containing people aged 60 years and over in England who do not have central heating, and the(a) number and (b) percentage of such households which are fuel poor under the two definitions set out in the draft fuel poverty strategy. [12432]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: Using data from the English House Condition Energy Follow-Up Survey (EFUS), the table sets out the estimated number of households that in 1998 did not have central heating. It also shows the number of these regarded as fuel poor against the two main definitions:

  (a) A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on all household fuel use.

  (b) A household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on all household fuel use.
  68W

  Million

  Group

  Number of households

  Total number of households aged 60 or more in England

  6.5

  Total number of households aged 60 or more in England that do not have central heating

  1.7

  Total number of households aged 60 or more in England that do not have central heating and are regarded as fuel poor using the definition at (a) above

  10.8

  Total number of households aged 60 or more in England that do not have central heating and are regarded as fuel poor using the definition at (b) above

  20.9

  1 47 per cent. of all households aged 60 or more that do not have central heating.

  2 53 per cent. of all households aged 60 or more that do not have central heating.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the £260 million of funding for the home energy efficiency scheme has been spent on people living in fuel poverty. [16118]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) was launched on 1 June 2000 and is designed to tackle the problem of fuel poverty. It offers packages of insulation and heating improvements to those households most vulnerable to cold-related ill health: low-income older people, families with children, the disabled and the long-term sick.

  The scheme does not attempt to assess whether each individual householder falls within the definition of fuel poverty, which would be impractical. Instead it assumes that receipt of one of the main income or disability benefits suggests that the household may be at risk. It is therefore not possible to identify how many of the 250,000 householders assisted to date were in fuel poverty at the time. However, we are confident that they were vulnerable to cold-related ill-health and at risk of fuel poverty.

  A study of the scheme is planned over the next two years and will provide information on the nature of the householder assisted.

  Water and Sewerage Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of recent price settlements imposed by Ofwat on investment in water and sewerage services in Worcestershire; and if she will make a statement. [13219]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1999 the Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) determined price limits for water and sewerage companies in England and Wales for the five years beginning on 1 April 2000. Worcestershire is within the area served by Severn Trent Water. In setting price limits for Severn Trent Water, the Director General made provision for an annual average capital investment of £391 million (May 1999 prices) over the five year review period. This is set out in "Future water and sewerage
  69W
  charges 2000–05" in the House of Commons Library. Within this framework companies decide their priorities for meeting their planned outputs.

  Condensing Boilers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) energy saving and (b) pollution cutting potential of replacing conventional boilers in the UK with condensing boilers. [12938]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The Government are keen to promote the installation of condensing boilers when conventional ones are replaced. The benefits of condensing boilers are likely to be attractive to energy suppliers in meeting their requirements under the Energy Efficiency Commitment for 2002–05. Under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) the new central heating systems provided use condensing boilers whenever possible.

  The energy and carbon savings, which could be achieved if the entire UK stock of conventional boilers were replaced by condensing boilers, are estimated to be as follows:

  Building type

  Energy savings1

  Carbon sayings2

  Domestic stock

  Gas fired

  257

  3.78

  Oil fired

  15.5

  0.3

  Commercial and public sector

  50

  0.8

  Industrial

  10

  0.15

  Total

  332.5

  5.03

  1 Peta joules/year

  2 Million tonnes of carbon/year

  Border Inspection Posts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers she has to monitor the effectiveness, and performance of border inspection posts. [13276]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The local authority are responsible for ensuring that the checks at border inspection posts (BIPs) are carried out to the standards specified in community legislation.

  The Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 contains provision for an authorised officer (of the Minister) to audit the local authorities' operation of border inspection posts. This includes checking whether staff comply with the requirements of the regulations, taking samples and the examination of documentary or computer material.

  The regulations also require the local authority to provide detailed information on the products checked at the BIP and the outcome of those checks.

  Local authorities are required to report on these activities through the Divisional Veterinary Managers of DEFRA. DEFRA staff work closely with the authorities in carrying out these inspection responsibilities.
  70W
  The Food Standards Agency commenced an audit programme of local authorities on 1 April 2001 and where applicable this will include an audit of the BIP.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the separate commencement dates made under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to allow access to the open countryside as soon as practicable after the conclusive maps have been completed and approved for each region. [13868]

  Alun Michael
  The following provisions in Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 came into force on 30 January 2001: section 1 and Schedule 1, sections 3 to 11 and Schedule 3, sections 15 to 17, section 19, Chapters II and III, and sections 40 to 45. The commencement of these provisions enabled the Countryside Agency to begin preparation of and consultation on draft maps of open country and registered common land.

  The right of access, in section 2(1), has not yet been brought into effect. We are committed to opening up all open country and registered common land by the end of 2005, but the Act allows for the right to be commenced at different times in different areas, so it would be possible to give people new rights of access to some areas of land before then. I am considering the option of regional commencement, and hope to make an announcement on this before the end of the year.

  Water Conservation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent action she has taken to promote water conservation; and if she will make a statement. [13886]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government promote water efficiency by a variety of means including through the Environment Agency's National Water Demand Management Centre, the Water Fittings Regulations, Envirowise, the Market Transformation programme, the Buying Agency's Watermark project, leakage targets for water companies, maintenance of a database of water efficiency research, and through on-going discussions with Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the water industry. The draft Water Bill contains provisions for a new duty on water undertakers to take water efficiency into account in the full range of their plans and activities.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what environmental projects have been successfully completed as a result of revenue from the landfill tax credit scheme in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [13879]

  Mr. Meacher
  Detailed information on individual projects and the amount of funding they have received is available from ENTRUST, the regulatory body for the landfill tax credit scheme.
  71W
  The numbers of completed projects in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 are:

  Category

  1999

  2000

  2001

  A Reclamation of contaminated land

  15

  19

  9

  B Reduction/prevention of pollution of land

  2

  6

  0

  C Sustainable waste management

  188

  225

  165

  D Provision of public parks and amenities

  722

  994

  763

  E Restoration of historical buildings

  188

  309

  244

  F Provision of services between environmental bodies

  2

  1

  2

  Waste Management
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent action the Government have taken to minimise waste in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [13880]

  Mr. Meacher
  Tackling the amount of waste produced is the first priority in the hierarchy for waste management decisions set out in the Government's Waste Strategy 2000. Action already taken aimed at encouraging waste minimisation includes Government support for the National Waste Awareness Initiative and guidance to local authorities on their powers under the Waste Minimisation Act 1998.

  The Government have implemented the Packaging Directive and a voluntary agreement on newsprint. Further legislation on electrical and electronic equipment and batteries will follow, and a voluntary agreement on direct mail. These are all designed to reduce the amount of waste arising from these products.

  The Envirowise programme, jointly funded by DTI and DEFRA, supports policy objectives to reduce waste and increase efforts to reduce waste at source (eg by more efficient use of raw materials) through advice to businesses.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the International Energy Agency report, Spain 2001, in relation to the ability of EU member states to address their greenhouse gas emissions obligations; and if she will make a statement. [13908]

  Mr. Meacher
  Spain's target under the Kyoto protocol is to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 15 per cent. over 1990 levels by 2008–12. Until Spain publishes its climate change programme, it is not possible to comment on Spain's progress towards meeting its target.

  The European Community and its member states are already taking action to ensure that they meet their respective targets under the Kyoto protocol. Between 1990 and 1998, the Community's emissions fell by 2.5 per cent. More work is needed to reach the Community's target reduction of 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12, but this is in hand both at the member state and Community level.

  Climate Change
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to encourage United States participation in the climate change negotiations in Marrakech. [14254]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United States participated in the negotiations in Marrakech as a party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is important that the United States remain engaged in global efforts to tackle climate change. We have kept the door open for them should they decide to re-engage with the Kyoto process in the future, and we are encouraging them to take domestic action consistent with the aims of Kyoto in the meantime. We take every appropriate opportunity to raise climate change with the US. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed climate change in meetings with Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, on 1 November and in a meeting on 8 November in Marrakech, with Paula Dobriansky, the Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Department of State. We expect this dialogue with the US to continue.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sites of special scientific interest there are in the Buckingham constituency. [14205]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are 17 SSSIs wholly within the constituency and four partly within it.

  The SSSIs wholly within the constituency are:

  Foxcote Reservoir

  Tingewick Meadows

  Pilch fields

  Sheephouse Wood

  Finemere Wood

  Grendon and Doddershall Woods

  Ham Home-cum-Ham Green Woods

  Long Herdon Meadow

  Rushbeds Woods and Railway cutting

  Bugle Quarry

  Stone

  Warren Farm, Stewkley

  Pokers Pond Meadow

  Muswell Hill

  Pitstone Hill

  Pitstone Quarry

  Ivinghoe Hills.

  Four SSSIs partly within the constituency are

  Ashridge Common and Woods

  Shabbington Woods complex

  Whitecross Green and Oriel Woods

  Kings and Bakers Woods and Heaths.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sites of special scientific interest there are in the Wycombe constituency. [14871]
  73W
  Mr. Meacher
  There are 14 SSSIs within the constituency. These are:

  Bolter End Sand Pit

  Fayland Chalk Bank

  Frieth Meadows

  Gomm Valley

  Hollowhill and Pullingshill Woods

  Homefield Wood

  Millfield Wood

  Naphill Common

  Moorend Common

  Rodbed Wood

  Swain's Wood

  Temple Island Meadows

  Widdenton Park Wood

  Wormsley Chalk Bank.

  Water Supplies (Chemical or Biological Attacks)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the water companies and the MoD about the protection of water supplies from chemical and biological attack. [13977]

  Mr. Meacher
  Discussions take place regularly with relevant interested parties on matters relating to emergency planning in the water industry. The content of these discussions is not made public for security reasons.

  Chemicals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set targets to reduce the release of(a) cancer-causing chemicals and (b) other harmful chemicals. [14527]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government set a range of targets in their Chemicals Strategy published in 1999, "Sustainable Production and Use of Chemicals—a strategic approach". Our key priority is to make progress in generating information about chemicals in widespread use and identifying those of most concern so that action can be taken. A Stakeholder Forum was established to implement the strategy and it met its first target by publishing a set of criteria for identifying chemicals of most concern in December 2000. The forum is now working to identify chemicals that meet these criteria.

  The Stakeholder Forum is developing indicators of environmental exposure to hazardous chemicals, including those that are carcinogenic. This research will be used to set more specific targets for reducing overall exposure of the environment. I expect the development of the indicators to be completed by July 2002.

  In the meantime, an international programme has been agreed to assess the hazards of chemicals that are produced in high volumes. A target has been set to complete 1,000 hazard assessments by 2004. These assessments will provide the information needed to decide whether a chemical is likely to be of concern. The Government will keep the programme under review. Industry and the Stakeholder Forum will review all of the chemicals that meet the criteria for concern. Risk management strategies on chemicals likely to cause serious damage will be produced by 2010 to ensure their
  74W
  withdrawal from use. By 2015, the international chemicals industry aims to have completed hazard assessments for the 4,100 high production volume chemicals. The UK strategy aims to have at least sufficient data to characterise hazards of all commercially produced chemicals.

  The emphasis of the strategy is voluntary action, and full transparency in decision making. This will be a faster route to phasing out chemicals of most concern than the legislation, although I will resort to that if we fail to secure co-operation.

  In parallel with the UK strategy, the European Commission is developing legislation to implement its White Paper on a future chemicals policy. The Government are playing an active role to shape the proposals to ensure that an effective mechanism is put in place to ensure rapid progress in phasing out the uses of chemicals of most concern.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if Ministers will give evidence in person to Professor Anderson's inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak; [14113]

  (2) what powers Professor Anderson has to summon (a) officials and (b) Ministers to give evidence to his inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [14114]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on 7 November 2001, Official Report, column 300W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local areas are conducting their own inquiries into the recent foot and mouth disease breakdown; and what response her Department is making to them. [8543]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: We are aware that a number of local studies or inquiries are planned or are taking place. DEFRA is prepared to assist these by providing general information on the epidemic and answers to written questions on focused areas of particular concern to the local authorities. However, such assistance must be limited by the need to ensure that staff are not diverted from the prime task of eradicating the disease and preventing its return. DEFRA will not therefore be able to meet requests for wide ranging information and views, nor will staff be available to answer oral questions.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help is available to farmers who lost stock owing to the recent foot and mouth outbreak. [8533]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: Fanners who have lost stock as a result of foot and mouth disease are eligible for compensation for the value of animals destroyed, and for other items seized and destroyed such as fodder and hay.

  A further range of measures to help these farmers, amounting to £15.4 million, have also been announced. These are: £10.4 million for an enhanced Farm Business Advice Service (FBAS) offering up to five days of free

  75W
  business advice for farmers whose livestock have been slaughtered under the foot and mouth control measures; £2 million in grant aid made available under a new round of the Agricultural Development Scheme, to improve marketing performance and competitiveness of sectors affected by foot and mouth; and £3 million for a targeted trade development and market campaign, made available through Food from Britain which will co-ordinate their campaign with the Countryside Agency, Meat and Livestock Commission and others with an active interest.

  The FBAS is a free and confidential service which offers up to five days advisory time to be provided by an experienced farm business adviser and is available to any farmer in England who has had stock compulsorily slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. It will be available until March 2003. We have sent a letter to all farmers in this category.

  An adviser will review the farmer's business and arrange for an environmental evaluation to be conducted by an appropriate specialist. The adviser will then help them prepare a whole farm recovery plan which will help farmers to develop new income opportunities and access the range of other support measures available to them. Advice is also provided on re-stocking.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the guidelines on access to holdings which lost stock owing to the recent foot and mouth outbreak, with specific reference to those tasked to advise farmers on future opportunities. [8534]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 November 2001]: The guidelines drawn up by DEFRA, which are also used by the Farm Business Advice Service, are currently being further revised. Until now, other Government agencies have drawn up and disseminated their own guidelines for use by their staff in consultation with DEFRA. However, it is expected that when the new guidelines are issued, all Government personnel will adhere to them when visiting any agricultural premise. The revised guidelines will be placed on the DEFRA website.

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what emergency measures she is considering for the disposal of refrigerators after 1 January 2002. [14411]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: Although the UK does not currently have facilities capable of extracting ozone depleting substances, including CFCs, from insulation foam, it is anticipated that some plant may come on-line as early as spring 2002. The Department is finalising measures to manage waste refrigeration equipment in the interim. Advice on storage of waste refrigeration equipment will be issued shortly. We are currently considering funding options for local authorities.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she is expecting to announce details of financial assistance to local councils for the disposal of refrigerators after 1 January 2002. [14410]
  76W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: Shortly.

  Sub-standard Meat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to ensure that sub-standard meat is not permitted to enter the UK. [15645]

  Mr. Morley
  All consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU member states must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Imports from third countries must have been produced to standards at least equivalent to those in the Directive. Among other things, this Directive sets out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores.

  All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport. In line with community rules, random spot checks at destination may be carried out on consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU member states.

  New arrangements have been introduced across all enforcement agencies involved to improve the sharing and analysis of information about known or suspected illegal imports. We are building up a database of details which is enabling us to target enforcement action and to make best use of available resources. Our national regulations have also been amended to assist local authorities in seizing suspected illegal imports when they are found at point of sale. The Food Standards Agency is also encouraging local authorities to ensure that checking for illegal imports is part of their routine inspection of food premises.

  Alongside this we have introduced improved publicity to ensure that travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be imported. Posters have been placed at main airports and we have asked UK travel agents and airlines using UK airports to make information about import controls available to travellers. Recognising that it is most effective to inform travellers before they leave for their journey to the UK, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been active via British Embassies abroad, providing information directly to travellers and via travel agents and local media.

  We are keeping these measures under review and will make improvements as necessary. In addition, we are looking at a wide range of other options to ensure the rules on imports are enforced effectively and efficiently. These include, for example, the possible use of sniffer dogs and X-ray machines at ports and airports.

  Animal Movement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes she proposes to make to the licensing provisions for animal movements. [15646]
  77W
  Mr. Morley
  The licensing provisions on animal movements are kept under review in the light of the developing disease situation. I will continue to announce changes as they are introduced.

  Auction Marts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the future of auction marts. [15647]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received a number of representations from auctioneers and the livestock industry. I am keeping the position of livestock markets under review in the light of the developing disease situation.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prospects for beef exports to(a) Germany, (b) the Netherlands, (c) Italy and (d) France; and how many United Kingdom plants are qualified to export beef. [14787]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: It is not possible to make a realistic assessment of future prospects because recovery of our beef exports depends on many factors including the number of plants which seek approval to export under the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES); the conditions of DBES; the results of our BSE testing programme; consumer confidence in the countries concerned and currency values. In addition, prospects for beef exports to France depend on the outcome of the Commission's ECJ case which is expected shortly.

  Prior to the foot and mouth outbreak two establishments were approved to export beef under DBES.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) functions performed, (b) numbers of staff employed for each function and (c) proportion of staff coming from the former (i) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (ii) Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions for each function, in her Department. [15632]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of staff employed by function as at 1 October is listed. The figures given include staff employed to deal with foot and mouth disease and those who were in the process of transferring to the Rural Payments Agency, but exclude all other Executive Agencies of the Department. Staff who have joined DEFRA since its creation are included in the percentage for MAFF.

  DEFRA

  MAFF (%)

  DETR (%)

  Agriculture and Food

  577

  100

  0

  Fisheries

  217

  100

  0

  Environment, Rural and Regional Services

  4,075

  86

  14

  Animal Health (including State Veterinary Services)

  2,914

  100

  0

  Science Directorate

  101

  100

  0

  European Union and International Policy

  57

  100

  0

  78W

  DEFRA

  MAFF (%)

  DETR (%)

  Economics and Statistics

  175

  97

  3

  Central Services

  1,133

  97

  3

  E-business Directorate

  360

  100

  0

  Communications Directorate

  106

  91

  9

  Total

  9,715

  93

  7

  Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many appointments she has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in her gift. [15481]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office's internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include numbers of appointments at 31 March 2001, will be published around the end of the year.

  During the period 7 June 2001 to 31 October 2001, my Department made 33 ministerial appointments to public bodies. This figure includes 13 reappointments. The total number of appointments, which are currently within the gift of DEFRA Ministers, is 781.

  Scottish Expenditure
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list, in real terms, for each year since 1979(a) the total sums of money spent directly by her Department in Scotland and (b) the total sums of money allocated by her Department for spending in Scotland through (i) the Scottish Office, (ii) the Scotland Office and (iii) the Scottish Executive. [16180]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has only been in existence for a few months, so does not have such historical information. Attempting to construct it retrospectively would involve disproportionate cost.

  Capture Bird Imports
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will implement the European Commission's decision of 16 October 2000 relating to imports of wild caught birds. [16091]

  Mr. Morley
  Commission Decision 2000/666/EC of 16 October 2000 lays down new harmonised animal health rules for the import of captive birds into the EU from third countries. The decision came into force on 1 November this year. We notified interested parties on 6 June and 6 November this year of the new arrangements we have put in place for the import of captive birds (including birds taken directly from the wild for approved conservation programmes) from both third countries and EU member states.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what account she
  79W
  has taken of the views of the Royal Society in determining her policy in respect of the rearing of genetically modified fish. [8000]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: In their report on "The Use of Genetically Modified Animals", published on 21 May 2001, the Royal Society endorsed the recommendation of the Royal Society of Canada for a moratorium on the rearing of GM fish in aquatic net-pens, with approval for commercial production being conditional on the rearing of the fish in land-locked facilities.

  The views of the Royal Society accord with current Government policy.

  The keeping and rearing of GM fish is already tightly controlled. They must be kept in secure containment in land based tanks with suitable precautions to preclude escape. The keeping of GM fish in nets, tanks or cages in the sea or in rivers, lakes or streams would constitute a release to the environment and is prohibited under EU legislation without prior consent from the relevant authority. Any application to keep GM fish in such circumstances would have to be underpinned by a detailed risk assessment and would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Applicants would be required to demonstrate that there would be no adverse effects on human health or the environment arising from the activity. Given these requirements it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which we would permit such a release.

  There are no GM fish held in aquatic net-pens in this country and no approval has yet been sought or granted for commercial production of GM fish.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Climate Change
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in climate change negotiations. [15127]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs led the UK delegation to the recent climate change negotiations in Marrakech. We achieved our aim of successfully translating the political agreement reached in Bonn in July on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol into detailed legal texts, removing the final obstacle to ratification and entry into force of the protocol. The UK intends to ratify, along with our EU partners, in time to allow entry into force by the World Summit on Sustainable Development next September. Since Marrakech, Japan has also announced that it will now press ahead with preparations for ratification next year. We hope that many other countries will follow suit.

  Parliamentary Questions
  David Winnick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the total cost to public funds of answering the 80W
  questions tabled on 12 November by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for answer on the 14 November. [15696]

  Mr. Leslie
  The hon. Member for Buckingham tabled 118 parliamentary questions on 12 November.

  As at April 2000, the latest date for which data are available, the average cost of answering a written parliamentary question was £123. The total cost of answering the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham on 12 November is therefore approximately £14,500, although given that the cost is based on an average it is a very conservative figure.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the key priorities are for the Social Exclusion Unit in the next 12 months. [14880]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit has three key priorities for the next 12 months. The first of these is to deliver four new reports on areas of cross-cutting work to address issues of social exclusion. These areas are: reducing the rates of re-offending among ex-prisoners; developing a more effective system to prevent young people from running away and to help those that do; improving the educational achievement of children in care; and removing the transport barriers that prevent people accessing work and critical services.

  The Social Exclusion Unit's second priority is to work closely with the implementation units in other Government Departments to ensure that there is effective implementation of previous work carried out by the unit. This relates to projects carried out on rough sleepers, school exclusions and truancy, providing opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training, and the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. To support this work the Social Exclusion Unit will communicate with members of the public, the voluntary and the business sector, local government and key professionals regarding the Government's policies on social exclusion and ensure that they receive accurate, up to date information about the work of the unit.

  The third priority for the Social Exclusion Unit over the next 12 months is to plan to deliver new areas of cross-cutting work to address specific issues of social exclusion as directed by the Prime Minister.

  Labour Force Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will disaggregate by(a) age and (b) sex the information given in Figure 3.7 of the document "Winning the Generation Game". [14960]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Labour Force status of persons not working aged between 50 and State Pension Age, to which Figure 3 of "Winning the Generation Game" refers, are disaggregated by age group and sex in the table.
  81W

  Labour Force status of persons aged 50–59 (female)/50–64 (male) by age group and sex, winter 1998–99

  Thousands

  Not seasonally adjusted

  All 50+

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  All persons

  All persons not working1

  2,830

  953

  1,146

  731

  Looking for work

  287

  136

  105

  46

  Looking after family, home

  400

  192

  188

  20

  Long-term sick and disabled

  1,234

  409

  489

  336

  Do not need a job

  148

  56

  69

  23

  Retired

  499

  56

  201

  242

  Other

  263

  105

  94

  64

  Males

  All persons not working1

  1,518

  348

  438

  731

  Looking for work

  201

  84

  71

  46

  Looking after family, home

  58

  19

  20

  20

  Long-term sick and disabled

  753

  189

  228

  336

  Do not need a job

  48

  9

  16

  23

  Retired

  334

  20

  72

  242

  Other

  123

  27

  31

  64

  Females

  All persons not working1

  1,312

  605

  707

  —

  Looking for work

  86

  52

  34

  —

  Looking after family, home

  341

  173

  169

  —

  Long-term sick and disabled

  481

  220

  261

  —

  Do not need a job

  100

  47

  53

  —

  Retired

  165

  36

  129

  —

  Other

  140

  77

  63

  —

  1 Includes those ILO unemployed and inactive. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) measure of unemployment refers to people who are: (a) out of work, want a job, have actively sought work in the last four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks, or (b) are out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6906]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are committed to using only whatever medium and channels are judged to be the most cost-effective way to deliver the publicity necessary to support the implementation of policy. Paid advertising is only resorted to after careful consideration of the cost-benefits.

  £

  Year

  Advertising1

  1995–96

  —

  1997–97

  337,465

  1997–98

  238,270

  1998–99

  246,438

  1999–2000

  678,601

  2000–01

  662,277

  1 Television, radio and newspaper.

  82W
  Notes:

  1. These figures include recruitment advertising.

  2. Figures only include Cabinet Office entities up to and including 31 March 2001.

  3. Figures do not include salary costs for Cabinet Office staff.

  4. These figures do not include expenditure undertaken by the COI Communications on behalf of clients, which was as follows:

  1995–96: £63,663

  1996–97: £69,396

  1997–98: £59,039

  1998–99: £105,464

  1999–2000: £113,493

  2000–01: £192,407

  £

  Year

  Public opinion research

  1995–96

  n/a

  1996–97

  n/a

  1997–98

  656,604

  1998–99

  897,622

  1999–2000

  270,096

  2000–01

  532,076

  £

  Year

  Publications

  1995–96

  n/a

  1996–97

  2,660,505

  1997–98

  2,114,993

  1998–99

  2,752,521

  1999–2000

  3,101,505

  2000–01

  2,424,850

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1996–97 includes the costs of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Chessington Computer Centre, Recruitment and Assessment Services, and Occupational Health and Safety Agency. These Executive Agencies were privatised during 1996–97 and expenditure for that year is available in their respective Completion Accounts.

  2. Figures are taken from accounting definitions and may include procurement of publications not produced by the Cabinet Office, but will not include staff costs or external consultant costs.

  3. Expenditure for 2001–02 is for core Cabinet Office only and is taken from the Cabinet Office Resource Accounting System using Publications and Printing/Binding expenditure codes.

  The rest of the information asked for is not available in the form requested without incurring disproportionate costs, as it does not correspond with departmental financial coding.

  Equality Unit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the importance of(a) equality of opportunity and (b) equality of outcome in the Equality Unit's strategy; and how they relate. [14865]

  Mrs. Roche
  Equality of opportunity is one of the Government's key priorities. We are committed to ensuring that everyone should be able to develop and make full use of their talents throughout their lives. It cannot be right that people are held back by unfair discrimination or stereotypical and inaccurate assumptions about their ability.

  Equality of outcome is a yardstick that can be used to assess the degree to which people from different backgrounds, or who have different personal characteristics, have had equal opportunities. If there is

  83W
  clear evidence that one group of people consistently fare less well than another, then we need to look at why this is happening and address the factors that lead to it.

  Delivery Unit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the purpose of the Delivery Unit is; and what its aims, objectives and workplan are for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [15885]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  The purpose of the Delivery Unit is to ensure that the Government achieve their delivery priorities during this Parliament across the key areas of public service: health, education, crime and asylum and transport.

  It will:

  i. report regularly to me on progress towards achievement of these priorities;

  ii. help in holding the public service Departments to account through the established PSX monitoring process to make sure that they meet their agreed PSA targets;

  iii. ensure that, within departmental spending limits set in the spending review, problems of delivery are solved as rapidly as possible when they emerge;

  iv. sustain the Government's focus on the key objectives over time.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the material published in relation to the work of the Delivery Unit; what his policy is in respect of the publication of such material; and if he will make a statement on the public accountability of this unit. [15882]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  The Delivery Unit has not yet published any material. The unit reports to me and is under the day-to-day supervision of Lord Macdonald, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. It is headed by my Chief Adviser on Delivery, Professor Michael Barber.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget is for the Delivery Unit in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how many (i) officials and (ii) special advisers are in this unit. [15881]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  The budget for the Delivery Unit is still being finalised.

  At 1 September 2001, there were 12 civil servants in the unit, and no special advisers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on improving liaison between the prison education service and the University for Industry. [13354]
  84W
  Beverley Hughes
  The project to pilot Learndirect in a small number of prison establishments is now under way. Learndirect is an 'e' learning network created by the University for Industry; it is a secure on-line learning programme that brings learning to the learner.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of HM Prisons Downview and High Down. [13360]

  Beverley Hughes
  HM Prison Downview, which was formerly a training prison for category C males, was re-roled in September 2001 to take female convicted prisoners. The Director General of the Prison Service considered this was necessary to enable the Prison Service to deal with the rise in the number of female prisoners. The Director General is currently considering whether Downview should also hold female remand prisoners.

  HM Prison High Down is a local prison which holds male prisoners including category A remand prisoners. The Prison Service continually keeps the use of the estate under review. Changes in the prison population may require establishments to change function, including High Down.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to monitor the performance of antisocial behaviour orders. [13355]

  Mr. Denham
  During the passage through Parliament of the Crime and Disorder Bill the Government gave an undertaking to Parliament that they would review the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders two years after their introduction. This review will soon be completed and we are aiming to publish its findings in due course.

  Police (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in Havering in each of the last four years. [13356]

  Angela Eagle
  The Commissioner tells me that in December 1997 there were 334 full time equivalent police officers in Havering. The figure for December 1998 was 326; for December 1999 it was 327; and for December 2000 it was 297. The figure for September 2001 was 326.

  These numbers are specifically for policing Havering. In addition, the borough benefits from central and specialist services such as the territorial support group, traffic officers and specialist crime units, which are not budgeted for at borough level.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in police numbers in Havering since May 1997. [11655]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and is set out in the table. These numbers are specifically for policing Havering. In addition, the borough benefits from central and specialist services such as the territorial support group, traffic officers and specialist crime units, which are not budgeted for at borough level.
  85W

  Year

  Police officers in Havering1

  June 1997

  326

  December 1997

  334

  December 1998

  326

  December 1999

  327

  December 2000

  297

  September 2001

  326

  1 Full time equivalents

  Violent Crime
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in violent crime since 1995. [13357]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The British Crime Survey shows that violent crime reached its peak in 1995. Since then, there have been steady falls: down 17 per cent. by 1997, a further 4 per cent. by 1999, and a substantial further fall of 19 per cent. by 2000. Much of the explanation lies in the adoption of a strategic approach to tackling violent crime which emphasises the need for effective policing and punishment, as well as policies to root out the conditions which can engender violent crime, and better support for victims. We are determined to secure further reductions in violent crime in the coming years.

  Off-road Motor Bikes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to bring forward to enable the police to curb the illegal use of off-road motor bikes. [13358]

  Angela Eagle
  A number of existing powers already address this problem. Where there are particular local difficulties we would expect appropriate action to be taken within the local crime and disorder strategy. We have set in hand research on unlicensed driving and motor cycle riding, and we shall consider carefully any further measures it recommends.

  Policing (Bromley)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about policing in the London borough of Bromley. [13359]

  Mr. Denham
  I have regular discussions with the commissioner about policing issues. The resources deployed to individual boroughs is an operational matter for the commissioner.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make further announcements on developing more CCTV in local communities; and if he will make a statement. [13361]

  Mr. Denham
  A potential £170 million will be spent funding 686 schemes under the crime reduction programme CCTV initiative.

  We are now considering how best to build on the lessons of the crime reduction programme in developing new crime reduction initiatives that could provide future funding for CCTV.
  86W
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities in the north-west of England have been unsuccessful in bidding for his Department's funds for CCTV schemes. [13365]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Under the crime reduction programme CCTV initiative, the following local authorities in the north-west of England, as part of their local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, submitted unsuccessful bids. (Those marked with an asterisk also submitted successful bids):

  Allerdale

  Blackburn and Darwen

  Blackpool

  Bolton*

  Burnley

  Carlisle*

  Cheshire

  Chester*

  Crewe and Nantwich*

  Copeland*

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Fylde

  Halton*

  Hyndburn

  Knowsley*

  Lancashire

  Liverpool*

  Macclesfield*

  Manchester*

  Oldham*

  Pendle and Burnley

  Rochdale*

  Rossendale

  Salford*

  Sefton*

  South Ribble

  Stockport

  Tameside*

  Trafford

  Vale Royal*

  Warrington

  Wigan*

  Although this initiative is now closed and no further bids can be accepted under the crime reduction programme, other opportunities for funding may exist under the communities against drugs or the small retailers in deprived areas initiatives.

  Seaside Towns (Policing)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with chief constables about recognising(a) transience and (b) visitor numbers when allocating policing resources to seaside and coastal towns. [13362]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office allocates funding to forces as a whole, it is for the chief officer to determine the best deployment of those resources taking operational needs and priorities into account.
  87W
  The police funding formula does take account of population including resident population, overnight visitors and day visitors and so deals with the influx of visitors and holiday makers into seaside and coastal towns.

  I have not had any discussions with chief constables about recognising transience and visitor numbers when allocating police resources to seaside and coastal towns.

  Police Numbers (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were in post in the county of Essex at the latest available date. [13363]

  Mr. Denham
  I am told by the Chief Constable that on 31 October this year Essex police had 2,953 officers, 66 more than in March this year. Essex police also had 1,598 civilian staff, 151 more than in March 2001.

  We are allocating extra resources to the force. Government supported funding for 2001–02 was increased by six per cent. over the previous year to £185.3 million.

  The crime fighting fund is also delivering more police officers in Essex. The force expects to recruit 132 crime fighting fund recruits this year and another 65 in 2002–03.

  Cannabis
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug. [13364]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the scientific and medical arguments for reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Advisory Council is due to provide its advice within three months.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the changes in the numbers of people using recreational cannabis in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other Council of Europe countries with populations of more than five million in the last five years. [15817]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Estimates on the changing patterns of drug misuse in this country are set out in the British Crime Survey. European data are collected by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). EMCDDA are working to develop specific instruments to facilitate analysis of the different data collection and data comparison methods throughout Europe. Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  Terrorism
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the additional costs to the Metropolitan Police Authority of tackling the threat of terrorism. [13366]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government greatly appreciate the immediate response made by the Metropolitan Police Authority and service after the terrorist attack in the USA on 11 September.
  88W
  There has been a great deal of speculation as to the additional costs to the Metropolitan police of the increased security measures. We have set in train a process for the detailed assessment of the additional resources deployed.

  The Government are actively considering these and hopes to make an announcement in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to prevent suspected terrorists from claiming asylum. [13369]

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to ensure that suspected terrorists are not able to claim asylum. [13377]

  Angela Eagle
  Details of all asylum applicants are checked against the immigration service warnings index. Asylum seekers are also fingerprinted and photographed when an application for asylum is made, with further checks made with the police and Security Service if any doubts or question marks arise in the initial interview.

  The 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees also specifically precludes certain individuals from benefiting from its provisions, and allows refugees to be returned to their original country in certain circumstances. Measures in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, the Second Reading of which takes place today, deals specifically with this point.

  Police Support Staff
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the role of support staff in the police. [13367]

  Mr. Denham
  The police reform process is looking at ways in which the visibility and accessibility of the police can be increased. A range of tasks are currently undertaken by police officers which could be carried out by suitably trained support staff, freeing up officers to return to the beat.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 1 November, when he published the report by PA Consulting "Diary of a Police Officer", that we are committed to encouraging broader use of support staff for custody duties and handling the paperwork involved in case preparation. We will use the Police Bill to make any necessary legislative changes.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to meet the Police Federation to discuss police pensions. [13368]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers and senior officials have regular meetings with police organisations and representative bodies, including the Police Federation, at which matters relating to police pay and conditions, such as pensions, are discussed.

  Drugs Strategy
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to focus the drugs strategy on class A drugs. [13370]
  89W
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to focus the drugs strategy on class A drugs. [13376]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The main focus of the Government's drugs strategy is on the drugs that cause the greatest harm, Class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine. However, as the Home Secretary indicated in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 23 October 2001, we need to be even more effective at tackling the harm caused by Class A drugs. He is seeking advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on their assessment for reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C and will be introducing an innovative public awareness campaign on drugs aimed at young people. In addition, he has provided £1 million as a starter fund for a pilot project to help police target regional drug traffickers with a view to a national roll-out of the scheme, has agreed further roll-out of drug testing programmes, and has agreed a series of measures, in partnership with the Department of Health, to minimise the harm drugs cause. We are also currently reviewing progress against all the drugs strategy targets as part of the work for the 2002 spending review, to ensure that we still have the right balance arid focus.

  Rural Crime
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policies to tackle crime in rural areas. [13371]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling crime and the fear of crime in all areas, including rural areas, is a clear priority for this Government. Our approach is to support the police and the local crime and disorder partnerships in tackling local crime effectively.

  This includes increased funding for police forces covering rural areas to take account of the additional costs involved: £30 million is being allocated to 31 forces this year. This money will make a real difference to policing in rural areas. In addition, the anti-crime strategies drawn up by the crime and disorder partnerships support a wide range of initiatives, including local "watch" schemes to help protect farms, equipment and livestock, and rural closed circuit television schemes. The rural crime toolkit, on the crime reduction website, will help local partnerships address crime, n rural areas.

  The British Crime Survey shows that crime levels are significantly lower in rural areas than in urban areas, with levels of burglary, violent and vehicle crime declining.

  Police Administration
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to reduce the level of administration to be carried out by police officers. [13372]

  Mr. Denham
  On 1 November my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published PA Consulting's study "Diary of a Police Officer" which had considered what more could be done to free police officers from the unnecessary paperwork and other obstacles which prevent them from spending more time in public.

  My right hon. Friend announced that he was setting up a task force, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to consider
  90W
  how to take forward the recommendations in this, and other, relevant reports, in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on police officers.

  Drugs Treament and Testing Orders (North-East Wales)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment and testing orders in north-east Wales. [13373]

  Beverley Hughes
  Between 1 October 2000 and 30 September 2001, 90 Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) were made in north Wales. Implementation of the order is being closely monitored by the National Probation Service and we are considering how research can help us to understand the longer term effectiveness of this new measure. However, it is too early to have any independently evaluated information on the effectiveness of the order, although we do have some limited information on the impact of the pilots.

  Khat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has conducted into the importing of khat into the UK and its re-exporting to countries in which it is a banned substance. [13375]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There has been no specific research, but Customs and Excise have previously estimated that up to seven tonnes of khat are imported into the United Kingdom every week. It is not known how much of this is re-exported.

  Policing (Bromley)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of policing in the London Borough of Bromley was in each of the last five years, indicating how much of this comes from(a) council tax and (b) the Government. [9992]

  Mr. Denham
  The Metropolitan Police Authority is funded on a London-wide basis. Budget and funding figures are given in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Budget requirement

  Central Government provision

  Council tax requirement

  1997–98

  1,720

  1,538

  182

  1998–99

  1,778

  1,553

  222

  1999–2000

  1,836

  1,595

  241

  2000–01

  1,830

  1,585

  248

  2001–02

  1,980

  1,666

  325

  Note:

  Central Government provision includes Home Office police grant, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) reduction grant. Outside the budget requirement, provision has been made for contributions to the cost of the Council Tax Benefit Subsidy Limitation Scheme and for the precepting authority's share of billing authorities' Collection Fund deficits or surpluses.

  The funding allocations specifically for local policing in Bromley are set out in the table. In addition, the borough benefits from central and specialist services such

  91W
  as the territorial support group, traffic officers and specialist crime units, which are not budgeted for at borough level.

  Funds for policing Bromley borough

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  27.0

  1998–99

  26.4

  1999–2000

  22.9

  2000–01

  23.7

  2001–02

  24.6

  Arrests (Evesham and Droitwich Spa)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many custody arrests were made in(a) Evesham and (b) Droitwich Spa in the last three years. [10143]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of arrests for notifiable offences is collected centrally at police force area level only. Available information shows that in 1999–2000 there were 21,172 arrests for notifiable offences within the West Mercia Police Force Area and 18,235 in 2000–01. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis.

  Emergency Calls
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of 999 calls made in London over the past 12 months were dealt with by the police as emergencies; how many were made accidentally from mobile phones; what discussions he has had with mobile phone service providers; and if he will make a statement. [12320]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that, out of 1,908,097 calls, 21 per cent. were graded as immediate emergency response calls; 18 per cent. of 999 calls made in London in the last 12 months were accidentally made from mobile phones.

  The Metropolitan Police Service has been in discussions with the mobile phone service providers since January 1999 in order to discuss how best to put into place a system which will help prevent silent emergency calls.

  In addition, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have been working together to address the issue of inadvertent silent 999 calls from mobile phones.

  British Telecom and Cable and Wireless carry all emergency 999/112 calls. Following a successful trial with the metropolitan police, ACPO have arranged for British Telecom and Cable and Wireless to route all silent 999 calls for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland through a switch that engages a recorded message. This message states that the emergency services have been called, but that no voice connection has been detected, and that the number '5' on the keypad should be pressed twice if the emergency services are required.

  This service came into effect nationally on 1 October 2001 and will remove silent calls that were previously routed to police command and control rooms throughout
  92W
  the country. These accounted for approximately 20 per cent. of all 999 calls and their removal will improve the efficiency of control rooms and their ability to deal with genuine emergency calls.

  Oftel are currently working with manufacturers to improve the design of mobile phones to reduce problems. These changes should be introduced from 2003 onwards. Interim solutions are being sought from manufacturers to provide specific key protection around the '9' and '1' keys to prevent accidental activation.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to charge people for accidentally calling 999; and if he will make a statement. [12319]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to introduce a charge for accidentally calling 999.

  Metropolitan Police (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the administrative costs of the Metropolitan Police Authority for(a) last year and (b) this year. [12521]

  Mr. Denham
  The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) inform me that the cost of the MPA secretariat in 2000–01 was £2.6 million and that the latest forecast outturn for 2001–02 is also £2.6 million.

  In addition, the MPA are responsible for the Metropolitan Police Service internal audit for which I understand costs are: 2000–01, £1.6 million; 2001–02, £1.7 million.

  Baton Rounds
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the availability of baton rounds for use by the police; and if he will make a statement. [13896]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Thirty-six police forces in England and Wales currently possess baton rounds and an additional three non-Home Department forces are similarly equipped. This will increase to 45 forces by April 2002 when the manufacturer has supplied further baton guns. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) circulated on 24 September 2001 further guidance on the use of baton rounds as a possible alternative to police use of firearms in certain operational situations.

  The Home Office, (ACPO) and Northern Ireland Office are currently reviewing, as a matter of priority, the full range of less lethal technologies. The Northern Ireland Office will publish a report on phase two of this work in due course.

  Distraction Burglary Strategy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what projects have been funded by his distraction burglary strategy which involve the first check point scheme to combat cowboy builders. [14363]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: We have allocated £98,000 for the operation and evaluation of a pilot first check point scheme in Leeds. The evaluation will be completed in 2003.

  Crime Reduction (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the results from Northampton's participation in the On Track crime reduction programme. [11425]

  Mr. Denham
  On Track is a longitudinal study of the impact of a range of support services on the antisocial and criminal behaviour of children and young people. It is in the very early stages of implementation, and no impact or outcome results are yet available or expected from any of the participating pilot projects.

  The final reports of Phase 1, project implementation and service roll-out, are due in September 2002.

  Northampton's on track project is characterised by a commitment to sound and detailed referral and assessment procedures for children which provide clear and comprehensive information to both parents and professionals.

  Terrorism (Internet Access)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the security implications of access by terrorists to UK media reports via the internet. [13676]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Information is available on the internet as it is in the media generally.

  There is no specific assessment made by the Government. Those placing material on and therefore responsible for the information given on the internet, are subject to the same security rules and regulations as print or broadcast media. No assessment has been made by the Government although the security and intelligence services do of course monitor such information and make their own assessment.

  TETRA Masts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been done to evaluate the potential health risks caused by TETRA masts; and if he will make a statement. [14621]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: In areas accessible to the public, TETRA base station operators must ensure that they comply with all relevant guidelines on exposure of the public to signals from radio masts. Operational guidelines on health and safety are in place for instances where the emergency services need to operate in restricted areas around base stations.

  Police (Early Leavers)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of police officers who leave the police force after(a) two years, (b) five years and (c) 10 years. [10672]

  Mr. Denham
  As part of the process of monitoring progress on "Dismantling Barriers", Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has requested information from forces about the number of officers who left during 2000–01.
  94W
  This is the first year for which information has been collected in the current format and some forces have been unable to provide the information requested. The following table is based on the information so far available. It covers only 26 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales and may not be representative of the police service as a whole.

  Percentage of officers leaving the police service by length of service 2000–011,2,3

  Percentage of total leavers

  Less than 2 years

  7

  2 years—less than 5 years

  12

  Five years—less than 10 years

  13

  10 years and over

  68

  1 Percentages calculated using data from 26 forces in England and Wales: Avon and Somerset, Bedfordshire, Cheshire, City of London, Cleveland, Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Dyfed-Powys, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Merseyside, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Sussex, Thames Valley, Warwickshire, West Midlands and Wiltshire.

  2 Leaving: all leavers, medical or ordinary retirement, dismissals, resignations, transfers and deaths.

  3 Length of service is calculated as at 31 March 2000 and includes service in other police forces as well as in the force an officer left.

  Police Numbers (Nottinghamshire)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in Nottinghamshire. [10383]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Chief Constable that on 31 August the force had 2,285 police officers. This is 63 more officers than the force had in March 2001. Nottinghamshire Constabulary has set a budgeted work force total of 2,347 officers for 31 March 2002. On 31 March 2001 the force had 2,039 civilian support staff, 36 more than in March 1997.

  Fifty-eight recruits to Nottinghamshire Constabulary were funded by the crime fighting fund (CFF) in 2000–01 and the force expects to recruit 47 CFF officers in 2001–02.

  Terrorism (Civil Response)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for co-ordinating the civil response to a major terrorist attack. [13338]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As Chairman of the Civil Contingencies Committee, I have been leading a comprehensive review of our contingency plans. We are taking all sensible steps to make sure the country is well prepared to handle all eventualities, including a major terrorist attack.

  Building on the extensive work which was already in place, including leading up to the millennium, my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Ministers of State for policing and for local government, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office have also led working groups reporting to the committee on arrangements for key resilience and reassurance issues.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the prospects
  95W
  for the rate of change in the number of women prisoners since 1 May 1997 to be sustained; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change; and if he will make a statement. [14302]

  Beverley Hughes
  The female prison population has increased by 52 per cent. between 30 April 1997 and 30 September 2001.

  The main reason for the growth in this period is the rise in the custody rates at the courts. Around half the increase is accounted for by women imprisoned for drug offences; mainly unlawful importation of drugs, supplying class A drugs and possession with intent to supply class A drugs. During 2001, a rise in remands has also been a contributory factor.

  Projections of long term trends in the prison population to 2008 were published on 23 May 2001 (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 8/01). The central scenario assumed that the custody rates for females would increase at a rate of 4.5 per cent. per year until 2008. Both short and long-term prison population projections are currently under review, and a revised projection will be incorporated in the "Prison Population Brief, England and Wales" shortly. This is available on the Home Office website.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the capacity of each women's prison in the United Kingdom. [14303]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information sought is listed in the table and relates to female prisons in England and Wales. Information relating to prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland should be sought from the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Female Prisons: capacity on 12 November 2001

  Name

  Certified normal accommodation

  Operational capacity

  Askham Grange

  135

  135

  Brockhill

  166

  166

  Bullwood Hall

  180

  180

  Cookham Wood

  120

  150

  Downview

  227

  227

  Drake Hall

  267

  267

  Durham

  105

  109

  East Sutton Park

  94

  100

  Eastwood Park

  291

  324

  Foston Hall

  214

  219

  Highpoint

  298

  300

  Holloway

  468

  483

  Low Newton

  255

  285

  Morton Hall

  192

  192

  New Hall

  327

  386

  Send

  220

  220

  Styal

  412

  455

  Winchester

  55

  65

  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to(a) ensure that adequate provision has been made for the accommodation of women prisoners, (b) reduce the risk of suicide among women prisoners and (c) ensure the safety of prisoners at Downview prison in Surrey. [15288]
  96W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service Management Board continuously monitors the changes in population in order to ensure sufficient accommodation is provided for each group of offenders sent into prison custody. The change of function at Downview is one of the actions that was taken to provide adequate accommodation for women prisoners. Consideration is currently being given to the need to change the function of another male prison to accommodate women prisoners.

  Following the Prison Service Internal Review, "Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm in the Prison Service", a new three-year strategy to reduce prisoner suicides and self-harm was announced by my predecessor on 5 February. The main principles of the strategy apply across all types of prisons and prisoners whether male or female. Implementation of the strategy is being taken forward as part of a long-term programme aiming to reduce suicides and self-harm. This is an all-round approach to encourage a supportive culture in prisons based on good staff-prisoner relationships, a constructive regime and a physically safe environment. Among the five establishments chosen to pilot this programme is the women's prison and young offender institution Eastwood Park. The Prison Service has a duty of care to all prisoners in its custody, and recognises that self-harm is a particular problem among women offenders. The review highlighted the need for specific interventions for repetitive self-injury and a number of steps are being taken to address this issue. The Prison Service is considering alternative care pathways for those who injure themselves. After development, piloting and evaluation it is intended that specific interventions will be introduced in those prisons with a specific need.

  All prisoners are assessed for the potential for self-harm before allocation to Downview. Prisoners who have been identified as being at risk of self-harm are only being allocated to Her Majesty's Prison Downview if this provides additional support and is specified in their individual support plan. Prisoners exhibiting the potential for self-harm while at Downview are closely monitored.

  Metropolitan Police Informers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Metropolitan Police paid out to informers in the last year for which figures are available; how many informers received payments; and what was the average payment made. [15187]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that the total amount paid to informers for the financial year 2000–0] was £661,927. A total of 249 informers received payments during the course of that year. As some will have received multiple payments it is not possible to provide a representative average payment.

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the(a) essential characteristics and (b) definition of religious belief for the purposes of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. [16225]
  97W
  Angela Eagle
  Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill provides for the expansion of incitement to racial hatred and racially aggravated offences, to cover religious hatred and aggravated offences against members of religious groups.

  The Bill defines "religious hatred" as hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. A "religious group" is defined as a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. It will be for the courts, if required, to interpret religious belief. This is in keeping with the approach taken in Northern Ireland since 1987 and the approach taken in international human rights instruments.

  We do not believe that it is necessary in the criminal context to define religious groups. This law does not seek to defend religion or religious belief; instead it seeks to protect public order and religious groups from hatred and, in the case of aggravated offences, from violence and harassment. The Government do not intend to make value judgments about religions in this Bill. It is one thing to question, criticise or ridicule a religion and another thing to incite hatred against a group or to attack a person for holding beliefs.

  Indefinite Detention
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his powers in relation to persons detained indefinitely. [13861]

  Angela Eagle
  Powers of detention under the Immigration Acts are contained in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. Those in Schedule 2 are exercisable by immigration officers, principally in relation to individuals liable to further examination or removal. Those in Schedule 3 relate to individuals subject to deportation action and are exercisable by the Secretary of State. There are no statutory time limits on the duration of detention although, as a general principle, it should continue for no longer than is necessary.

  In addition, the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Bill will allow for the detention under Immigration Act powers of persons the Secretary of State has certified as being suspected international terrorists who are a threat to our national security, despite the fact that their removal or departure may be prevented for the time being by a point of law relating to an international agreement or by practical obstacles.

  Heroin
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on availability of street heroin in the United Kingdom of the collapse of the Taliban regime. [15818]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are keeping the situation under review but would expect any effects to take time to feed through.

  Kainos Community Projects
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Prison Service's assessment of the Kainos community projects. [15819]
  98W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service assessed Kainos on the basis of an independent evaluation of its operation in four prisons. The evaluation report is the property of the Kainos trustees. With their permission, a copy of the executive summary of the report is being placed on the Home Office website, and has also been placed in the Library.

  Prostitution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to tackle prostitution; and if he will make a statement. [13777]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 made kerb crawling an arrestable offence and created a new offence of placing prostitutes cards in telephone boxes. These measures came into effect on 1 October and 1 September respectively. They will assist police forces around the country to minimise the public nuisance caused by prostitution.

  We are also funding 11 projects as part of the crime reduction programme to find out 'what works' in tackling the crime and disorder associated with legislation. The funding is being used to pilot new methods of combating the nuisance associated with prostitution, preventing children becoming involved in prostitution and helping sex workers to exit prostitution. All the projects are being independently evaluated so that we can make best practice available to all practitioners working in this difficult area.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to prevent people from entering prostitution; and if he will make a statement. [13775]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government are concerned to prevent vulnerable people, particularly children, from entering prostitution. They are therefore keen to ensure that the criminal law deals properly with those who seek to coerce or induce people into prostitution or exploit them as prostitutes. "Setting The Boundaries: Reforming the law on Sex Offences", published in July 2000, makes recommendations for new offences to deal with this and the Government are looking at these very carefully in the light of responses to the consultation exercise. A decision on all the proposals in the report will be announced in due course.

  In addition, guidance on "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution" was published jointly by the Home Office and the Department of Health in May 2000. One of its key messages is that those under 18 who engage in prostitution are almost invariably victims and must be treated as such. Agencies must work together to identify children at risk to prevent them entering prostitution and help them exit it.

  Chemist Inspection Officers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of chemist inspection officers in police forces. [12814]

  Mr. Denham
  Chemist inspection officers play an important role in enforcing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and associated regulations. They are responsible for inspecting retail pharmacies to ensure that controlled
  99W
  drugs are being supplied as authorised, and appropriate records are being kept; investigating breaches of the law; and ensuring that standards of security are maintained where drugs are stored.

  The National Association of Chemist Inspection Officers was set up earlier this year with the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers in order to provide a forum for spreading best practice and understanding of the law on the possession, supply and destruction of pharmaceutical controlled drugs.

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the award of a Golden Jubilee medal to police; and if he will make a statement. [12665]

  Mr. Denham
  Representations have been received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; the Police Federation of England and Wales, the chief constable, West Midlands police, the Police Superintendents' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Representations have also been received from several hon. and right hon. Members of this House on behalf of their constituents. The Home Office is currently reviewing the position.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Censuses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the saving to public funds to be achieved by her Department's Private Finance Initiative contract with the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to digitise and make available on the internet the population censuses which are open to the public. [14894]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The programme to make digital copies of 100-year-old census returns available on the world wide web is part of the Government's policy to use IT to provide integrated, imaginative and convenient public services, with a target of making all Government services available electronically by 2005. Under a PFI contract, funding for the census digitisation is being provided by QinetiQ, formerly part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The project is intended to be self-financing through the sale of transcriptions and digital images of census pages.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost in 2000–01 was of the appointment of a health officer in the Public Record Office; and what it will be in 2001–02. [14895]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office does not employ a health officer.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the level of absenteeism was in the Public Record Office in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [14896]
  100W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The level of sickness absence in the Public Record Office is calculated by calendar year in accordance with Civil Service practice. The figures for the calendar years 1999 and 2000 are as follows:

  1999: 9.10 days per person per staff year

  2000: 10.63 days per person pet staff year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Public Record Office's Private Finance Initiative contract with a private supplier to provide its UK National Digital Archive of Datasets facility for preserving and making available Government electronic datasets. [14893]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office (PRO) has let a contract to provide its UK National Digital Archive of Datasets facility for preserving and making available Government datasets to the University of London Computing Centre. The purpose of the contract is to enable the PRO to use highly specialist skills of the University of London in the long-term preservation of electronic data so that the PRO can fulfil its obligation under the Public Records Act 1958 to preserve and make available to the public datasets selected for permanent preservation. Further information about the service and access to those datasets which are open to public inspection under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 is available on the PRO website at: http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/uknda/default.htm.

  Newcastle University Research (Family Law Act)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the £110,000 awarded in 2001–02 as grant in aid to Newcastle University for research into provision of information meetings. [14917]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is funding further research following the Final Evaluation Report on Information Meetings and Associated Provisions within the Family Law Act 1996. which was published on 16 January 2001. The study will follow up some of the volunteers who participated in the pilot information meetings, to assess the longer term outcomes in their cases over a 30-month period and in particular to assess what use they have made of the information provided to them. The research will contribute to the development of policy on providing information to divorcing couples, and to the development of Family Advice and Information Networks. The amount of grant in aid to be paid in 2001–02 is approximately £80,000, and it is expected that the total cost of the study will not exceed £191,500. The report of its findings is expected in June 2002 and will be published.

  Jury Deliberations
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will lift the ban on research into the deliberations of juries. [15179]

  Mr. Wills
  Research into the deliberations of juries is subject to the provisions of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Sir Robin Auld in his recent report on the criminal courts recommended that no amendment should be made to section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court
  101W
  Act. The Government have made no decisions in relation to any of the Auld recommendations, and the report is currently the subject of public consultation.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) male and (b) female members of ethnic communities are Queen's Counsel. [14943]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Statistics held by the General Council of the Bar show that as at 7 November 2001, out of a total of 1,086 Queen's Counsel, 23 men and two women have stated that they are members of ethnic minority communities, although these statements are voluntary and not definitive.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the additional money granted to the Lord Chancellor's Department to clear the backlog of asylum appeals will be made available to the Legal Services Commission for representation for appellants; and if she will make a statement. [15953]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In total an additional £80 million has been granted to the Community Legal Service Fund for the three year period 2001–02 to 2003–04 to meet the additional pressures that result from the Government's plans for speeding up the asylum process and reducing the backlog of cases. That sum represents 29 per cent. of the total additional money granted to the Department for asylum matters.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received since September from his Irish counterpart in respect of Sellafield; and what response he has made. [14695]

  The Prime Minister
  The Taoiseach and I discussed the Sellafield MOX Plant on 8 October. I subsequently wrote to the Taoiseach about the matter.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the request by the Government of the Republic of Ireland on 26 October for a voluntary suspension of the authorisation of the Sellafield Mox plant; and if he will make a statement. [14723]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision that the manufacture of MOX fuel was justified was made by the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Health on 3 October. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are challenging this decision in the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea. The Secretaries of State have declined Ireland's request to suspend their decision.

  Peoples' Peers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans for peoples' peers. [14815]
  102W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government's White Paper on further reform of the House of Lords "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform" CM 5291 proposes that the statutory appointments commission will select independent members of the reformed House on the basis of defined criteria on experience, commitment and the overall balance of representation in the Chamber.

  Anji Hunter
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the dates on which he was informed of offers of employment made by BP to Anji Hunter; [15189]

  (2) when he was informed of Anji Hunter's intention to leave his employ. [15191]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: Ms Hunter had planned to leave her job after the general election, and had been in discussions with BP. I asked her to stay on to help see in the new Government and bed down the new structures which were being put in place. However, there had always been an understanding that she would be likely to leave in the autumn. BP announced her employment on Thursday 8 November.

  Ms Hunter followed the requirements of the business appointments rules to which she is subject.

  BP
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates since 1 May 1997 on which(a) he, (b) one or more of his special advisers, (c) one or more civil servants based at 10 Downing street and (d) one or more civil servants based within the Cabinet Office have met representatives from BP, setting out the purpose and consequence of each such meeting. [15190]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Legal Appointment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the announcement of the appointment of the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland to be made. [15473]

  The Prime Minister
  It was announced on Tuesday 13 November that the right hon. Lord Cullen be appointed Lord President of the Court of Session. On appointment as Lord President, Lord Cullen also becomes Lord Justice General.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the events of 11 September have changed the assessment of protection afforded by the proposed national missile defence system. [15651]

  The Prime Minister
  The proposed missile defence systems are not designed to protect against the type of attack seen on 11 September. The events of 11 September have shown however that there are those who will seek to attack, with whatever means are available, the United States, its friends and allies. In the future, this might include ballistic missiles. Our position with regard to missile
  103W
  defence remains unchanged. We believe that it is important to tackle all these potential threats with a comprehensive strategy that includes arms control, counter-proliferation, diplomacy, deterrence and defensive measures. We understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of that comprehensive strategy, but as yet we have had no specific proposal from the United States.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the Outer Space Treaty with the proposed US national missile defence programme as it applies to use of UK bases. [15652]

  The Prime Minister
  The United States Administration have not yet decided how they will proceed with their missile defence programme and have made no requests for the use of facilities in the UK for missile defence purposes. Any specific assessment is therefore premature.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of plant and equipment installed in 10 Downing Street in the past 12 months contains HFCs. [15526]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: In accordance with the UK Climate Change Programme, Government policy is that wherever possible HFCs are only used where other safe, technically feasible, cost effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist.

  During the last 12 months 27 cooling units have been installed which contain HFCs. The manufacturer does not offer the option of non-HFC refrigerant because the available non-HFC refrigerants are not safe to use either in occupied enclosed spaces or enclosed spaces containing electrical equipment. All these systems comply with all relevant European Standards on the use of HFCs and safety in the workplace.

  Ministerial Meeting (Indian Prime Minister)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Minister of India in London on 12 November. [15748]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Indian Prime Minister, Sri A B Vajpayee, in London for talks on 12 November. These talks followed on from discussions we had held when I visited New Delhi on 6 October. The 12 November talks focused largely on the coalition campaign against terrorism which India strongly supports, and the future of Afghanistan. The talks were timely and productive, and demonstrated the strength of the bilateral relationship.

  Forward Strategy Unit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the methods by which public accountability of the Forward Strategy Unit is achieved. [15880]

  The Prime Minister
  The unit reports direct to me and is headed by Geoff Mulgan, who is also Director of the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the purpose of the Forward Strategy Unit is; and what its aims, objectives and workplan are for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; [15884]

  (2) what mechanism exist to prevent the use of the Forward Strategy Unit for party political purposes; and what independent checks exist to ensure such mechanisms are effective. [15886]

  The Prime Minister
  The Forward Strategy Unit's role is to provide long-term internal strategic analysis and policy thinking for me and other Cabinet Ministers.

  The work of the Forward Strategy Unit is undertaken in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister in respect of the Forward Strategy Unit, what the budget is for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03: and how many (i) officials and (ii) special advisers are presently deployed to this unit. [15883]

  The Prime Minister
  The budget for the Forward Strategy Unit is still being finalised.

  At 1 September 2001, there were 15 civil servants in the unit, and no special advisers.

  Official Visits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister which constituencies he has visited on official duties since 1 May 1997; and on how many occasions in each case. [15879]

  The Prime Minister
  I undertake visits to all parts of the country, but records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Shipping Services (Scotland)
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on departmental responsibility for financial assistance to shipping services between a port within Scotland and one outside Scotland. [15694]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a reserved matter for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

HEALTH

  Special Schools
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if residential special schools have to be registered with his Department. [10707]

  Jacqui Smith
  Currently residential special schools are required to register with the Department for Education and Skills, and the responsibility for welfare inspections lies with the local authority.

  In April 2002 residential special schools will be required to register with the National Care Standards Commission when it takes on responsibility for the welfare inspections of boarding schools. Residential special schools will still be required to register with the DfES, which is responsible for educational inspections.

  NHS Underspend
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how will the underspend in the NHS this year be allocated in the next financial year. [11069]

  Mr. Hutton
  Any underspends by health authorities, primary care trusts and national health service trusts in 2001–02 will be added to their resource budgets in 2002–03.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the level of underspending by the NHS in the last financial year. [11070]

  Mr. Hutton
  The provisional underspend for health and personal social services in 2000–01 is £692 million. This includes health authorities, primary care trusts and national health service trusts. Final figures for 2000–01 will not be available until the annual accounts have been completed.

  Over one third of this sum was a planned contingency to meet costs falling in the current financial year. The total underspend has been carried forward and is being used on provision of health care in this financial year.

  NHS Specialists
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the national shortage of(a) psychiatrists, (b) occupational therapists, (c) speech and language therapists, (d) GPs and (e) healthcare professionals engaged in palliative care in the national health service. [11086]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan recognises that the national health service needs more staff and commits the Government to increasing the size of the NHS work force. By 2004 there will be 7,500 more consultants, 1,000 more specialist registrars, 2,000 more general practitioners,106W
  20,000 extra nurses and over 6,500 extra therapists and other health professionals over a 1999 baseline. We have since rolled these targets forward and by 2005 there will be at least 10,000 more doctors and 20,000 more nurses over a 2000 baseline.

  We are also increasing training numbers. Numbers of psychiatric specialist registrars (SpRs) are planned to increase by over 130 and palliative medicine SpRs by 15 during the period 2001 to 2004. There will be an additional 4,500 therapists and other health professionals (including occupational therapists and speech and language therapists) in the next three years as a result of the NHS Plan. We are also increasing general practitioner retainer numbers by 550 and nurse training commissions by 5,500 over the next three years.

  The increases in all staff groups are essential for delivering the service improvements set out in the NHS Plan and improving access and delivering quality services at the right time in the right place.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the level of spending on health per weighted head of population was in each English health authority area in 2000–01; [11308]

  (2) what the levels of spending on health per head of population were in each English health authority area for the year 2000–01. [11472]

  Mr. Hutton
  The spending on health per head of population and the spending per weighted head of population for each English health authority is given in the table.

  £

  Health authority

  Spending per head

  Spending per weighted head

  Avon

  760.44

  810.53

  Barking and Havering

  783.61

  748.55

  Barnet

  938.60

  939.62

  Barnsley

  810.90

  739.66

  Bedfordshire

  678.73

  739.78

  Berkshire

  663.59

  757.49

  Bexley and Greenwich

  850.60

  828.82

  Birmingham

  799.05

  764.32

  Bradford

  716.32

  692.45

  Brent and Harrow

  842.05

  804.74

  Bromley

  770.03

  791.35

  Buckinghamshire

  628.52

  730.37

  Bury and Rochdale

  777.01

  740.61

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  752.16

  742.27

  Cambridgeshire

  645.05

  727.68

  Camden and Islington

  1,309.52

  974.71

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  768.07

  766.48

  County Durham and Darlington

  781.89

  707.44

  Coventry

  756.20

  733.34

  Croydon

  872.21

  896.26

  Doncaster

  758.20

  710.42

  Dorset

  922.53

  932.50

  Dudley

  699.19

  728.03

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  890.48

  801.92

  East and North Hertfordshire

  679.89

  755.61

  East Kent

  789.01

  766.12

  East Lancashire

  774.59

  706.83

  107W

  £

  Health authority

  Spending per head

  Spending per weighted head

  East London and The City

  1,050.29

  812.98

  East Riding and Hull

  756.85

  770.24

  East Surrey

  811.30

  872.74

  East Sussex. Brighton and Hove

  814.92

  778.73

  Enfield and Haringey

  853.78

  791.72

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  827.72

  727.09

  Gloucestershire

  709.58

  778.71

  Herefordshire

  630.53

  671.61

  Hillingdon

  614.16

  614.53

  Isle of Wight

  902.29

  836.61

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,124.30

  878.86

  Kingston and Richmond

  766.23

  795.64

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,050.63

  852.49

  Leeds

  792.61

  785.61

  Leicestershire

  695.29

  762.11

  Lincolnshire

  726.96

  746.46

  Liverpool

  937.36

  808.94

  Manchester

  897.69

  761.45

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  833.71

  796.03

  Morecambe Bay

  802.77

  794.67

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  875.42

  787.58

  Norfolk

  727.29

  760.50

  North and East Devon

  755.94

  769.90

  North and Mid Hampshire

  675.63

  813.99

  North Cheshire

  765.81

  756.15

  North Cumbria

  747.18

  757.42

  North Derbyshire

  709.66

  719.00

  North Essex

  717.97

  777.34

  North Nottinghamshire

  680.19

  679.24

  North Staffordshire

  764.16

  725.72

  North West Lancashire

  823.75

  746.26

  North Yorkshire

  712.46

  763.24

  Northamptonshire

  668.89

  734.29

  Northumberland

  759.70

  751.21

  Nottingham

  773.74

  780.25

  Oxfordshire

  663.94

  779.26

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  692.27

  733.14

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  836.65

  812.97

  Rotherham

  785.72

  742.99

  Salford and Trafford

  847.61

  784.35

  Sandwell

  806.21

  744.36

  Sefton

  1,109.10

  1,023.16

  Sheffield

  818.63

  769.93

  Shropshire

  693.26

  740.93

  Solihull

  680.80

  736.55

  Somerset

  710.45

  754.86

  South and West Devon

  736.99

  735.69

  South Cheshire

  701.33

  743.64

  South Essex

  683.81

  717.08

  South Humber

  713.80

  721.20

  South Lancashire

  728.91

  765.98

  South Staffordshire

  659.48

  735.88

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  707.61

  758.07

  Southern Derbyshire

  679.51

  706.49

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  797.28

  722.31

  Stockport

  724.05

  746.47

  Suffolk

  684.27

  757.91

  Sunderland

  855.34

  760.22

  Tees

  829.28

  768.50

  Wakefield

  826.37

  801.36

  Walsall

  775.51

  739.30

  Warwickshire

  708.45

  771.73

  West Hertfordshire

  716.30

  765.17

  West Kent

  674.81

  744.60

  West Pennine

  765.01

  712.85

  West Surrey

  725.53

  809.35

  West Sussex

  735.31

  742.11

  Wigan and Bolton

  773.24

  717.35

  Wiltshire

  714.72

  807.29

  Wirral

  822.16

  758.47

  Wolverhampton

  790.82

  739.83

  Worcestershire

  717.78

  801.38

  All England

  770.91

  770.91

  108W
  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent on the purchase of health care by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within the health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

  2. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialities which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also distort the figures so the results are therefore not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.

  Sources:

  1. Health authority audited summarisation forms 2000–01

  2. Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

  3. Mid year population estimates and weighted population estimates for 2000–01

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority area in England, the expenditure on health, by weighted head of population, expressed in real terms for each of the last two years for which figures are available. [13619]

  Mr. Hutton
  The expenditure on health by weighted head of population in real terms for each health authority area in England for the two latest years is shown in the table.

  £

  Health authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon

  747.51

  810.53

  Barking and Havering

  700.84

  748.55

  Barnet

  768.20

  939.62

  Barnsley

  679.59

  739.66

  Bedfordshire

  696.69

  739.78

  Berkshire

  718.34

  757.49

  Bexley and Greenwich

  793.77

  828.82

  Birmingham

  749.03

  764.32

  Bradford

  724.17

  692.45

  Brent and Harrow

  823.35

  804.74

  Bromley

  793.39

  791.35

  Buckinghamshire

  685.31

  730.37

  Bury and Rochdale

  707.36

  740.61

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  691.84

  742.27

  Cambridgeshire

  702.68

  727.68

  Camden and Islington

  834.92

  974.71

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  751.33

  766.48

  County Durham

  675.16

  707.44

  Coventry

  676.64

  733.34

  Croydon

  712.27

  896.26

  Doncaster

  711.02

  710.42

  Dorset

  743.89

  932.50

  Dudley

  684.70

  728.03

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  747.62

  801.92

  East and North Hertfordshire

  707.99

  755.61

  East Kent

  703.87

  766.12

  East Lancashire

  720.19

  706.83

  East London and The City

  789.78

  812.98

  East Riding

  716.52

  770.24

  East Surrey

  837.92

  872.74

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  780.63

  778.73

  Enfield and Haringey

  717.28

  791.72

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  677.22

  727.09

  Gloucestershire

  745.23

  778.71

  Herefordshire

  825.52

  671.61

  Hillingdon

  719.40

  614.53

  Isle of Wight

  773.74

  836.61

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  795.92

  878.86

  Kingston and Richmond

  769.12

  795.64

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  804.71

  852.49

  109W

  £

  Health authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Leeds

  755.50

  785.61

  Leicestershire

  739.63

  762.11

  Lincolnshire

  725.73

  746.46

  Liverpool

  749.48

  808.94

  Manchester

  787.86

  761.45

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  839.01

  796.03

  Morecambe Bay

  786.62

  794.67

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  787.25

  787.58

  Norfolk

  740.53

  760.50

  North and East Devon

  724.43

  769.90

  North and Mid Hampshire

  735.98

  813.99

  North Cheshire

  721.36

  756.15

  North Cumbria

  704.01

  757.42

  North Derbyshire

  684.19

  719.00

  North Essex

  740.78

  777.34

  North Nottinghamshire

  715.05

  679.24

  North Staffordshire

  687.60

  725.72

  North West Lancashire

  721.61

  746.26

  North Yorkshire

  722.87

  763.24

  Northamptonshire

  713.85

  734.29

  Northumberland

  752.58

  751.21

  Nottingham

  723.95

  780.25

  Oxfordshire

  733.57

  779.26

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  682.05

  733.14

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  748.03

  812.97

  Rotherham

  702.11

  742.99

  Salford and Trafford

  740.20

  784.35

  Sandwell

  709.97

  744.36

  Sefton

  719.10

  1,023.16

  Sheffield

  771.96

  769.93

  Shropshire

  729.71

  740.94

  Solihull

  700.29

  736.55

  Somerset

  709.49

  754.86

  South and West Devon

  726.34

  735.69

  South Cheshire

  709.08

  743.64

  South Derbyshire

  688.78

  717.08

  South Essex

  673.43

  721.20

  South Humber

  784.66

  765.98

  South Lancashire

  748.52

  735.88

  South Staffordshire

  699.52

  758.07

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  738.44

  706.49

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  670.55

  722.31

  Stockport

  728.46

  746.47

  Suffolk

  717.21

  757.91

  Sunderland

  688.21

  760.22

  Tees

  735.18

  768.50

  Wakefield

  713.77

  801.36

  Walsall

  726.59

  739.30

  Warwickshire

  741.27

  771.73

  West Hertfordshire

  725.94

  765.17

  West Kent

  771.41

  744.60

  West Pennine

  674.21

  712.85

  West Surrey

  781.74

  809.35

  West Sussex

  694.99

  742.11

  Wigan and Bolton

  660.84

  717.35

  Wiltshire

  776.22

  807.29

  Wirral

  717.31

  758.47

  Wolverhampton

  698.10

  739.83

  Worcestershire

  731.92

  801.38

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent on the purchase of health care by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within the health authority area. The majority of general dental services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

  2. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialties which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also
  110W
  distort the figures so the results are therefore not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.

  Source:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01. Weighted population estimates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. GDP deflator at market prices with 2000–01 as the base year.

  Nursing and Midwifery
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will amend the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to include health visiting in the title of the new Nursing and Midwifery Council; and if he will make a statement; [12051]

  (2) what recent representations he has received about the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 and the regulation of health visitors; and if he will place them in the Library; [12019]

  (3) what plans he has to regulate the profession of health visiting. [12054]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have undertaken extensive consultation on the proposals to establish a new Nursing and Midwifery Council. The draft legislation recognises health visitors' special contribution to public health and contains a number of safeguards for health visiting. There will be a separate part of the register for health visitors, protection of their professional title and they will be guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and midwives. Legislation is in the final stages of preparation and will be published shortly, together with a report on consultation. There are no plans to amend the proposed title of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means the published figures for the proposed establishments for(a) GPs, (b) nurses and (c) consultants are collated; and what account is taken of drop-out rates. [12518]

  Mr. Hutton
  The analysis of the number of additional health professional staff required during the period of the NHS Plan was based principally on work done in support of the National Service Frameworks and delivery of waiting, booking and access commitments.

  The increases are net increases and take account of staff leaving the national health service and attrition during training. They are based on what is deliverable from training, recruitment and retention initiatives and international recruitment.

  Consultants
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unfilled consultant posts there are within the NHS in England and Wales, broken down by region. [12618]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data collected for England are in the tables. The information relating to Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.
  111W

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2001—vacancies in national health service trusts by region, and medical and dental consultants—three month vacancies

  Total consultants1

  England

  670

  Northern and Yorkshire

  110

  Trent

  70

  West midlands

  90

  North west

  130

  Eastern

  60

  London

  100

  South east

  70

  South west

  30

  1 Whole-time equivalents.

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  2. Numbers are round to the nearest 10.

  3. England totals include staff from special health authorities.

  4. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health vacancies survey 2001.

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2001—vacancies in national health service trusts by region, and medical and dental consultants—three month vacancies

  Percentage

  Total consultants

  England

  3.0

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3.6

  Trent

  3.2

  West midlands

  3.9

  North west

  4.1

  Eastern

  3.1

  London

  2.5

  South east

  2.2

  South west

  1.4

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses (whole-time equivalent).

  3. Percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  4. England percentages include staff from special health authorities.

  Source:

  Department of Health vacancies survey 2001.

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services medical and dental consultants by region, 30 September 2000

  Total consultants1

  England

  22,140

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,030

  Trent

  2,180

  West midlands

  2,230

  North west

  3,120

  Eastern

  1,970

  London

  4,160

  South east

  3,330

  South west

  2,020

  1 Whole-time equivalents

  112W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. England totals include staff from special health authorities.

  3. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  4. Figures cannot be used to calculate percentages.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental work force census.

  NICE
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of time taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to report on the cost effectiveness of drugs referred to them by the national health service. [12549]

  Ms Blears
  The appraisal process takes about one year. The timetable can be longer for appraisals which are particularly complex or where the determination is subject to appeal.

  Nurses
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage the retention of nursing staff. [12378]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are fully committed to investing in national health service staff. The NHS Plan introduced the improving working lives standard, a model of good employment practices against which NHS organisations are measured. NHS organisations are required to provide a portfolio of evidence that they are improving the working lives of staff.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the cost of living supplement has had on the recruitment of nurses in(a) qualifying and (b) non-qualifying health authorities. [13941]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: Cost of living supplements were introduced in April 2001 as part of a wide-ranging strategy to address recruitment and retention in the national health service. It is too early to judge the impact of these new payments. The Department is committed to monitoring the impact of COLS.

  Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further proposals to develop services at Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital he has considered; and if he will make a statement. [12375]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Hillingdon Local Modernisation Review aims to identify high priority areas for modernisation and development and will set the strategic context for the longer term development of Hillingdon health and social care services. Proposals relating to Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital will emerge from that work and will take account of the needs of Harrow residents. Any proposals for change will form the subject of full public consultation.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which professional and representative medical bodies he has consulted concerning the practicalities and consequences of NHS patients receiving treatment in other EU member states; what(a) legislative and (b) regulatory

  113W
  changes are necessary to allow such treatment; what EU legislation governs such arrangements and what duties it imposes; and if he will make a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Justice. [12882]

  Mr. Hutton
  The recent judgments of the European Court of Justice in the joined cases Geraets-Smits/ Peerbooms and Case Vanbraekel (joined Cases C-157/99 and Case 368/98 respectively) marked a development in the interpretation of directly applicable provisions of European Community law These provisions override even inconsistent national law and must be given effect to. The relevant provisions of the National Health Service Act 1977 will be amended in the interests of legal certainty. This can be done by regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 and this is in hand. In the meantime health authorities and NHS trusts are free to commission services abroad. However, sending patients abroad does pose practical and legal problems surrounding patient welfare. Besides establishing three test-bed sites to develop processes for sending patients abroad officials are discussing the practical and legal issues involved with relevant colleagues and interested parties, including the British Medical Association.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to satisfy the health needs of asylum seekers. [12861]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under national health service legislation, any asylum seeker given leave to remain in the United Kingdom or awaiting a decision on their application is regarded as ordinarily resident and is eligible for free treatment from a general practitioner and eligible to receive NHS hospital treatment. More specifically the Department is working with the Home Office to ensure that the health of asylum seekers is a key consideration in the reform of the asylum system announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Also, officials are working with the Refugee Council to identify existing best practice in meeting the health and social care needs of asylum seekers dispersed through the National Asylum Support Service. This guidance is expected to be available early next year.

  Royal United Hospital (Waiting Times)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the trends in waiting times for MRI scans at the Royal United hospital, Bath in the last 12 months. [12855]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect information on waiting times for MRI scans, however, information from the Royal United hospital, Bath national health service trust shows that between June 2001 and October 2001 the maximum waiting time had reduced by 1.3 months.

  The trust has been running additional sessions to reduce the waiting times. It has also appointed two additional consultant radiologists and two new senior radiographers which will enable the trust to increase MRI capacity.

  The RUH is looking to make a business case for a second MRI scanner.

  National Service Frameworks
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the Government uses to decide the order in which national service frameworks are commissioned and released. [12705]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: In the selection of a topic for the national service framework programme, the main criteria are the importance of a health issue in terms of morbidity and mortality; the need for service improvement; and the capacity of the national health service and its partner agencies to implement the framework.

  Beta Interferon
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost of prescribing beta interferon to all patients who need it under the pilot scheme. [13267]

  Ms Blears
  We are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available under the national health service. One option is a "risk sharing" scheme which will evaluate their clinical and cost-effectiveness, and until these discussions are concluded we cannot provide detailed information on potential numbers of patients and likely costs.

  Anti-TNF Treatment
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the refusal of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth NHS to fund anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment for a patient living in Battersea with rheumatoid arthritis. [13172]

  Ms Blears
  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority recognise the potential benefit of anti-TNF treatments and are funding 24 patients who are part of an already established clinical trial. The health authority is not currently funding new patients. However, its health modernisation group is due to meet shortly to review the funding for these treatments. Funding for anti-TNF drugs will be considered along with other priorities as part of the HA process for financial planning for 2002–03.

  Breastfeeding
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) midwives and (b) health visitor training is dedicated to breastfeeding support; and how many hours training this involves. [13519]

  Jacqui Smith
  The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) requires that all midwifery pre-registration students should be able to provide"advice and support on feeding babies and teaching women about the importance of nutrition in child development".

  The UKCC does not set any specific requirement for health visitor training on breastfeeding support. The statutory bodies do not define the hours required for specific topics within the total hours of the curriculum.

  Cranial Osteopathy
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of cranial osteopathy in the NHS. [13658]

  Jacqui Smith
  Decisions on national health service provision of complementary or alternative medicine treatments are made by those responsible for commissioning health services for patients locally.

  Osteopathy—of which cranial osteopathy is one form—is already available on the NHS, and is included in the information pack on complementary and alternative medicine for primary care groups which the Department published in July 2000.

  Post-natal Care
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the post-natal care of mothers of multiple births. [13657]

  Jacqui Smith
  Post-natal care for women is provided on the basis of assessed health and parenting needs of the mother and baby rather than on the basis of the number of babies born. A range of family support services is available through health (doctors, midwives and health visitors) and social services.

  We are currently developing the National Service Framework for Children, which will include the setting of new standards of quality for maternity services and post-natal care for all women.

  Red Card Scheme
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals are taking part in the red card scheme; how many(a) red and (b) yellow cards have been issued; and what changes have been observed in the levels of violence to staff in the hospitals involved. [13722]

  Ms Blears
  The Department issued national guidelines to national health service trusts to help develop policies on withholding NHS treatment from violent and abusive patients on 2 November 2001. All trusts must consider the need to develop a local policy on withholding treatment from violent and abusive patients. Such policies and procedures should form part of local policies addressing safer working conditions and should be in place by April 2002.

  St. Bartholomews and the London NHS Trust introduced a policy on the withdrawal of treatment from violent patients, also known as the yellow and red card scheme, in September 2000. The policy has had a significant deterrent effect, and although the trust has issued eight yellow cards (formal written warnings), it has not proved necessary to issue red cards (withdrawal of treatment).

  Impotence Treatments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses to the public consultation on eligibility for impotence treatments were(a) against and (b) in favour of the current restrictions in prescribing treatments. [13489]
  116W
  Ms Blears
  We received 220 responses from manufacturers, health professionals and patients. 202 expressed opposition to the current arrangements.

  The current system was introduced in 1999 to get a balance between treating men with impotence and protecting national health service resources to deal with other priorities including those with cancer, heart disease and mental health problems. Expenditure on impotence treatment drugs, at £25 million a year, is above what we expected and continues to increase. We have concluded that the extra cost of allowing unrestricted prescribing might be substantially higher leading to diversion of funds from other NHS priorities.

  Repair and Maintenance
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog figures in each health authority in England are for each of the last two years. [13620]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures collected which generally reflect the cost of outstanding repair and maintenance of hospitals are known as the "cost to achieve Estatecode condition B". In relation to a building's physical condition this is the condition whereby the property is considered to be physically sound, operationally safe and exhibits only minor deterioration.

  Costs to achieve Estatecode condition B (physical condition) for the year 1999–2000, grouped into each health authority in England, are shown in the table. Similar costs for the year 2000–01 are still in the process of collection and validation and are unlikely to be available until early next year.

  Figures for special health authorities (SHA), figures are only collected in connection with special hospitals and therefore exclude costs relating to all other SHA organisations (for example, Family Health Services Appeal Authority, Commission for Health Improvement, NHS Information Authority).

  £

  Health authority

  Cost to achieve estatecode Condition 1999–2000

  Avon

  57,879,000

  Barking and Havering

  28,934,000

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  46,206,000

  Barnsley

  2,110,000

  Bedfordshire

  12,804,000

  Berkshire

  74,205,000

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  70,395,000

  Birmingham

  172,926,000

  Bradford

  26,722,000

  Brent and Harrow

  29,783,000

  Buckinghamshire

  30,607,000

  Bury and Rochdale

  7,539,000

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  52,980,000

  Cambridgeshire

  33,866,000

  Camden and Islington

  79,819,000

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  13,279,000

  County Durham

  13,538,000

  Coventry

  74,391,000

  Croydon

  31,100,000

  Doncaster

  14,368,000

  Dorset

  10,203,000

  Dudley

  28,070,000

  117W

  £

  Health authority

  Cost to achieve estatecode Condition 1999–2000

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  96,230,000

  East Kent

  11,517,000

  East Lancashire

  29,117,000

  East London and The City

  113,466,000

  East Riding

  59,189,000

  East Surrey

  4,802,000

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  18,970,000

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  7,228,000

  Gloucestershire

  15,704,000

  Herefordshire

  7,661,000

  Hertfordshire

  80,084,000

  Hillingdon

  6,030,000

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  9,422,000

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  63,276,000

  Kingston and Richmond

  8,667,000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  126,844,000

  Leeds

  81,440,000

  Leicestershire

  81,519,000

  Lincolnshire

  32,449,000

  Liverpool

  27,675,000

  Manchester

  110,612,000

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  35,151,000

  Morecambe Bay

  11,700,000

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  44,542,000

  Norfolk

  30,123,000

  North and East Devon

  8,103,000

  North and Mid Hampshire

  17,216,000

  North Cheshire

  3,201,000

  North Cumbria

  20,268,000

  North Derbyshire

  5,748,000

  North Essex

  38,632,000

  North Nottinghamshire

  13,211,000

  North Staffordshire

  40,824,000

  North West Lancashire

  33,003,000

  North Yorkshire

  23,115,000

  Northamptonshire

  21,652,000

  Northumberland

  15,984,000

  Nottingham

  71,949,000

  Oxfordshire

  52,084,000

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  63,457,000

  Rotherham

  4,306,000

  Salford and Trafford

  17,681,000

  Sandwell

  7,681,000

  Sefton

  10,679,000

  Sheffield

  27,142,000

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2001. Number of 3 month vacancies—by region and health authority areas

  whole-tune equivalents

  All medical and dental

  Qualified nurses

  Qualified allied health professionals

  Health authority

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  England

  770

  920

  10,110

  9,000

  1,450

  1,820

  Northern and Yorkshire

  130

  150

  840

  760

  130

  240

  Bradford

  20

  10

  80

  70

  10

  20

  Calderdale and Kirlees

  20

  20

  50

  90

  10

  10

  County Durham and Darlington

  10

  20

  30

  10

  10

  10

  East Riding and Hull

  10

  20

  20

  90

  10

  20

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  10

  10

  30

  20

  10

  10

  Leeds

  10

  10

  240

  200

  30

  60

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  10

  0

  260

  40

  10

  10

  North Cumbria

  10

  10

  10

  20

  0

  20

  North Yorkshire

  10

  0

  10

  20

  0

  20

  Northumberland

  10

  20

  40

  40

  20

  20

  Sunderland

  0

  20

  10

  10

  0

  10

  Tees

  0

  20

  30

  110

  10

  10

  Wakefield

  10

  10

  30

  40

  10

  20

  118W

  £

  Health authority

  Cost to achieve estatecode Condition 1999–2000

  Shropshire

  35,628,000

  Solihull

  1,656,000

  Somerset

  10,211,000

  South and West Deveon

  13,210,000

  South Cheshire

  5,266,000

  South Essex

  17,333,000

  South Humber

  5,073,000

  South Lancashire

  4,855,000

  South Staffordshire

  10,283,000

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  24,627,000

  Southern Derbyshire

  4,565,000

  Special Trusts

  9,022,000

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  8,095,000

  Stockport

  16,168,000

  Suffolk

  31,056,000

  Sunderland

  11,621,000

  Tees

  46,361,000

  Wakefield

  30,028,000

  Walsall

  7,402,000

  Warwickshire

  6,093,000

  West Kent

  78,524,000

  West Pennine

  10,207,000

  West Surrey

  21,332,000

  West Sussex

  50,027,000

  Wigan and Bolton

  12,343,000

  Wiltshire

  30,824,000

  Wirral

  8,877,000

  Wolverhampton

  18,831,000

  Worcestershire

  23,655,000

  Grand total

  3,074,431,000

  Note:

  Special health authorities include special hospitals only (e.g. Ashworth, Rampton and Broadmoor)

  Vacancies
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies per health authority there were in England, broken down by(a) dental and medical staff, (b) nursing and midwifery staff and (c) professions allied to medicine, in each of the last two years for which figures are available. [13612]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.
  119W 120W

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2001. Number of 3 month vacancies—by region and health authority areas

  whole-time equivalents

  All medical and dental

  Qualified nurses

  Qualified allied health professionals

  Health authority

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  Trent

  60

  90

  490

  410

  90

  110

  Barnsley

  0

  10

  10

  20

  0

  10

  Doncaster

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Leicestershire

  10

  0

  130

  50

  10

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  10

  0

  50

  0

  30

  North Derbyshire

  0

  0

  10

  20

  0

  10

  North Nottinghamshire

  10

  10

  20

  20

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  10

  10

  110

  150

  20

  10

  Rotherham

  10

  10

  10

  20

  0

  10

  Sheffield

  0

  10

  90

  60

  10

  0

  South Humber

  10

  20

  20

  10

  20

  20

  Southern Derbyshire

  0

  10

  60

  10

  10

  10

  West Midlands

  80

  110

  950

  810

  150

  210

  Birmingham

  30

  30

  350

  180

  40

  80

  Coventry

  10

  10

  70

  90

  10

  30

  Dudley

  0

  10

  60

  50

  10

  10

  Herefordshire

  0

  10

  0

  40

  0

  10

  North Staffordshire

  10

  20

  120

  170

  10

  30

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  80

  70

  20

  10

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  30

  90

  20

  30

  Solihull

  0

  0

  30

  10

  0

  0

  South Staffordshire

  0

  10

  20

  20

  10

  20

  Walsall

  10

  10

  50

  10

  20

  30

  Warwickshire

  0

  10

  50

  50

  0

  20

  Wolverhampton

  0

  10

  80

  10

  10

  30

  Worcestershire

  10

  10

  30

  20

  20

  10

  North West

  100

  160

  780

  940

  160

  220

  Bury and Rochdale

  10

  10

  40

  30

  10

  10

  East Lancashire

  10

  20

  10

  40

  10

  30

  Liverpool

  20

  20

  80

  50

  20

  10

  Manchester

  10

  20

  150

  160

  30

  30

  Morecambe Bay

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  North Cheshire

  0

  10

  30

  140

  10

  20

  North West Lancashire

  0

  10

  130

  70

  10

  10

  Salford and Trafford

  0

  0

  50

  90

  10

  10

  Sefton

  0

  10

  30

  50

  10

  10

  South Cheshire

  0

  10

  30

  30

  10

  10

  South Lancashire

  0

  10

  10

  30

  0

  10

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  10

  10

  30

  40

  10

  10

  Stockport

  0

  0

  20

  40

  10

  10

  West Pennine

  10

  10

  70

  50

  20

  50

  Wigan and Bolton

  10

  10

  80

  60

  0

  10

  Wirral

  0

  0

  20

  40

  20

  10

  Eastern

  80

  80

  1,130

  720

  190

  160

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  40

  40

  0

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  10

  350

  110

  50

  30

  East and North Hertfordshire

  10

  0

  150

  110

  30

  40

  Norfolk

  0

  20

  70

  150

  20

  30

  North Essex

  10

  10

  240

  80

  50

  10

  South Essex

  0

  20

  30

  30

  0

  20

  Suffolk

  20

  10

  50

  10

  20

  0

  West Hertfordshire

  10

  0

  190

  180

  30

  20

  London

  170

  160

  3,360

  2,960

  410

  470

  Barking and Havering

  20

  10

  100

  130

  30

  40

  Barnet

  0

  0

  70

  30

  10

  20

  Bexley and Greenwich

  10

  10

  110

  180

  0

  20

  Brent and Harrow

  10

  0

  110

  110

  20

  30

  Bromley

  10

  10

  120

  100

  0

  10

  Camden and Islington

  20

  10

  590

  280

  40

  40

  Croydon

  0

  10

  70

  40

  20

  10

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  10

  10

  380

  340

  40

  60

  East London and the City

  20

  20

  80

  70

  30

  40

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  10

  10

  60

  10

  10

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  480

  330

  0

  10

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  10

  10

  130

  10

  50

  30

  121W

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2001. Number of 3 month vacancies—by region and health authority areas

  whole-tune equivalents

  All medical and dental

  Qualified nurses

  Qualified allied health professionals

  Health authority

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  Kingston and Richmond

  10

  0

  490

  630

  20

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  50

  40

  200

  280

  80

  60

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  10

  320

  310

  30

  60

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  10

  10

  100

  80

  30

  30

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners, expressed as whole-time equivalents per 100,000 weighted population, there were for(a) each health authority and (b) in total in England for the last two years for which figures are available. [13614]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1, estimated whole-time equivalents2 per 1000, weighted population3 by health authority: England 1999 and 2000

  Region/HA name

  1999

  2000

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford

  58.0

  57.5

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  52.2

  51.7

  County Durham and Darlington Health Commission

  49.0

  48.4

  East Riding and Hull

  50.6

  50.3

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  48.6

  49.3

  Leeds Healthcare

  55.5

  55.1

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  52.5

  53.0

  North Cumbria

  62.2

  61.2

  North Yorkshire

  61.5

  61.8

  Northumberland

  58.2

  57.6

  Sunderland

  44.9

  45.3

  Tees

  50.0

  49.4

  Wakefield Healthcare

  52.3

  53.7

  Trent

  Barnsley

  43.9

  44.7

  Doncaster

  47.4

  47.6

  Leicestershire

  55.9

  55.1

  Lincolnshire

  53.7

  52.9

  North Derbyshire

  51.8

  49.8

  North Nottinghamshire

  50.2

  49.7

  Nottingham

  51.8

  52.5

  Rotherham

  44.7

  45.7

  Sheffield

  56.3

  55.7

  South Derbyshire

  51.9

  52.8

  South Humber

  52.7

  52.4

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  53.3

  53.3

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  53.5

  55.6

  East and North Hertfordshire

  53.1

  51.3

  Norfolk

  58.5

  58.0

  North Essex

  53.9

  53.6

  South Essex

  47.3

  47.5

  Suffolk

  57.3

  57.5

  West Hertfordshire

  55.0

  54.6

  London

  Barking and Havering

  42.9

  44.8

  Barnet

  53.3

  53.4

  Bexley and Greenwich

  47.2

  46.7

  Brent and Harrow

  54.6

  53.7

  Bromley

  48.5

  49.1

  Camden and Islington

  42.8

  43.5

  Croydon

  49.2

  47.8

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  48.5

  47.6

  East London and the City

  46.8

  47.5

  122W

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1, estimated whole-time equivalents2 per 1000, weighted population3 by health authority: England 1999 and 2000

  Region/HA name

  1999

  2000

  Enfield and Haringey

  51.3

  52.5

  Hillingdon

  43.2

  42.6

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  28.8

  27.9

  Kingston and Richmond

  49.7

  48.3

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  47.0

  48.1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  46.8

  47.7

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  50.0

  49.0

  South Eastern

  Berkshire

  52.8

  51.3

  Buckinghamshire

  54.7

  54.8

  East Kent

  50.1

  50.3

  East Surrey

  49.4

  50.1

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  50.9

  50.8

  Isle of Wight Health Commission

  59.0

  58.2

  North and Mid Hampshire

  56.8

  56.1

  Northamptonshire

  56.4

  55.1

  Oxfordshire

  58.4

  57.8

  Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire

  53.9

  54.3

  Southampton and South-West Hampshire

  55.5

  55.6

  West Kent

  54.8

  54.5

  West Surrey

  49.7

  50.4

  West Sussex

  51.2

  51.5

  South Western

  Avon

  55.2

  55.0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  59.4

  59.1

  Dorset

  57.9

  57.8

  Gloucestershire

  60.3

  60.3

  North and East Devon

  60.6

  59.8

  Somerset

  60.5

  60.2

  South and West Devon

  58.1

  58.0

  Wiltshire

  55.9

  56.8

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  54.6

  54.2

  Coventry

  53.6

  53.7

  Dudley

  50.9

  49.4

  Herefordshire

  61.1

  60.3

  North Staffordshire

  47.8

  46.9

  Sandwell

  49.8

  49.9

  Shropshire

  58.2

  56.4

  Solihull

  51.9

  53.4

  South Staffordshire

  53.9

  52.9

  Walsall

  50.6

  51.2

  Warwickshire

  53.7

  53.7

  Wolverhampton

  48.9

  51.0

  Worcestershire

  57.0

  56.1

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale

  53.6

  53.1

  East Lancashire

  50.8

  49.9

  Liverpool

  49.1

  49.7

  Manchester Health

  54.3

  53.8

  Morecambe Bay

  56.7

  56.3

  North Cheshire

  48.7

  50.2

  North West Lancashire

  48.7

  48.7

  Salford and Trafford

  51.3

  51.2

  Sefton

  47.9

  48.6

  South Cheshire

  54.0

  54.7

  South Lancashire

  53.1

  51.5

  123W

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1, estimated whole-time equivalents2 per 1000, weighted population3 by health authority: England 1999 and 2000

  Region/HA name

  1999

  2000

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  49.4

  48.5

  Stockport Health

  55.4

  54.4

  West Pennine

  50.0

  48.9

  Wigan and Bolton

  46.6

  47.2

  Wirral

  56.3

  58.2

  England total

  62.4

  52.3

  1 UPEs includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs

  2 WTE data have been estimated using the results from the 1992–93 GMP Workload Survey

  3 HA population data have been weighted using the GMS cash limited age and needs formula used in 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Notes:

  1. Full time = 1.00 wte; three quarter time = 0.69 wte; job share = 0.65 wte; half-time = 0.60 wte

  2. Data as at 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2000

  3. This is based on information on actual hours worked by GPs with different contractual commitments

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics and ONS Population estimates adjusted for temporary residents, cross boundary flows, rural practices and weighted for GMS CL age and need

  Public-private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public-private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13454]

  Mr. Hutton
  Private finance initiative was considered for the eight schemes listed but in each case did not produce a suitable value for money solution:

  Rochdale Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Rochdale Infirmary development)

  Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS Trust (consolidation of services)

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust (Stonegrove Maternity unit)

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust (reconfiguration of services)

  Thames Gateway NHS Trust (Isle of Sheppey Community Hospital)

  Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust (Lymington and New Forest Community Hospital)

  Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust (mental health facilities) Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (eye care facilities).

  Trolley Waits (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, 24 October 2001,Official Report, columns 306–07W, what statistics are kept on the average waiting time on a trolley before admission to a Leicestershire hospital in the last 12 months. [13546]

  Mr. Hutton
  Latest published figures show that of the 15,690 patients admitted through the accident and emergency department at University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust between July 2000 and June 124W
  2001, an average of 83 per cent. were admitted within two hours and 92 per cent. were admitted within four hours. Overall average waiting time figures are not calculated.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost of the delay since June to private finance initiative schemes for hospitals. [14248]

  Mr. Hutton
  Shortlisted bidders at three private finance schemes—Stoke Mandeville Hospital National Health Service Trust, South West London Community NHS Trust (Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton) and Havering Hospitals NHS Trust—have delayed submitting best and final offers since June until development work on a new retention of employment model (ROE), under which ancillary services staff could retain their NHS employment terms but be managed by the private sector, is completed. It is expected that this work will be completed before the end of the year.

  No other PFI schemes are at a stage where the ROE development is causing a delay.

  Consultants' Hours
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what change in the required number of NHS consultants would result if they were to work only contracted hours; [14041]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the hours in excess of contracted hours worked by NHS consultants in the last five years. [14050]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service consultants are employed under a professional contract, in that they do not specify particular hours of work. Whole-time and maximum part-time contract holders have a contractual commitment to devote substantially the whole of their professional time, up to 11 sessions, to their national health service duties. In 1999 a survey by KPMG did, however, demonstrate that both the volume of work and intensity of work, as a whole, had increased since 1990. Intensity pay supplements, amounting to £50 million were therefore introduced from April 2000 to recognise and reward increases in work load, intensity of work and contribution to the NHS.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the change in work load for NHS consultants as a result of the Calman report and the new deal. [14051]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not possible to identify the effect of individual initiatives on changes in consultant work load. As well as implementation of the Calman report and the new deal, there have been parallel changes in service management and patient throughput, and changes in the balance of in-patient and day-case clinical work which will have had an effect on consultant work load.

  Since the new deal was launched in 1991 there has been an increase in the consultant work force of 7,200 (45.5 per cent.) and since the Calman reforms were implemented in 1996 there has been an increase of 3,800 (19.9 per cent.). There have also been significant increases in the number of trainees and other hospital doctors in the relevant period.

  Annual Budget Settlement
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount of each item of funding over and above the annual budget settlement, made by his Department to(a) Shropshire health authority and (b) other health providers in the country in 2001–02 to date. [14474]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  GP Statistics
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs there were in(a) Berkshire and (b) the Slough primary care trust area in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2001. [14320]

  Ms Blears
  Figures for 2001 are not yet available. Figures for 1992, 1997 and 2000 are shown in the table.

  General medical practitioners in Berkshire health authority and Slough primary care group as reported at 1 October 1992 and 1997 and 30 September 2000

  Area

  1992

  1997

  2000

  Berkshire HA

  All practitioners1 (excluding GP retainers)

  419

  437

  456

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents2

  396

  425

  449

  Slough PCG3

  All practitioners1 (excluding GP retainers)

  —

  —

  63

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents2

  —

  —

  58

  1 All practitioners include unrestricted principals and equivalents, restricted principals, assistants. GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para. 52 SFA) and PMS Others. GP retainers were first collected in the 1999 census. As at 1 October 1999 there were 12 in Berkshire HA and 0 in Slough PCG. As at 30 September 2000 there were 15 in Berkshire HA and 0 in Slough PCG.

  2 Unrestricted principals and equivalents include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  3 The creation of PCGs was announced in 1998, Slough PCG came in to existence in April 1999. It became a trust on 1 April 2001.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  NHS Funding Formula
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the higher travel costs and average basic pay of health workers in rural areas is reflected in the NHS funding formula. [14378]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department uses a weighted capitation formula to determine each health authority's fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need. The formula weights each health authority's population

  Number of children looked after at

  31 March with 3 or more placements during the year

  31 March 2001

  Percentage of children looked after with 3 or more placements during the year

  Calderdale

  33

  201

  16

  Bolton

  45

  275

  16

  Trafford

  27

  165

  16

  Stoke-on-Trent UA

  60

  367

  16

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  23

  141

  16

  Buckinghamshire

  44

  270

  16

  126W
  according to their relative need for healthcare and unavoidable geographical differences in the cost of providing healthcare.

  Within the formula the staff market forces factor estimates the relative differentials that national health service employers need to pay in order to recruit and retain staff. And the emergency ambulance cost adjustment reflects the unavoidable cost variations of providing emergency ambulance services. This adjustment particularly benefits areas with low population density and lower numbers of journeys than average.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for including rurality as a factor in the NHS funding formula. [14379]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service funding formula weights each health authority's population according to their relative need for health care and the unavoidable geographical differences in the cost of providing health care.

  Earlier studies have not identified evidence of need for health care associated with rurality that is not already covered within the formula. However some services cost more to provide in rural areas. An emergency ambulance cost adjustment has been included in the formula since 1998–99.

  A review of the formula is currently under way. By 2003 following the review, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country. The review will include consideration of the health needs of rural areas.

  Strategic Outline Cases
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 118W, regarding major capital projects, when he expects to invite the next round of strategic outline cases for hospital building projects. [14347]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: There are currently no plans to invite a further round of strategic outline business cases for major hospital building projects. However, Ministers will consider cases outside this round where necessary.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities which reached the PSA target for the proportion of children in local authority care who had three or more placements in one year by 2001. [14920]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information for the year ending 31 March 2001 is in the table.
  127W

  Number of children looked after at

  31 March with 3 or more placements during the year

  31 March 2001

  Percentage of children looked after with 3 or more placements during the year

  Southend-on-Sea UA

  40

  250

  16

  Tameside

  39

  246

  16

  Redbridge

  22

  139

  16

  Nottingham UA

  96

  611

  16

  Essex

  187

  1,197

  16

  East Sussex

  73

  468

  16

  West Sussex

  119

  763

  16

  Barking and Dagenham

  44

  283

  16

  Hackney

  77

  497

  15

  Sheffield

  104

  673

  15

  Lancashire

  197

  1,285

  15

  Leeds

  193

  1,278

  15

  Wirral

  62

  412

  15

  Harrow

  27

  181

  15

  Wiltshire

  38

  256

  15

  Liverpool

  175

  1,179

  15

  Poole UA

  20

  136

  15

  Bradford

  101

  697

  14

  Kingston upon Hull UA

  83

  573

  14

  Newham

  77

  537

  14

  Wolverhampton

  56

  391

  14

  Rochdale

  34

  239

  14

  Wokingham UA

  12

  85

  14

  Sunderland

  70

  498

  14

  Sefton

  43

  306

  14

  Walsall

  57

  406

  14

  Wakefield

  62

  446

  14

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  10

  72

  14

  North Somerset UA

  23

  166

  14

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  28

  204

  14

  Cornwall

  81

  591

  14

  Barnet

  39

  285

  14

  Salford

  82

  601

  14

  Plymouth UA

  63

  463

  14

  Norfolk

  96

  707

  14

  Gateshead

  37

  273

  14

  Staffordshire

  72

  535

  13

  Stockport

  52

  393

  13

  Doncaster

  58

  439

  13

  Barnsley

  42

  318

  13

  Waltham Forest

  39

  296

  13

  Bournemouth UA

  27

  205

  13

  Bury

  28

  214

  13

  Solihull

  23

  176

  13

  Hounslow

  42

  322

  13

  Cheshire

  58

  458

  13

  Hampshire

  113

  893

  13

  North Lincolnshire UA

  22

  174

  13

  Thurrock UA

  24

  192

  13

  Oldham

  38

  305

  12

  Camden

  39

  314

  12

  Slough UA

  18

  146

  12

  Merton

  22

  179

  12

  Lincolnshire

  65

  531

  12

  Manchester

  148

  1,232

  12

  Blackburn with Darwen UA

  33

  275

  12

  Havering

  18

  150

  12

  Lewisham

  65

  547

  12

  Derbyshire

  76

  642

  12

  Oxfordshire

  54

  462

  12

  Bristol UA

  64

  561

  11

  Lambeth

  88

  777

  11

  Kirklees

  33

  293

  11

  Dudley

  42

  377

  11

  North Yorkshire

  42

  378

  11

  St. Helens

  30

  272

  11

  Dorset

  28

  255

  11

  Westminster

  29

  267

  11

  Warrington UA

  17

  157

  11

  York UA

  15

  141

  11

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  42

  397

  11

  128W 129W

  Number of children looked after at

  31 March with 3 or more placements during the year

  31 March 2001

  Percentage of children looked after with 3 or more placements during the year

  Suffolk

  68

  643

  11

  Torbay UA

  25

  238

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  375

  10

  Wigan

  44

  426

  10

  Darlington UA

  12

  117

  10

  Bexley

  21

  207

  10

  North East Lincolnshire UA

  28

  277

  10

  Islington

  53

  531

  10

  Bromley

  29

  296

  10

  Worcestershire

  58

  596

  10

  Isle of Wight UA

  16

  166

  10

  Surrey

  65

  681

  10

  Durham

  42

  443

  9

  Ealing

  38

  409

  9

  Wandsworth

  34

  366

  9

  Rotherham

  38

  411

  9

  Hartlepool UA

  11

  120

  9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  21

  234

  9

  South Tyneside

  26

  293

  9

  Hillingdon

  37

  419

  9

  Herefordshire UA

  17

  194

  9

  Reading UA

  12

  139

  9

  Derby UA

  35

  412

  8

  Rutland UA

  1—

  1—

  8

  Southwark

  53

  657

  8

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  112

  8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  35

  441

  8

  Bedfordshire

  27

  341

  8

  Gloucestershire

  42

  544

  8

  North Tyneside

  25

  328

  8

  West Berkshire UA

  9

  119

  8

  Cumbria

  39

  521

  7

  Greenwich

  37

  508

  7

  Hertfordshire

  57

  798

  7

  Croydon

  33

  478

  7

  Medway Towns UA

  21

  324

  6

  Luton UA

  21

  328

  6

  Bracknell Forest UA

  1—

  1—

  6

  Coventry

  26

  497

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  1—

  1—

  5

  Peterborough UA

  18

  353

  5

  Knowsley

  13

  256

  5

  Enfield

  13

  273

  5

  Middlebrough UA

  11

  236

  5

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  1—

  1

  City of London

  1—

  1—

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  1—

  1—

  0

  1 Numerator or denominator value 5 or less

  Residential Care Homes (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the closure of residential care homes in Havering. [14802]

  Jacqui Smith
  I understand that Havering council is undertaking a review of its own care homes in order to ensure that they are able to meet future needs and standards. As a result of this review, one council home closed recently and another is in the process of doing so. The council plans to establish four new resource centres that are capable of meeting care needs in a holistic manner. There have been no recent independent home closures in Havering.

  People in Havering will benefit from a number of recent Government initiatives designed to improve the commissioning and delivery of care services. The
  130W
  agreement with local government, the national health service and independent sector providers of care—Building Capacity and Partnership—will help to bring stability to the care home sector. In addition, Havering council is being targeted for extra help and will this year receive £550,000 of the £300 million we are allocating to councils over the next two years to tackle the problem of delayed discharge from hospital.

  Surgical Procedures (Cost)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 828W, by what date he expects to complete his review of activity and costs in the private health sector; what plans he has to publish the results of the review; and if he will make a statement. [13485]
  131W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: The survey returns from the national health service are being analysed by statisticians in the Department. I expect to be able to share the results early in the new year.

  My answer of 1 November 2001, Official Report, column 828W set out our plans to improve collaboration between the NHS and the private sector.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the new care standards for residential care homes in order of date required for implementation. [15125]

  Jacqui Smith
  National minimum standards for care homes for older people were published on 2 March 2001. Copies are available in the Library.

  Most of the standards will apply from 1 April 2002. The exceptions include standards 28.1 and 31.2 (qualifications of staff and managers) which will apply from 2005, and standards 20.1 (communal space per resident in homes existing prior to April 2002), 23.3 and 23.4 (floor space in single rooms), and 23.11 (proportion of single rooms) which will apply from 2007.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire of 10 September concerning care home fees. [15117]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 13 November.

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis social services departments will be graded with star ratings in accordance with his speech to the recent local government conference at Harrogate. [14940]

  Jacqui Smith
  The star rating that each social services department receives will be soundly based upon professional judgment encompassing all the available performance evidence—from inspections, in-year monitoring and the performance indicators. The new system will allow people to tell at a glance how their local council is performing and provide national accountability by highlighting how their performance changes over time.

  The detailed process for awarding star ratings is still being decided, in consultation with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services.

  Pneumococcal Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 349W, on pneumococcal vaccine, when the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation last reviewed its advice to the Department; and what evidence his Department has considered in the last year concerning age-based vaccination. [14958]
  132W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) last considered the issue of pneumococcal vaccine at its meeting in November 2001. Studies to assess the possible role for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the United Kingdom programme are currently on-going and JCVI will review the evidence once these studies have been completed.

  Overseas Nursing Students
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings obtained from the abolition of bursaries for overseas nursing students. [15057]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: No cost saving is anticipated.

  The change introduced earlier this year to the student support arrangements was not introduced as a cost-saving measure but to bring conditions for access to the national health service bursary for overseas applicants to diploma nursing and midwifery courses into line with those for degree nurses, and students in higher education as a whole.

  Care Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which care trusts he expects to be in operation by the end of 2002. [15061]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The following partners are considering the development of care trusts in 2002:

  1. Camden and Islington Mental Health Trust, London borough of Islington, and London borough of Camden.

  2. Somerset health authority (North Somerset Primary Care Group) and north Somerset council.

  3. Essex county council, Braintree district council, north Essex health authority (Witham, Braintree and Halstead PCG).

  4. Sandwell council and Black Country Mental Health Trust.

  5. Manchester social services and Manchester health authority (Manchester Mental Health Partnership).

  6. Northumberland health authority (Northumberland PCGs) and Northumberland social services.

  7. Bradford council and Bradford health authority (Airedale National Health Service Trust and Bradford Community NHS Trust).

  If these applications are made, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider these applications in accordance with section 45 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001.

  Suicide
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the main barriers to those contemplating suicide receiving the treatment they need. [13964]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: An assessment of the main barriers to those contemplating suicide receiving the treatment they need helped inform the development of the National Service Framework for Mental Health. Implementation of the NSF and NHS Plan will ensure that people receive services that are more responsive to their needs. In addition, the suicide prevention strategy, to be launched in spring 2002, will

  133W
  outline further action to ensure the target in "Saving lives: Our Healthier Nation" to reduce the death rate from suicide by at least one fifth by 2010 is met.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to implement a national suicide prevention strategy. [13965]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Department hopes to launch the suicide prevention strategy in spring 2002. We are in the process of considering the timetable for its implementation.

  GP Surgeries (Assaults)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults were committed on(a) doctors and (b) other staff in GP's surgeries in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15467]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on assaults against general practitioners or other primary care staff is not collected nationally. However in 2000–01, 988 patients were de-registered from their GPs' lists because of violent behaviour. We deplore violence towards any healthcare worker and in 1999 launched the "NHS zero tolerance zone" campaign to reduce the risks of its occurrence. This campaign continues.

  Midwives
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he can take to encourage national health service trusts to fully adopt last year's recommendations of the Pay Review Body in respect of midwives' pay and conditions. [15508]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: We accepted in full the recommendations of the review body for nursing staff, midwives and health visitors and professions allied to medicine for 2001–02.

  The advance letter promulgating the pay increases for 2001–02 and the new midwifery grading agreement was issued to the national health service on 15 February 2001. The advance letter made it clear' that national health service employers have a responsibility to implement these agreements from 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps can be made to encourage midwives who have left the profession to return. [15507]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The Department is working closely with the Royal College of Midwives to encourage and support returning midwives. The national health service now offers all midwives improved pay, supportive family friendly working practices, improved training conditions, better access to continuing professional development and a better career structure.

  All returning midwives will now receive:

  Free refresher training

  A minimum of £1,500 financial support while training

  Assistance with child care support of up to £135 per week for one child and £200 for two or more children

  Assistance with travel and books

  134W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the statutory instruments required for the implementation of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, due to come into place in April 2002, are to be laid before the House. [15509]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The order under section 60 of the Health Act 1999, which will establish the Nursing and Midwifery Council, has today been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Vote Office. A similar order which will establish the Health Professions Council has also been laid.

  Flooding (Ilford)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the impact of flooding of the River Roding on public health in Ilford, North; and what steps he has taken in the last 12 months to minimise the impact. [15529]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: I am informed that Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority have confirmed that the work of the local emergency planning team covers the response to flooding incidents. The team comprises representatives from the emergency services, health and local authorities and the voluntary sector.

  From a public health perspective, leaflets were issued to residents in flooding risk areas and actual flooded areas, advising of the risks from flood water.

  Regional Health Boundaries
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals to redraw regional health area boundaries so that they are coterminous with regional Government boundaries. [16206]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the programme to shift the balance of power from Whitehall to frontline staff, the Department is proposing to abolish its national health service regional offices by 1 April 2003. We are introducing four directorates of health and social care by April 2003 responsible for strategic oversight of health and social care activity in London, the south of England, the west midlands and eastern England and the north of England respectively. They will cover areas with outer boundaries coterminous with the Government offices for the regions. These arrangements are in line with the Government's policy on coterminosity set out in the Modernising Government White Paper.

TREASURY

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds was of the review by the Financial Services Authority of its role in the regulation of Equitable Life. [12823]
  135W
  Ruth Kelly
  The cost of the review by the FSA of its role in the regulation of Equitable Life will be met by the insurance industry. Some of the costs have already been recovered by way of fees imposed by the existing regulators (the Personal Investment Authority and the Treasury). Once the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 comes fully into force, the remaining costs will be recovered by the FSA by way of fees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received about Equitable Life from policy holders resident in the Buckingham constituency. [16163]

  Ruth Kelly
  We have received many representations from policy holders of Equitable Life. Identifying policy holders resident in Buckingham constituency could not be undertaken except at disproportionate cost.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money would be raised for the Exchequer at current prices over one financial year as a result of the removal of the upper earnings limit on national insurance; and what discussions he has had on the impact of this change. [14389]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year yield from removing the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions is estimated to be £3¼ billion in 2002–03.

  Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appointments he has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in his gift. [15476]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information about the numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office's internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include numbers of appointments at 31 March 2001, will be published around the end of the year.

  Ministers of the Chancellor's Departments and agencies make (or in the case of Crown appointments recommend the making of) a total of 80 appointments to six of the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies". No new appointments or reappointments have been made to these bodies since 7 June.

  Green Fuel Challenge
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the result of the green fuel challenge. [15307]

  Mr. Boateng
  We expect to make a further announcement shortly.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes of greenhouse gas emissions when 136W
  determining excise duties for (a) biodiesel, (b) bioethanol, (c) compressed natural gas and (d) liquid petroleum gas. [15613]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor takes account of a wide range of social, economic and environmental factors when determining duty rates.

  Single-parent Families
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single parent families have more than(a) one child, (b) two children, (c) three children and (d) four children. [15337]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of single parent families who have more than one, two, three or four children (15337). I am replying in his absence.
  Provisional estimates for Great Britain, from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 2000 indicate that there were 1.6 million lone parent families in Great Britain in 2000. Of this total, 0.8 million families had 1 dependent child; 0.5 million families had 2 dependent children; 0.2 million families had 3 dependent children and 0.06 million families had 4 or more dependent children.

  Drug Deaths
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many deaths have been attributed to benzodiazepines in each year for the last 10 years for which records are available; [15585]

  (2) how many deaths have been attributed to (a) heroin, (b) methadone, (c) cocaine, (d) morphine and (e) opiates in each year for the last 10 years for which records are available. [15589]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Andrew George, dated 19 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions asking how many deaths have been attributed to various types of drugs in each year for the last ten years for which records are available (15585/9). I am replying in his absence.
  Figures published by the Office for National Statistics are available for 1993 to 1999 inclusive and indicate the number of times substances are mentioned on death certificates. The data are shown below.
  137W

  Number of deaths in England and Wales where heroin/morphine, methadone, cocaine, benzodiazepines or opiates were mentioned on the death certificate with or without other substances, persons, all ages, Calendar years 1993–1999

  Year

  Heroin/Morphine1

  Methadone

  Cocaine

  Benzodiazepines

  Opiates2

  1993

  187

  232

  12

  280

  669

  1994

  277

  269

  24

  279

  820

  1995

  357

  310

  19

  253

  957

  1996

  466

  368

  19

  230

  1,157

  1997

  445

  421

  39

  248

  1,200

  1998

  646

  364

  66

  245

  1,334

  1999

  754

  298

  88

  240

  1,467

  1 As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate.

  2 Opiates include heroin/morphine and methadone.

  Source:

  ONS database of drug-related poisonings

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the significance of the balance of payments deficit in goods in the second quarter of this year. [16164]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will publish their latest forecasts for the UK economy, together with an assessment of recent economic developments, in the pre-Budget report on 27 November.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in response to his proposals for(a) the new regulatory regime for mortgages and (b) the date for N3. [15899]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have received a number of representations from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, individual mortgage lenders and others on the scope of mortgage regulation, the arrangements set out in the Financial Services Authority draft rules, as well as on the timing of N3.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the role of(a) the mortgage code and (b) the Mortgage Code Compliance Board under the proposed new regulatory regime for mortgages. [15900]

  Ruth Kelly
  Much has been achieved since the Mortgage Code came into being in 1997. The Mortgage Code Compliance Board has worked to set the standards for service delivery, training and competence, and to increase professionalism within the mortgage industry. All of this will stand the industry in good stead when statutory regulation of mortgages comes into force.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the consumer benefits accruing from the proposed implementation of Rule 4.7.1(1) in the draft mortgage sourcebook and the likely implementation of Rule 4.7.1(1) by mortgage lenders; and if he will make a statement. [R] [15784]
  138W
  Ruth Kelly
  A cost benefit analysis of the proposals contained in the (draft) mortgage sourcebook was published as an annexe (annexe D) to the Consultation Paper (CP 98) published by the Financial Services Authority.

  Euro
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the euro on stability in the UK housing market. [15935]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will produce an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment will be comprehensive and rigorous; all relevant economic issues will be dealt with as part of the assessment.

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed the level of consumer debt with the Governor of the Bank of England. [15934]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and the Governor are in regular contact about a full range of economic issues.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of all non-mortgage consumer debt is held by each income quintile in the last year for which figures are available. [15937]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 19 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the percentage of all non-mortgage consumer debt that is held by each income quintile. (15937)
  The information requested is not available.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage and what amount in real terms of stamp duty paid by private investors on shares was paid by each income quintile for the last year for which figures are available. [15924]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not available.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage and what amount in real terms of inheritance tax was paid by each income quintile in the last year for which figures are available; [15923]

  (2) what plans he has to reform tax avoidance in relation to inheritance tax liabilities for persons in the upper earnings quintiles. [15925]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No statistics are available linking inheritance tax liabilities with the relative income level either of transferors in their lifetime, or of transferees.
  139W
  The Government take tax avoidance seriously whoever practises it; experience does not suggest that inheritance tax avoidance is necessarily confined to the upper income quintiles, and if we find that action is needed it will apply across the board.

  Diesel Fuels
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how tax relief attaching to diesel fuels applies in the case of fuels comprising both diesel and biodiesel. [15525]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: There is no tax relief on diesel used as a road fuel. A blend of diesel and biodiesel used in one of the non road fuel purposes specified in schedule I to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 would be charged at the rebated rate of 3.13p per litre.

  Under the Green Fuel Challenge, the Government will, subject to EU agreement, introduce a new duty rate for biodiesel in Budget 2002, at 20p per litre below the rate then in force for ultra-low sulphur diesel. Provisions covering duty on blends of biodiesel and diesel will be reviewed in the light of this new duty rate.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15217]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 November 2001:. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development has stated in his answer of 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 931W, it is Government policy to promote fair trade products, subject of course to the need to obtain value for money in public procurement for the taxpayer.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Government do not count incurring of liabilities through public-private partnerships as the incurring of financial liabilities in the consideration of the achievement of the Government's fiscal rules; and if he will make a statement. [16077]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Most public-private partnerships involve operating leases rather than finance leases. In accordance with Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 21, the Government do not capitalise operating leases but do capitalise, and thus count as a financial liability, all finance leases.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills regarding the impact of fraud on tax credits for(a) education and (b) training. [15703]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets regularly with his Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues.
  140W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the likely cost in financial year 2002–03 of(a) an incremental research and development tax credit for all companies paid only on additional spending and (b) a research and development tax credit for all companies covering all relevant spending; [15702]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the incremental approach to the operation of research and development tax credits. [15701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government set out their views of an incremental R and D tax credit for large companies in the Budget consultation document "Increasing Innovation" published on 7 March. Since then we have received a number of responses from companies, representative bodies and others, which we are considering. The cost of such a measure depends upon the rate at which the credit is given and the final design of the scheme. Until decisions are reached on the design of the credit and the rate of relief, it is not possible to estimate the cost of the credit.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average excess charge for all companies paying the climate change levy with an excess charge over and above NI rebates in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by industrial sector. [15705]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy was only introduced in April 2001. Therefore no annual figures are available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of companies paying the climate change levy which will pay an excess charge over and above NI rebates. [15706]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy is broadly revenue neutral with all revenue being recycled back to business through a reduction in national insurance contributions cuts and support for energy efficiency measures. The impact on any specific company or sector will depend on a number of factors, including: their future energy consumption and the use made of levy funded energy efficiency support; employment levels and the benefits received from the levy funded reductions in national insurance contributions; eligibility to receive a discount by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement; the use made of electricity generated from 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power, both of which are levy exempt.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many(a) companies and (b) business organisations he has received pre-budget representations regarding the impact of the climate change levy. [15699]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have received representations from a variety of businesses, trade bodies, environmental organisations and other interested parties. They are being considered as part of the pre-Budget report process.
  141W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of administering the(a) aggregates tax and (b) climate change levy in their first full year of operation. [15704]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimates of the costs of administering the aggregates levy and the climate change levy are contained in the respective regulatory impact assessments, which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representatives he will send to the manufacturing summit to explain the operation of the climate change levy. [15700]

  Mr. Boateng
  The operation of the climate change levy is fully set in Customs and Excise notice CCL1.

  Cannabis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much revenue would accrue annually if cannabis were taxed in the same way as tobacco, assuming consumption by 2 million users. [16126]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such estimates are currently available.

  Cigarette Imports
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 531W, if he will specify how many cigarettes Customs and Excise guidelines state would prima facie be regarded as not for own use. [15159]

  Mr. Boateng
  Travellers from the EU can bring in as many cigarettes as they like for own use. Customs do not enforce any absolute limits. Each individual's purchases are assessed in the light of the individual circumstances. If the amount is over the Minimum Indicative Level of 800, set out EC Directive 92/12 and in the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 the traveller may be required to satisfy Customs that they are not being held or used for a commercial purpose.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total weight of aggregates used by public or public/private projects in the last financial year for which information is available in(a) road building and (b) rail infrastructure. [15697]

  Mr. Boateng
  Responsibility for this rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Tax Credits Consultation Paper
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations have responded to the tax credits consultation paper issued by the Inland Revenue. [15146]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over 170 written responses to this consultation document have been received from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  Ethnic Groups (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people of each ethnic group(a) live in the Wycombe constituency and (b) have been living there during the past four years. [14875]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Paul Goodman, dated 19 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking how many people of each ethnic group (a) live in Wycombe constituency and (b) have been living there during the past four years. I am replying in his absence. (14875)
  The only information that can be provided for (a) is from the 1991 Census. No information is available for (b).
  The information shown in the table overleaf is therefore based on the 1991 Census, but revised to reflect the Wycombe Parliamentary Constituency as constituted with effect from 1 May 1997.

  1991 Census. Number of residents by ethnic group for the Wycombe parliamentary constituency as constituted with effect from 1 May 1997

  Ethnic group

  Number

  White

  85,018

  Black Caribbean

  2,965

  Black African

  195

  Black other

  594

  Indian

  836

  Pakistani

  5,761

  Bangladeshi

  78

  Chinese

  218

  Other groups

  Asian

  323

  Other

  1,250

  Total residents

  97,238

  Unemployment (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment in the Wycombe constituency was in(a) September 2000 and (b) September 2001. [14877]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Goodman, dated 19 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the level of unemployment in the Wycombe constituency in September 2000 and September 2001 (14877).
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the standard International Labour Organisation definition. However, for the Wycombe parliamentary constituency the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates.
  ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work,

  143W
  capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Between September 2000 and September 2001 the claimant count level in the Wycombe parliamentary constituency rose by 108 from 1,403 to 1,151.

  Earnings (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average(a) weekly wage, (b) weekly earnings, (c) income per head and (d) household income of (i) men and (ii) women was in each ethnic group in the Wycombe constituency in each of the last five years. [14866]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Goodman, dated 19 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on earnings of men and women in the Wycombe constituency by ethnic group (14866).
  The most recent available information is from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for Winter 2000–01. This is only available for the Local Authority District of Wycombe and not for parliamentary constituencies, and is shown in the table overleaf. Information in the detail you require is not available except for average weekly earnings for the total of men and women, and for the 'White' ethnic group. The sample sizes are too small to provide estimates for other groups.
  The Family Resources Survey (FRS) provides estimates of income by household. However no data is available at a parliamentary constituency or Local Authority District level for ethnic origin from this source.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time1 employees by ethnicity; Wycombe Local Authority District; Winter (December to February) 2000–01; not seasonally adjusted

  £

  Employees by ethnicity

  Winter 2000–01

  All persons

  514

  White

  535

  Non-white

  2—

  1 The definition of full-time is based on respondents' self assessment

  2 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Railtrack
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, after 1 August, the Treasury sent advice to the Department for Transport. Local Government and the Regions that it was unlikely that additional public funding for Railtrack would be approved. [13470]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 13 November 2001, Official Report, columns 723–24.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if(a) Ministers and (b) officials from Her Majesty's Treasury attended meetings on 27 July between representatives from Railtrack and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; [15259]

  (2) when he first discussed with (a) Ministers and (b) officials the request by Railtrack for the payment of £162 million on 1 October; [15265]
  144W
  (3) if he will place in the Library of list of meetings regarding the rail industry held between (a) Ministers and (b) officials from Her Majesty's Treasury between 1 July and 7 October with (i) representatives of Railtrack, (ii) representatives of the Strategic Rail Authority and (iii) representatives of the Rail Regulator; [15264]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 7 November 2001, Official Report, column 252W, when he was first informed that the Railway Administration Order 2001, relating to the potential administration of Railtrack, was being drafted; [15040]

  (5) if consultations took place between (a) officials and (b) Ministers from Her Majesty's Treasury and (i) officials and (ii) Ministers from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions prior to 7 October, regarding (A) the drafting of the Railway Administration Order 2001 relating to the potential administration of Railtrack and (B) the request by Railtrack for the payment of £162 million on 1 October; [15263]

  (6) when he first discussed the possibility of Railtrack being placed into administration with (a) the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and (b) the Prime Minister; [15266]

  (7) pursuant to his answer of 7 November 2001, Official Report, column 252W, when and by whom he was first informed that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was considering placing Railtrack into administration; [15039]

  (8) if (a) Ministers and (b) officials from Her Majesty's Treasury attended meetings on 25 July between the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and (i) the Chairman and (ii) other representatives of Railtrack; [15260]

  (9) if he was informed prior to the announcement of the administration of Railtrack that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was considering the use of emergency legislation in respect of the powers of the Rail Regulator; and what discussions took place between his Department and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on this matter prior to the announcement of the administration of Railtrack; [15262]

  (10) when he was first advised, and by whom, that there was a prospect of Railtrack no longer being a going concern; [15271]

  (11) if (a) Ministers and (b) officials from Her Majesty's Treasury attended meetings on 5 October between the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Rail Regulator. [15261]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers and officials have discussions with a wide range of organisations, including other Government departments, on a wide range of subjects on a regular basis.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the most recent figures he has for the proportion of preserved rights residents in
  145W
  (a) nursing homes, (b) residential homes and (c) nursing and residential homes whose (i) fees are equal to or below income support, (ii) top-up is less than their personal expenses allowance, (iii) top-up is between personal

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage

  All cases

  65.1

  100.0

  47.6

  100

  17.4

  100

  Fees equal to or below IS

  35.2

  54.1

  24.8

  52.1

  10.4

  59.4

  Fees above IS of which above IS by:

  29.9

  45.9

  22.8

  47.9

  7.1

  40.6

  £0.01 to £16.041

  8.3

  12.7

  5.1

  10.8

  3.1

  18.0

  £16.05 to £20.00

  1.8

  2.8

  1.4

  3.0

  20.4

  22.3

  £20.01 to £30.00

  2.6

  4.1

  1.9

  3.9

  0.8

  4.5

  £30.01 to £40.00

  2.1

  3.2

  1.6

  3.4

  20.5

  22.6

  £40.01 to £50.00

  1.2

  1.9

  0.8

  1.7

  204

  22.5

  £50.01 to £60.00

  1.1

  1.7

  0.9

  1.9

  20.2

  20.9

  £60.01 to £70.00

  1.0

  1.5

  0.8

  1.6

  20.2

  21.3

  1 Below the personal expenses allowance of £16.05.

  2 Subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a rough guide to the current situation only.

  Notes:

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

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2001

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies he is conducting into new systems for assessing entitlement to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. [14367]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: We are currently conducting a small-scale test to ascertain whether it might be viable to continue development of a possible new system, known as "Activities for Managing Life" (AMLs), for gathering information about the care and mobility needs of severely disabled people who claim DLA and AA, and for assessing their entitlement to those benefits.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15219]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development gave to him on 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 931W.

  Benefit Eligibility
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the procedural steps for assessing eligibility, reviewing, appealing and making payment of(a) severe disablement allowance, (b) maternity allowance, (c) industrial injuries disablement allowance, (d) reduced earnings allowance/retirement allowance, (e) attendance allowance and (f) disability working
  146W
  expenses allowance and £20, (iv) top-up is between £20.01 and £30 and increments of £10 thereafter up to £70.01 and over. [15132]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  allowance, indicating which of the offices of his Department and his agencies in Scotland handle each of these steps. [12194]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Annabelle Ewing, dated 16 November 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the procedural steps for assessing eligibility, reviewing, appealing and making payment of (a) severe disablement allowance (b) maternity allowance (c) industrial injuries disablement allowance (d) reduced earnings allowance/retirement allowance (e) attendance allowance and (f) disability working allowance, indicating which of the offices of his Department and his agencies in Scotland handle each of these steps.
  Information is not available about Disability Working Allowance as this was replaced by the Disabled Person's Tax Credit in October 1999, and is now administered by the Inland Revenue. Details of eligibility and payments for the other benefits listed have been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  The revision and appeals process is the same for all benefits. When an appeal is received in the Benefits Agency (BA), the Decision Maker considers whether there are any new grounds raised that would enable the decision to be revised. If not, a written submission is prepared and it and copies of the evidence are sent to The Appeals Service. At the same time a copy of the submission and the evidence is sent to the appellant and any known representative. The appellant is also sent a pre-hearing enquiry form to complete and return to the Appeals Service to indicate whether he/she wants his/her appeal to be dealt with by an oral or paper hearing.
  On receipt of the appeal submission and documents, the appeal is registered by the Appeals Service. When the pre-hearing enquiry form is received from the appellant, the appropriate type of hearing is arranged. Where an oral hearing has been requested, the panel

  147W
  member(s) who will form the appeal tribunal are allocated according to type of appeal and all interested parties (appellant, representative and BA) are notified of the date, time and place of the hearing.
  The panel members who form the appeal tribunal are independent of the Department for Work and Pensions and are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. When they have made their decision, all interested parties are notified. If the appeal tribunal finds in the appellant's favour, the BA is then responsible for implementing the tribunal's decision.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have been subjected to, or threatened with, industrial action; for what reasons industrial action has been taken; and what measures he is taking to resolve this industrial action. [7897]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  49 pathfinders opened as planned on Monday 22 October and staff are enthusiastically providing a full service. In the areas balloted by PCS two-thirds of staff are working. The dispute is over the delivery of welfare benefits to people of working age in a predominantly unscreened environment.

  Jobcentre Plus will introduce a radical improvement to customer service based on Personal Advisers working closely with individuals to help them into jobs and to secure the right financial support. This cannot be achieved from behind screens.

  The Department remains in discussion with the Public and Commercial Services Union to seek to resolve this dispute in a way which is compatible with the Government's objectives for delivering a modern, personalised and work-focused service in Jobcentre Plus. We are putting in place contingency arrangements to ensure that claimants can continue to receive their benefit.

  Pension Awareness Campaign
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the pension awareness advertising campaign was(a) stopped and (b) restarted. [7902]

  Mr. McCartney
  Advertising is just one element of the pensions education campaign. This is an on-going campaign which runs constantly throughout the year through a wide variety of channels. Advertising appears at various intervals during the campaign and is planned to run during periods when it will be most effective.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 158W, when figures showing the number of people who have bought a stakeholder pension each month will be available; and what proportion of these pensions have been bought on behalf of someone else; [7915]

  (2) how many people have taken out stakeholder pensions in each month since April. [7918]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information available is shown in the table.
  148W

  Period

  Number of stakeholder pension policies sold

  April—June 2001

  224.506

  July 2001

  69,087

  August 2001

  63,585

  Note:

  Figures shown are provided by the Association of British Insurers and are based on returns from registered stakeholder pension providers. Monthly figures for the April—June quarter are not available. Figures from July onwards are provided by the ABI through news releases on a monthly basis. (They are released approximately five weeks in arrears owing to the need for prior collection and analysis of data).

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what means he plans to(a) monitor and (b) police employers, with 50 or fewer workers, who do not register to promote a stakeholder pension for their workforce. [11994]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer I gave the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 180W.

  Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants have successfully claimed industrial injury disablement benefit for prescribed disease for primary neoplasms of the epithetical lining of the urinary tract in each year since 1996; and how many of those(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applicants were employed in the printing and related industries. [8624]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Primary neoplasm (including papilloma, carcinoma-in-situ and invasive carcinoma) of the epithelial lining of the urinary tract (renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra)

  Year

  Successful new applications for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  1996–97

  22

  1997–98

  34

  1998–99

  29

  1999–2000

  26

  2000–01

  30

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 100 per cent. count and relate to assessments of disability over 14 per cent.

  2. No information is collected on the number of unsuccessful claims.

  3. As there have been fewer than five successful applications in each year by those employed in the printing and related industries, actual figures cannot be disclosed to protect the confidentiality of individuals.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his plans are to reform housing benefit. [8970]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our first priority has been to work with local authorities to drive up administrative standards, tackle fraud and error and improve work incentives.
  149W
  The Department's response to consultation on the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—The way forward for housing" (December 2000), set out a wide-ranging package of measures to help improve service delivery and streamline the system making Housing Benefit easier for councils to administer and those in need to claim.

  For the longer term we intend to ensure that, for people of working age, Housing Benefit strengthens work incentives further. We will work with wider housing reforms to make Housing Benefit part of a system that encourages choice, responsibility and fairness.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, columns 689–90W, on IT projects, (1) if he will list individual Department of Work and Pensions information technology projects grouped under (a) working age, (b) pensions, (c) children and (d) corporate; and for each of those projects, what is (i) the expected completion date and (ii) the estimated cost; [10466]

  (2) if he will give (a) reasons for and (b) a breakdown of, the increase from the planned costs to the current estimated costs for Department for Work and Pensions information technology projects on its (i) pensions, (ii) corporate and (iii) children's programmes. [10467]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer to my answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, columns 689–90W. The information technology elements of the Department's modernisation programme are not shown separately from the overall programme costs because contracts have not yet been let for many of the IT projects.

  Early estimates have been revised as a result of the 2000 Spending Review settlement which provided additional funding for modernising the Department which enabled it to undertake necessary and more extensive improvements. Additional improvements have therefore come on stream since initial calculations were made and estimates have been revised for Child Support reforms as implementation has progressed.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department has recorded in 2000 and 2001; and on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department [11001]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is as follows:

  Calender Year

  Hacking

  Fraud

  Theft

  2001

  0

  1

  42

  2000

  0

  5

  73

  Benefits (Northampton)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Northampton, South constituency have been in receipt of(a) income
  150W
  support, (b) disability living allowance, (c) incapacity benefit, (d) unemployment benefit and (e) housing benefit in each of the last 10 years. [11288]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Benefit recipients in the Northampton South constituency

  Year

  (a) Income support

  (b) Disability living allowance

  (c) Incapacity benefit

  (d) Jobseeker's allowance

  1997

  5,300

  2,700

  2,100

  2,200

  1998

  5,400

  2,700

  1,900

  1,600

  1999

  5,400

  2,900

  1,900

  1,600

  2000

  5,700

  3,200

  1,800

  1,200

  2001

  5,900

  3,400

  1,800

  1,300

  Notes:

  1. Data prior to 1997 are not available at constituency level.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. With the exception of disability living allowance, figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  4. Figures for income support include pensioners, including those in receipt of the minimum income guarantee since its introduction in April 1999.

  5. Figures for incapacity benefit exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  6. Figures for incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance are for benefit recipients and exclude those receiving national insurance credits only.

  7. Unemployment benefit was replaced by jobseeker's allowance from October 1996.

  Source:

  (a) Income support Quarterly Statistical Inquires May 1997 to May 2001.

  (b) Disability living allowance annual 100 per cent. count in May of each year.

  (c) Incapacity benefit Quarterly Statistical Inquires May 1997 to May 2001.

  (d) Jobseeker's allowance Quarterly Statistical Inquires May 1997 to May 2001.

  Housing benefit recipients in Northampton borough council area

  Year

  Housing benefit recipients

  1992

  13,500

  1993

  13,700

  1994

  13,900

  1995

  14,000

  1996

  14,100

  1997

  13,400

  1998

  12,800

  1999

  12,500

  2000

  11,100

  2001

  10,400

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a family, a single person or a couple.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Housing benefit information is not collected by parliamentary constituency.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. count in May of each year.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many publications were issued by his Department between 8 June and 26 October. [11825]
  151W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of publications, defined as new or amended titles which includes booklets, leaflets, flyers and forms issued to the public or made available on request to the public is 356. This figure includes items published under the Department's agencies and Jobcentre Plus brands.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his Department's estimates are of the number of people who will(a) find work and (b) be moved from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance as a result of the Jobcentre Plus interviews regulations; [11263]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the additional expenditure which will arise in the next three years as a result of people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance following a work-focused interview. [11408]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus interviews are to discuss people's work aspirations either now or in the future and to ensure that all people of working age are aware of the help and support available if they choose to move into work.

  Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices will initially be working to existing Employment Service and Benefits Agency targets. Jobcentre Plus will have its own Annual Performance Agreement (APA) targets from April 2002, which will be agreed with the Secretary of State. In addition to these high level targets, lower level operational targets will be set by the Jobcentre Plus Chief Executive. The number of people helped into work overall will be a key outcome.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the projects in his Department which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13430]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W, which sets out the position of public sector comparators in the investment appraisal process.

  The Department has had no public-private partnership projects since 1997 that were not taken forward because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value.

  Pension Rates
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what would have been the value of the basic pension for a single person and a married couple in each year from 1998–99 to 2002–03 if it had been increased each year in line with the average earnings index for(a) the previous September and (b) May to July; and what would have been the additional costs in each year compared with the actual pension rates. [13724]
  152W
  Mr. McCartney
  In 2001–02 alone, the Government will spend around £4½ billion more in real terms on help for pensioners than was spent in 1996–97. That is almost £3 billion more than would have been spent through earnings uprating of the basic state pension. Of this extra spending, £2 billion is going to the poorest third of pensioners—five times more than an earnings link would have given them.

  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  6(a) September

  (b) May-July

  Single

  Couple

  Single

  Couple

  1998–99

  £65.00

  £103.90

  £64.95

  £103.80

  1999–2000

  £68.40

  £109.30

  £68.65

  £109.70

  2000–01

  £71.60

  £114.40

  £71.90

  £114.90

  2001–02

  £74.60

  £119.20

  £74.80

  £119.50

  2002–03

  £78.05

  £124.70

  £78.25

  £125.00

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in cash terms, £ per week.

  2. Part a uses the September whole economy, seasonally adjusted annual percentage change in the average earnings index.

  3. Part b uses the May to July whole economy, seasonally adjusted headline rate from the average earnings index.

  The extra cost of uprating the basic state pension by the average earnings index in (a) the previous September and (b) May-July would have been:

  £ billion

  (a) September

  (b) May-July

  1998–99

  0.2

  0.1

  1999–2000

  0.8

  0.9

  2000–01

  2.1

  2.2

  2001–02

  1.1

  1.2

  2002–03

  1.2

  1.3

  Note:

  Figures are in constant 2001–02 price terms, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disabled children qualify for Disability Living Allowance; what the percentage take-up of benefit is; and if he will make a statement on action being taken to improve the take-up figures. [13902]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The latest available information is that 227,000 children aged under 16 were receiving Disability Living Allowance at 31 May 2001. Estimates of the take-up of this benefit are not routinely made. We keep take-up of benefit under review.

  Touch Screen Kiosks
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost of touch screen kiosks for job search in jobcentres. [14093]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 583W.

  Benefits (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in the Buckingham

  Income-related benefit recipients in the Buckingham constituency

  Income support

  Jobseeker's allowance (income based)

  Family credit/working families tax credit

  Disability working allowance/disabled person's tax credit1

  Total

  May 1998

  2,000

  *300

  *300

  11

  2,600

  May 1999

  2,000

  *300

  *300

  14

  2,600

  May 2000

  2,000

  *200

  500

  14

  2,700

  May 2001

  2,000

  *100

  800

  18

  3,000

  1 Disabled Working Allowance/Disabled Person's Tax Credit figures are for April each year.

  Notes:

  1. Figures (other than Disability Working Allowance/Disabled Person's Tax Credit which is a 100 per cent. count of all cases) are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures marked '*' are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be treated as a rough guide to the situation only.

  3. Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) and 'Total' figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  4. Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance claimants in receipt of Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit or Disability Working Allowance/Disabled Person's Tax Credit are not shown in Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance totals.

  5. Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance were replaced by Working Families' Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit in October 1999.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1998-May 2001.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1998-May 2001.

  Family Credit/Working Families' Tax Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1998-May 2001.

  Disability Working Allowance/Disabled Person's Tax Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiries April 1998-April 2001.

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures are not available for the Buckingham constituency but are available for Aylesbury Vale district council.

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit caseload for Aylesbury Vale district council

  Aylesbury Vale1

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  May 1998

  5,880

  6,840

  May 1999

  5,720

  6,660

  May 2000

  5,220

  6,150

  May 2001

  5,000

  6,020

  1 Buckingham parliamentary constituency and Aylesbury parliamentary constituency are both covered in part by the Aylesbury Vale Local Authority area. Figures are not therefore representative of the constituency area.

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken each May from 1998 to 2001.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many cases of vandalism were recorded in Benefits Agency offices in each year since 1997; and how many successful prosecutions were brought in respect of such cases; [14229]

  (2) what was the approximate cost of vandalism in Benefits Agency offices in each year since 1997. [14239]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: At the outset of the PRIME contract on 1 April 1998, all risk arising from vandalism and causing damage to accommodation, furniture and fittings in Benefits
  154W
  constituency were in receipt of income-related benefits in each of the last four years. [14211]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables

  Agency premises transferred to Land Securities Trillium. Land Securities Trillium is responsible therefore for all costs associated with their repair or replacement. Land Securities Trillium do not maintain statistics on vandalism in Benefits Agency offices.

  Incidents such as criminal damage or vandalism, are referred to the police for investigation and possible prosecution.

  Social Security (Modernisation Budget)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what items the budget for modernising the delivery of the social security system allocated in the 2000 Spending Review has been spent; and how the budget will be spent in 2001–02. [14311]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The budget for modernising the delivery of the social security system, allocated in the 2000 Spending Review, was spent on the items listed. Spending will continue on these items in 2001.

  Payment Modernisation Programme

  New IT for the Child Support Agency

  New front end systems

  Replacement of legacy systems

  Improvement to management information

  PCs for all staff

  Modernising services to pensioners, including preparation for the pensioner credit

  DSS (now DWP) work on the integrated child credit, which now forms part of New Tax Credit.

  Benefit Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent request he has received from
  155W
  the Scottish Executive to transfer benefit expenditure to the Executive; and what consequential changes to benefit eligibility are implied by such requests. [14350]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: In September 2001, the Scottish Executive requested a transfer of resources from the Department in respect of their proposals on free personal care.

  My right hon. Friend decided not to agree to their proposal. No further request has been received from the Scottish Executive.

  Pension Clawback
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was(a) the total annual clawback of pensions arising from downgrading owing to hospitalisation and (b) the estimated total arising from each specific category of downgrading in each of the last five years. [14368]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Information is unavailable prior to 1997–98.

  The estimated total arising from each specific category of downrating in each of the last five years is:

  £ million

  Year

  6–52 weeks downrating

  Over 52 weeks downrating

  1997–98

  23

  36

  1998–99

  25

  34

  1999–2000

  26

  31

  2000–01

  28

  29

  Notes:

  1. Figures in 2000–01 prices

  2. Figures rounded to nearest £ million

  The rules for the adjustment of benefits for periods in hospital are applied to most social security benefits such as incapacity benefit as well as to retirement and widow's pension. These rules, which are laid down in law, have been applied with only minor modifications since the introduction of the national insurance scheme over 50 years ago. The rules are based on the view that while the national health service provides free maintenance as well as free treatment, maintenance benefits, also paid out of state funds, should not be paid in full indefinitely.

  Departmental Name Change
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost has been to public funds of re-branding his Department to accommodate its name change following the last general election. [14436]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The total cost of re-branding the Department to accommodate its name change following the last general election has been £232,044.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what measures he has taken to ensure that advice is available to benefit recipients on the interaction between housing/council tax benefit and the pension credit; and what is the anticipated cost of that advice; [14448]
  156W
  (2) if he will make a statement on how entitlements to housing and council tax benefit will be affected by the pension credit; [14447]

  Mr. McCartney
  The pension credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty.

  We are completing the design of the pension credit and will publish details of our proposals, including the interaction of pension credit with housing benefit and council tax benefit, when the Bill is introduced. We are planning a more customer-focused service tailored to individual needs which will include information on the benefits to which pensioners may be entitled.

  "Removing the Barriers"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam of 6 November 2001,Official Report, columns 195–96W, on "Removing the Barriers", if he will specify improvements which have been introduced as a result of the report's recommendations. [14617]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: We consider carefully the findings of reports such as "Removing the Barriers". While the welfare reforms the Government have, and continue to make, have not been made as a specific result of concerns expressed in this particular report, they address many of the concerns raised.

  The report concluded that there was a need for a co-ordinated approach to the provision of welfare services and that central and local government needed to share common objectives. We are committed to working together with the Local Government Association and have already agreed a framework for the conduct of relations between central and local government. Among the many things the framework embraces is a commitment to reflect both local and national priorities and the views of local communities.

  The new pension service will also be based on working in close partnership with local authorities, particularly to encourage the take-up of benefits for older people. Officials met with the local government association on 24 October to discuss how these proposals can be taken forward.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what date his Department established a working group of officials to prepare his Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14779]

  Mr. McCartney
  A working group has been established within the Department for Work and Pensions to consider implementation of the Freedom of Information Act across the Department.

  The first meeting of the group was held on Wednesday 24 October 2001 and provided an overview of the provisions of the Act. Future meetings will consider more detailed implementation plans. The membership of the

  157W
  group includes representatives from the Corporate Centre, departmental agencies including Employment Services and associated non-departmental public bodies.

  Pensioners (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) men and (b) women in each ethnic group of pensionable age there (i) were in the Wycombe constituency and (ii) have been in each of the last four years. [14878]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not collected centrally by this Department.

  Personal Advisers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if incapacity benefit claimants who make a claim at a Jobcentre Plus office are assigned a personal adviser immediately. [15148]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  People making a new or repeat claim to incapacity benefit through Jobcentre Plus will meet with a personal adviser at a work focused interview at the start of their claim. During this interview they will normally be given information about the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) and details of local job brokers. If they wish to take part in NDDP then further support will be provided by their chosen job broker.

  Child Poverty
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children were living in poverty in each of the last 15 years; and what estimate he has of the number of children that will be living in poverty in each of the next three years. [16099]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child poverty is a complex multi-dimensional concept, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of the environment, and opportunities to learn. The third "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5260) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy. The report also contains details of Public Service Agreement targets which set levels of progress to be achieved over specific timescales.

  New Deal
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people aged under 25 years have been(a) killed and (b) injured while on new deal schemes in each of the last three years. [16095]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since April 1998 there has been one fatality and 230 injuries reported on the new deal for young people. These are broken down as follows for each of the last three years:

  Year

  Injuries

  Fatality

  April 1998 to March 1999

  21

  1

  April 1999 to March 2000

  130

  —

  April 2000 to March 2001

  79

  —

  Total

  230

  1

  158W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of persons classified as leaving the New Deal for Young Persons to unknown destinations who left for sustained jobs in each of the last three years. [8125]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We estimate from surveys of this group that over 50 per cent. of those who have left the New Deal for Young People for unknown destinations moved into sustained jobs.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people left the Environmental Taskforce option of the New Deal for Young People between July 1999 and October 2001 for(a) an unknown destination, (b) sustained unsubsidised employment, (c) jobs lasting less than 13 weeks, (d) other benefits and (e) another known destination; [11596]

  (2) how many people left the voluntary sector option of the New Deal for Young People between July 1999 and October 2001 for (a) an unknown destination, (b) sustained unsubsidised employment, (c) jobs lasting less than 13 weeks, (d) other benefits and (e) another known destination. [11597]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table. Figures for the numbers leaving for jobs lasting less than 13 weeks are not available as, by definition, all clients who enter a job and return to benefit within 13 weeks are not classed as having left New Deal.

  Numbers and destinations of leavers from the Environment Taskforce and Voluntary Sector options: July 1999—August 2001

  Environment taskforce

  Voluntary sector

  Total leavers

  33,960

  34,920

  Unsubsidised job

  10,650

  11,480

  Other benefits

  2,970

  3,290

  Other known destination

  10,140

  10,410

  Unknown destination

  10,200

  9,740

  Source:

  Employment Service New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer from the Minister for Work to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 865, if he will place in the Library the evidence referred to on the number of people who have found work as a result of the new deal for the under-25s. [16221]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The report "The New Deal for Young People: Implications for Employment and the Public Finances" by Rebecca Riley and Garry Young, National Institute of Economic and Social Research (December 2000), is already in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many persons have left the New Deal for Young People for(a) employment and (b) sustained employment lasting more than 13 weeks in Government Departments; what proportion such persons represent of the total number of persons (i) leaving the New Deal for Young People and (ii) leaving the New Deal for Young People for employment; how many joined each Government Department in each year since the inception of the New Deal for Young People; and what

  159W
  this last number represents as a proportion of (A) total recruitment and (B) recruitment in the 18–25 age group by the Department in question; [7981]

  (2) how many persons left the New Deal for the long-term unemployed for (a) employment and (b) sustained employment in Government Departments; and what proportion such persons represent of the total number of persons leaving the New Deal for the long-term unemployed in each year since its inception; [9420]

  (3) how many persons left the New Deal for Disabled People for (a) employment and (b) sustained employment in Government Departments; what proportion such persons represent of the total number of persons (i) leaving the New Deal for Disabled People and (ii) leaving the New Deal for Disabled People in each year since its inception; [9642]

  (4) how many persons have left the New Deal for Lone Parents for (a) employment and (b) sustained employment in Government Departments; what proportion such
  160W
  persons represent of the total number of persons (i) leaving the New Deal for Lone Parents and (ii) leaving the New Deal for Lone Parents for employment; how many joined each Government Department in each year since its inception; [9682]

  (5) how many persons have left the New Deal for people aged 50 and above for (a) employment and (b) sustained employment in Government Departments; what proportion such persons represent of the total number of persons (i) leaving the New Deal for people aged 50+ and (ii) leaving the New Deal for people aged 50+ for employment in each year since the inception of the New Deal. [9683]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At 1 July 2001, the total number of clients entering Government Departments from the New Deal for Young People and the long-term unemployed was 5,151, which equates to 1.4 per cent. of all people starting on these programmes. Employment in the civil service accounts for around 1.7 per cent. of the work force as a whole. Figures for the other new deals are not available.

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

Humber Estuary: Pilot Services
Lord Berkeleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a public inquiry into the safety implications of the proposed reorganisation of pilot services in the Humber estuary, to avoid a situation similar to that which contributed to the "Sea Empress" disaster at Milford Haven.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Question. Changes to pilotage services on the Humber arise from a contractual dispute in which it would be inappropriate for Ministers to intervene. We are of course concerned that the statutory harbour authority should continue to fulfil its legal duty relating to safe navigation of vessels on the Humber. It has given assurances that safety standards will be maintained in accordance with our port marine safety code, which we developed after the "Sea Empress" grounding.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the UK Marine Pilots Association. Is my noble friend aware that if the dispute is not settled, all existing pilots will no longer be working on the Humber at the end of January? Can he satisfy the House that safety will be protected under the new arrangements being made by the port authority, bearing in mind that the "Sea Empress" disaster at Milford Haven was caused by inexperienced pilotage? Would it not be appropriate for Ministers at least to attempt to convene a meeting between the parties to try to resolve the dispute before it becomes even more acrimonious?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the statutory responsibility for harbour safety was clearly placed on harbour authorities by the 1987 Act. This is a contractual dispute between two parties. Humber Pilots Limited, a co-operative of pilots, served notice some nine months ago on the harbour authority that it no longer intended to continue under the current terms of the contract. The parties have not yet reached agreement. As a precautionary device, the harbour authority is in the process of training a large number of replacement pilots. The department has been in touch with the harbour authority and has inspected its safety plans and training proposals. It is watching the situation closely.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all marine pilots are personally liable for the advice they give to masters of vessels? Is he further aware that one of the pilots in the Humber estuary is facing
864
disciplinary action for advising a master not to take his vessel out of harbour because there was insufficient water, and that the master of that vessel concurred with the advice he had been given?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the House knows, there has been a complex history of development of the pilotage service since the 1987 Act which has led to a significant change in the responsibility and accountability of pilots. Were there ever to be an accident in a harbour, the ultimate authority to have action taken against it would be the harbour authority. I shall look into the noble Lord's comment about the legal responsibilities of individual pilots and write to him.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister has told us twice that responsibility for the safety of those approaching a harbour is placed firmly on the harbour authority by the Act. He later told us that the Government were looking closely at the situation to ensure that safety was not imperilled. Given that safety is the responsibility of the harbour authority, what is the Government's locus in this dispute?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord has taken my words further than I intended. The Government do not want to confuse the responsibility for safety in these issues. That is why the 1987 Act—which we have no intention of changing—placed the responsibility so clearly on the harbour authorities. However, in the light of the "Sea Empress" accident and the inquiry that took place into it, the Government have recognised that they have a role in promoting the best possible standards of marine safety. That is why the Government, with the support of the industry, published the port marine safety code. All harbour authorities are due in January to publish their clear responses to that safety code and to set out their full plans for risk assessment and for ensuring that risk in harbours is minimised.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, what steps have the Government taken to encourage the parties to come to an agreement in this dispute? Have they encouraged ACAS to take an interest? What have they done in respect of this very important dispute?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, ACAS cannot get involved in the issue because it is not a trade dispute; it is a contractual dispute. The pilots are not employed by the harbour authority; they carry out labour-only contract work for Humber Pilots Limited, which is itself the contractor to the Humber authority. The Government are aware of the views of both sides in the dispute because, naturally, they seek to keep the department informed. The responsible Minister will be meeting with local MPs to discuss the situation. However, the responsibility is with the harbour authority. The Government strongly hope for, and urge both sides to reach, a satisfactory conclusion in order that good and safe shipping will continue on the Humber, as is our expectation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister said that the port authority is having other pilots trained. I assume that someone is training them. Who is that? It cannot be the pilots who know the river and are in dispute.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should not like to second-guess the harbour authority. However, as I understand it, the authority has recruited a substantial number of experienced sea-farers who have maritime certificates. They are being trained in groups on a training vessel which is operating on the Humber—so they are receiving live training on that vessel. I am not explicitly aware of who is giving the direct advice. However, I am fairly confident that it is being given by experienced sea-farers with a capacity to give such training. I shall confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, surely, irrespective of the advice of the pilot, in all cases responsibility lies with the captain of a vessel. That being the case, are the Government satisfied with the degrees of competence of all captains and watch-keeping officers coming into British ports?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the IMO is meeting this week. I am sure that the standards of most captains of most flags are of a high standard. I should be surprised if the Government thought that all flags met the high standards met by the British maritime fleet. No doubt these issues will be discussed at the IMO conference.

Foot and Mouth Disease
2.40 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish a list of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, giving in each instance the dates and places and the actions taken by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or its successor, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the number of animals slaughtered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, throughout the outbreak, details of infected premises have been placed in the Library of the House, in the form of daily reports, and now weekly reports are being submitted. A full list of infected premises with the date on which foot and mouth disease was confirmed, along with the number and type of animals slaughtered, is also available on the department's website. The list has been updated daily.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, website or no, I cannot even claim to be disappointed with that Answer. Is the Minister aware that I understand that it would have been totally unreasonable to expect a modest and short Question of this kind to shift the
866
Government from their adopted coyness into something approaching candour? Will the Minister agree, on reflection, that it would be better to let the whole thing come out rather than continue to feed the public belief that MAFF's performance throughout was pathetic?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord did not hear me. Put more simply, the answer to his Question is that we are already doing it. I should have thought that he would be pleased with that. Throughout the foot and mouth outbreak, we have given the information that he wants. If he wants it in aggregate form, we can produce it. But it has been in the Library throughout. Clearly, as we move, it is to be hoped, to the end of this disease, more detailed evidence will be produced by the department and by others; and the various committees of inquiry that will examine the outbreak will present their conclusions. That is the way to get candour and truth and recommendations as to how better to deal with such outbreaks of disease in the future.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, of the estimated 3.9 million animals slaughtered as a result of suspected foot and mouth disease, how many were of the contiguous cull type and how many of those actually tested negative? That has a big bearing on the forthcoming Animal Health Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with respect, it does not. The whole point about contiguous cull is that disease is prevented from spreading to neighbouring premises before it becomes apparent in the animals. In other words, a cull is supposed to take place as rapidly as possible; there are 21 days up to which the disease can incubate. It would therefore be extremely surprising, where a cull was carried out rapidly, if there had been a large level of positive results. Therefore, people are drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from the fact that a relatively small number of contiguous cull premises showed positive results on immediate testing. If that is the basis for the criticism of the Government's strategy, it is seriously misplaced. I shall let the noble Lord have the precise figures in relation to contiguous cull premises and initial premises.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the lessons of the foot and mouth outbreak is that we need a European-level strategy to deal with it, possibly including the use of vaccination?
Lord Whitty: Indeed, my Lords, we have needed to keep in touch with our European partners throughout this epidemic. That closeness and, if I dare say it, candour as to how the disease was developing have paid off in terms of the relaxation in the past two months of the export bans on cattle and pigs, and now on sheep. So far as concerns future strategies, the Government, together with the Dutch Government, took the initiative in establishing the conference that

867
will take place next month in Brussels, which will examine all aspects of disease control, including various forms of vaccination.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I declare an interest as one who lost his stock. As the Minister will be aware, foot and mouth is no respecter of national boundaries. The new Animal Health Bill applies to England and Wales only. Why is there no equivalent Scottish Bill? Or do the Scots think that the England and Wales Bill is unnecessary?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provisions in devolved responsibilities are a matter for the Scottish Executive. What became clear in England, particularly in the latter stages of the disease, was that failure to carry out the cull in contiguous premises was slowing down the way in which we could contain the disease. Therefore, a more adequate procedure would have been appropriate. That is what the Bill provides. Other lessons may well emerge from the inquiries which both the Scottish and the England and Wales authorities will have to learn. But we have already learnt that particular lesson. That is the reason behind some of the Bill's provisions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in how many cases in which legal action was taken by farmers or animal owners to prevent ministry officials killing our animals was foot and mouth disease subsequently spread?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I may say so, that is not the appropriate question, for the reasons that I have already explained. The number of cases in which any delay in the contiguous cull led to the final testing proving positive is relatively small—I think that the figure usually quoted is eight within one of the epidemic areas. The point is that had that cull not been carried out in hundreds of other cases, the spread of the disease would have been dramatically worse. That is the point of the cull and, to a large extent, the success of the strategy.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I welcome the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I declare an interest as someone who has been subject to the regulations under the current foot and mouth regime. I expect that the Minister is aware of the ex-Home Office veterinary inspector who has written a report on his experiences in Cumbria. The report was referred to in another place just a week ago. Does the Minister agree that, from the evidence presented, it would have required three times the number of vets to handle the current outbreak as would have been required under the protocol that was in force in 1967? Will the Government concede that the ministry's contingency plan had not taken that into account? Without a thorough review of the protocol and its implementation, the public are left with the impression, as my noble friend suggested, that there is something to hide.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the noble Duke's last point, noble Lords should stop suggesting that the
868
Government have something to hide in this process. The number of times that my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I have reported to the House in all candour on the developments throughout the outbreak can leave your Lordships in no doubt that we have throughout dealt openly and honestly with the House and others who inquired.
I have seen the report to which the noble Duke referred. There are many opinions on how the disease was handled and there may well be lessons to be learnt on the number and deployment of people from the State Veterinary Service. That is a matter for the inquiry. The Government look forward to its findings.

Learning and Skills Council: Sixth-form Funding
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the funding of sixth-form places by the Learning and Skills Council to be adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): Yes, my Lords. The total amount for the funding of school sixth forms by the Learning and Skills Council from April 2002 has already been agreed. The Learning and Skills Council will announce initial allocations in December.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she accept that the predictions are that sixth-form places in schools will be funded at a level £900 below the average in the past? Will she give the House an absolute assurance that no school will be penalised for having a successful, thriving and growing sixth form by having to dig into the rest of its budget to support the sixth form under the new regime?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am more than happy to give that commitment to the noble Baroness. I want to take a moment to explain the funding regime, because there has been some misunderstanding about how the formula was to be worked out, based on very preliminary information that we sent out. No sixth form will be funded below the 2000–01 rates, which we are describing as the baseline year. In addition, the Learning and Skills Council will take account of any significant cash injections to sixth forms made by LEAs in the last financial year and will make appropriate adjustments. The £2,600 that is being quoted will be the determining figure if numbers change, not the figure on which the figures are based.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the guarantee extend to a growing sixth form—in other words, one that will have more pupils? Also, will the decision for

869
discontinuing a sixth form lie with the organisational committee and adjudicator or the Learning and Skills Council and how will one read across to the other?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Baroness's second question first, but I shall remember to answer her first question as well. The Learning and Skills Council has the power to propose the closure of a sixth form on any site only if it has been deemed inadequate following two consecutive Ofsted inspections. That will be the trigger. For growing sixth forms, the real-terms guarantee is reviewed each year and numbers are taken into account at that point in order to put the guarantee back in place. It is the purpose of the Learning and Skills Council to help thriving and growing sixth forms wherever possible.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, what do the Government expect the trend in funding per pupil in sixth forms to be? Do they expect it to rise in line with average education expenditure over the next three years, or will it drop below that?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the funding available for 2002–03 is £1.356 billion. Already, the allocation for 2003–04 is set at £1.428 billion. That is a rising trend. It is our aspiration to support and help sixth forms across the country.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the rate of inflation implicit in the figures put forward by the Learning and Skills Council is 3 per cent a year? How is it proposed to fund the settlement through the Learning and Skills Council should teachers' salaries rise by more than 3 per cent a year?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I can confirm that the figure is 3 per cent a year. We are looking at the new formulas for the Learning and Skills Council for the future. I am sure that this is not the answer that the noble Baroness is looking for, but we are allowing schools to vire money across. The sixth-form money does not have to be put in a separate pot. Pre-sixth-form and sixth-form money can be vired into the general school budget. We shall have to look at the salaries of school teachers in the general spending review.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the department taken note of the provision in the Act that economic factors should not govern the allocation of money to sixth forms, particularly in rural schools? Can she guarantee that rural sixth formers will be protected in any allocation of grants?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Learning and Skills Council is required to look at elements of disadvantage, and that includes issues such as free school meals eligibility. It is unusual to have a
870
formula based on free school meals eligibility rather than take-up. That makes it more representative. We are very conscious of the need to support rural communities and rural sixth forms. That will be an important factor in the LSC's work.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Pilkington was talking about disadvantage. I thought that his point was that sixth forms in rural areas are likely to be smaller.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Yes.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I did not mean to suggest that rural communities are disadvantaged per se, but there have been issues of disadvantage because of pupils requiring to travel and so on and the need to support and protect small sixth forms, as your Lordships made very clear during the passage of the Bill. Part of the purpose of the Learning and Skills Council is to ensure that those sixth forms thrive and work collaboratively and co-operatively with others to ensure that a broad range of A-levels are available to pupils across rural communities.

Young Carers
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
How their policies on education support the needs of young carers.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we must balance the two needs of young carers—to receive a good education, and to receive support in caring for those for whom they have responsibilities. Current policies on school attendance aim to ensure that young people attend school. Additional support is available to those, including young carers, who may face barriers to learning. These include the Connexions service, learning mentors in Excellence in Cities areas and support services provided by educational welfare officers.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that constructive Answer. Is she aware that the Young Carers Research Group at Loughborough University is producing guidelines and recommendations on education policy for young carers? When those recommendations are ready, would she think it useful for her department to produce guidelines that summarise the recommendations and give examples of good practice? There is tremendous inconsistency in that area.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am aware that the Young Carers Research Group at Loughborough University is conducting a study on education policy. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that we would like to produce a leaflet summarising guidance. My honourable friend the Parliamentary

871
Under-Secretary of State for Health, Hazel Blears, has said that the Government are keen to produce a resource pack for young carers. We shall ensure that that happens.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that a system will be put in place to ensure that young carers are given an assessment of their needs and that the services they require will be provided? Can she further assure us that as regards the continual professional development of teachers courses will be available so that teachers' awareness of the problems of young carers can be raised and they can spot problems, even if the young people do not themselves come forward to ask for help?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness as regards the importance of that matter. We have some research available on what young carers say they would like. The first thing they would like is to have someone available who will listen to them—someone to whom they can talk and who will believe them. They also want recognition of their role as carers. It may interest noble Lords to hear the following statistic of which I was not aware until last week; namely, that the average age of a young carer is 12. We are alive to the problems they face. They often perform all domestic duties and caring tasks, including the personal care of the relative for whom they care. It is important that teachers support them. I am seeking to find ways in which we can enhance that provision.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the number of young carers? Is it about 51,000? When a young carer addressed parliamentarians she expressed the deep concern and distress she felt when her teacher announced to her class that she was a young carer. I believe that in her case her mother had a mental illness. She was concerned about the confidentiality of her position being maintained. I believe that that is a widespread concern. What is being done to address that concern?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are about 51,000 young carers, many of whom receive no support from statutory or voluntary services. The Office for National Statistics provided the figure of 51,000, but I guess that there are many more we simply do not know about. The issue that the young carer raised is common. One of the anxieties we have concerns the amount of bullying that we believe young carers suffer in schools. Many of those young carers look after a relative with mental health problems. In small communities that can constitute a particular difficulty. There is a balance to be struck between maintaining confidentiality, which is so important, and ensuring that we offer young carers the right kind of support.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as several noble Lords have already stated, one of the great difficulties with young carers is getting them to identify themselves in a way which is
872
acceptable? They are often diligent students and responsible young people so one cannot apply those kind of criteria. What encouragement is being given to teachers to help them identify young carers and to enable the latter to say what their problems are and also to enable them to say that they do not wish to be carers at all?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness with her many years of experience raises an important point. There are real disincentives within our society against self-identification and against parents identifying their children as young carers. The first is a fear of being taken into care. Parental illness is the third most common reason for children entering the public care system. They also fear bullying. As I said, we believe that 71 per cent of young carers are bullied in school. Some 33 per cent believe that their teachers are not aware that they may be looking after someone at home.
We have issued guidance on how to support young carers within school inclusion. We have asked the Connexions service to offer advice to young carers and to be aware of them and, in Excellence in Cities areas, for learning mentors to offer a single point of contact. But I believe that we need to do more. As a direct result of the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I intend to set up a group within the department to consider what more can be done. I invite the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Pitkeathley, or any other noble Lord who is interested, to join those discussions.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in order to identify those many young carers who shoulder the terrible burden of looking after parents with mental illness, will the Minister ensure that her department looks carefully once again at the systems for and extent of information sharing between education, social services and health so that the educational and other needs of those young carers are properly met?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that that is an area where we need to think in, dare I say, a joined-up manner. As noble Lords know, I am an advocate of joined-up thinking between education, health and social care. For the pupils we are discussing it is particularly important that we do that.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have any figure for the amount of money which the taxpayer saves through young carers caring for people who would otherwise have to be looked after by social services or the National Health Service?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it w ill not surprise the noble Lord to hear that I do not, although I can imagine that it is a huge amount of money. However, I do not wish to consider only the economic aspect. The role these young carers play is fantastic. As

873
my noble friend has said, they are in the main diligent students and they shoulder a burden that we can do more to support them with.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that there is no support in law for young people to carry out paid work, would the noble Baroness say that there ought to be an obligation on social services to intervene to make sure that those young people are not put in the position where they are having to do almost a professional job unpaid and unrecognised?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point which fits with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley; namely, that sometimes these young people do not want to be carers. I shall consider that suggestion and come back to the noble Baroness.

Business of the House: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I take this earliest opportunity to make a brief statement regarding the timetable for the emergency Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. The timetable has been agreed in the usual channels.
It is expected that the Bill will arrive in this House late on Monday 26th November; that is, a week today. The Second Reading will be on Tuesday 27th November. There will then be four days in Committee: Wednesday 28th and Thursday 29th November and Monday 3rd and Tuesday 4th December. There will be two days on Report on Thursday 6th and Monday 10th December. The Third Reading will be on Tuesday 11th December. I am extremely grateful to the usual channels for agreeing to reduce the intervals between the various stages of the Bill.
There are a number of associated questions which need to be addressed, for example, your Lordships will want to know when the Speakers' List will be open for Second Reading and what the deadlines will be for tabling amendments. I discussed those matters with the usual channels and with the House authorities and we have placed a comprehensive document outlining all the dates and arrangements in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I confirm, as the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms says, that we have agreed to the accelerated programme for the Bill that he set out. I thank him for announcing it. However, I wish to add a few sentences about the nature of that agreement.
My right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith rightly expressed to the Prime Minister and publicly the Opposition's support for necessary emergency measures in the face of the new threats from terrorism.
874
We have always been resolute against terrorism and, of course, we remain so. But this Bill is not a coalition document. We were not consulted on its content before it was published. It embodies Labour Ministers' ideas and their judgment of what is required urgently under an accelerated timetable. Neither the Opposition nor your Lordships' House generally is under an obligation to accept unthinkingly either those ideas or those judgments of urgency. Indeed, I believe that we have an obligation to scrutinise them.
Ministers from eight different government departments are proposing permanent changes to laws, including some that we have recently passed after much discussion, for example, the Terrorism Act 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and so on. Some clauses are to be subject to monitoring by statutory instrument for renewal at intervals, some are not. For the first time, I believe, some clauses are limited to international terrorism as distinct from UK terrorism. Given the continuing domestic threat to the United Kingdom and the world-wide terrorist links of some UK terrorists, that is in itself an extraordinary proposal.
The point to be made about the agreement on the timetable is that it does not so much limit the actual length of your Lordships' debates—eight days is probably only two or three days short of what the Bill would have taken in the normal course—but it drastically cuts the normal intervals between stages and between the days of the Committee stage. Therefore, it reduces the time for reflection, for consultation with bodies and individuals outside Parliament, and for thought not only by Members of your Lordships' House but also by others outside and, indeed, by the Government on what is said in Parliament.
We have agreed the foreshortened timetable. However, neither we nor your Lordships' House should neglect our duty to consider the Government's proposals and their claims to urgency in each case.
Lord Roper: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the Chief Whip for the suggestions that he accepted with regard to the timetabling. However, we share a number of the reservations expressed by the Opposition Chief Whip. This is a very full Bill. It includes some measures which do not immediately seem to be directly relevant to the issues of antiterrorism with which we totally agree. We shall want to scrutinise those particularly carefully in deciding whether they should be included in a Bill which is being considered in such an accelerated way. However, subject to that, we have accepted, and will support when they come before the House, the changes which will enable us to consider the Bill in an abbreviated form.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, as we are not accustomed to timetable Motions in your Lordships' House, I want to ask whether this matter will be debatable. As there is very little precedent for it, I hope that it will at least be subject to a debate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, every Bill that we discuss in this House is subject to an agreed timetable. The noble

875
Lord is entirely correct that we have no such thing as a timetable Motion. However, the usual channels spend their time agreeing timetables for every Bill with which we deal, and this Bill is no different in that respect. The timetable has been agreed. Certainly the intervals have been reduced but there are plenty of precedents for that.
I certainly accept what the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Cope, said. There is no chance that this House will accept unthinkingly anything that is put before it. We have allowed eight days for the Bill. I do not believe that this is the time or place to discuss its merits or what should or should not be included in it. Clearly that will become apparent as the Bill proceeds. However, since becoming Chief Whip, I have worked with the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Henley. Lord Cope, the late Lord Harris of Greenwich and now the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and we have always managed to complete Bills according to the agreed timetable. I hope that this extremely important Bill will not be the first on which we breach an agreement reached via the usual channels.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, while I support my own Front Bench and yield to no one in my determination to fight terrorism, perhaps I may raise a procedural point. It may transpire that this House believes that some clauses in the Bill do not need to be enacted before Christmas and that some clauses require further thought and possible amendment. In that case, will the Government be open to the possibility of splitting the Bill so that clauses which, in the view of this House, genuinely need to be enacted before Christmas are so enacted while other clauses could be brought forward after Christmas for further and more detailed consideration? I say that in the context of the very abbreviated consideration which the Bill appears to be receiving in another place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it would certainly not be right for me to comment on that. I am not familiar with all the details of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord and others will wish to place those arguments before the House as we proceed through the Bill. It would not be right for me to give such an undertaking today.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is the Government's contention at present that all the propositions in the Bill need to be put into law by Christmas. It will, of course, be for your Lordships to consider whether they agree with that contention in the case of each individual proposal. We hope to be able to persuade the Government that some of the proposals are not urgent and that they should be left out of this Bill. Perhaps, if it is desired, they could be included in a further Bill to follow in the new year.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I raise a point for clarification only. I heard the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms say that the intervals between stages had been reduced. Am I right in thinking that there will be no interval between Second Reading and Committee stage, no interval between Report stage
876
and Third Reading, and that the interval between Committee and Report stages has been contracted to a single day?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is entirely correct. I was able to meet that suggestion put forward by the two Opposition parties. They wish to go into Committee stage immediately after the Second Reading. Therefore, the noble Lord is quite correct. The Second Reading will take place next Tuesday. We shall then have four days of Committee. A break of one day will be followed by two days of Report. The Third Reading will follow that. The Government regard this as emergency legislation on an extremely important subject. That is the agreement that has been reached.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the order (S.I. 2001/3644) laid before the House on 12th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. There will be a temptation—it affects me as it does anyone else—to go much wider than the order. I believe that the exchange that has just taken place indicates the pressure for that to happen. In introducing the order, I shall stick as closely as possible to its narrow confines. However, if the occasion arises and matters are raised, naturally I shall be prepared to be as open as I can be about consequential questions or issues.
Before coming to my main point, perhaps I may follow on from what has just been said. Later today we shall debate issues arising from the European arrest warrant. That will be subject to legislation early in the new year in terms of the amendment to extradition legislation. As I have already forecast, later in the spring there will be an immigration and asylum Bill.
However, as my noble friend the Chief Whip has just said, the Government seek Royal Assent to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill before Christmas. However, we in no way seek to stifle debate. With the amount of time available for debate, I do not believe that that criticism can be laid at this House. Obviously, if the Government propose a measure, it is for the House to respond to it. That is the way in which the system will work during our debates. We shall make the best of trying to convince noble Lords that what we propose is moderate, proportionate and precautionary.
The order that we are about to debate is significant. It concerns a derogation that the United Kingdom proposes to make from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That article affects the right to liberty and security. It is not a step to be taken lightly, and I want to make clear at the outset that the Government have given very careful consideration to the matter before embarking down this road.
I shall cover three issues: first, the technicalities of the order; secondly, the domestic powers that we propose to take which require the order to be made; and, thirdly, the conditions that must be satisfied for a member state to derogate from an article of the European convention. I shall set out why we believe that those conditions have been met.
The order was made on 11th November. It was laid before Parliament on 12th November and came into force on 13th November. The power to make such an order comes from Section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 1(1) of the 1998 Act sets out the articles of the convention which constitute the convention rights for the purposes of that Act. Section 1(2) provides that those articles are to have effect subject to any designated derogation. Section 14(1) of the Act provides that a designated derogation includes any derogation by the UK from an article of the convention which is designated in an order made by the Secretary of State. The order that we are debating is such an order.
The consequence of making the order is that the meaning of convention rights as they have effect in our domestic law will be amended in the manner that is set out in the order. The order has attached to it a schedule about the proposed derogation that the United Kingdom intends to make from Article 5(1) of the convention. It is considered that a derogation from that article is required to the extent that some of the measures in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are inconsistent with Article 5(1) of the convention.
I turn to the domestic powers that we are taking. The Bill is currently in another place—its Second Reading is due to start shortly, so we are debating the Bill and its consequences before the other place has started considering it. Clauses 21 to 23 provide for the detention, subject to judicial oversight, of certain individuals in circumstances that are likely to conflict with Article 5(1), as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal. It extends existing detention provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 to cover a circumstance where the following three conditions are met. First, the Secretary of State certifies an individual as being a "suspected international terrorist"; that is, the Secretary of State believes that the person's presence in the UK is a risk to national security and suspects that the person is an international terrorist. Secondly, action has been taken with a view to removing that person—that is, the suspected international terrorist—from the UK. Thirdly, removal is temporarily or indefinitely prevented by a point of law relating to an international agreement or by a practical consideration.
Although it is possible to detain people consistently with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights where the Government are seeking to remove someone on national security grounds, that detention would cease to be permissible if the duration of such proceedings became excessive. In the cases of some of the individuals who might be detained under those powers, it is possible that delays in removal would
878
exceed a period that is acceptable in convention terms. Hence the need for the order, which modifies our domestic obligations under the Human Rights Act to match the modifications that the UK will make to its international obligations under the ECHR when the proposed derogation is formally notified to the Council of Europe.
I turn to the derogation itself. Noble Lords will be aware that there are restrictions on the scope for derogating from an article of the convention. For some articles—such as Article 3, which provides that no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—there is no scope whatever to derogate. For other articles—such as Article 5— derogations may be made where there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, provided that the measures that are taken are strictly required by that emergency.
We have taken the view that the UK is currently facing a public emergency within the meaning of the convention. The first test is whether such a public emergency exists in the UK. There have been a number of public threats made by bin Laden and his supporters against western interests since 11th September. While we do not comment on intelligence, we do not believe that the overall level of threat to the UK has increased beyond the heightened levels following the events of 11th September. We believe that attacks against United States interests remain bin Laden's priority. We will of course keep all such issues under review.
The attacks in the United States represent a further escalation in the scale and scope of the international terrorist threat to western interests. The British role in the US-led coalition against international terrorism raises the overall risk of attack and it would be wrong to conclude that that threat has been diminished by recent events in Afghanistan. In addition, there is evidence to show that international terrorist organisations have links with the UK and therefore constitute a threat to the UK. We need to appreciate, as I have said before, that on 11th September the international terrorists rewrote the rule book, and these adjustments to our own rules are a consequence of that.
In its report last week, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed some concerns about the lack of specifics as regards the threats that we face. As the committee acknowledged, the specific information on which those judgments have to be based are necessarily not ones that can be shared. However, the public will readily be able to see, following the terrible events in the United States, that the devastation that international terrorists can wreak is large indeed. Our active support of the response of the United States means that we must be fully on our guard.
Those risks, however, do not mean that a "state of emergency" has been declared in this country. That is contrary to some of the shorthand used by illinformed—or probably lazy—journalists. We are not talking about a situation under the emergency powers Act in which sweeping executive powers are being taken to address some general emergency. However,

879
we do consider that the above threats mean that there is a public emergency within the meaning of Article 15 of the ECHR.
One question that we have to answer—everyone is asking it—is: are the detention powers that we propose a necessary and proportionate response to this emergency? We believe that they are. They are necessary because we need to do something to protect the public against individuals who contribute to the terrorist threat. If it is not possible to present sufficient admissible evidence to bring a successful criminal charge and if legal or practical considerations prevent removal from the UK, another option needs to be found. The extended but clearly circumscribed detention powers fill that gap. I repeat: our prime preference would be to prosecute; failing that, our second preference would be to remove the people from the United Kingdom—we are talking about non-UK citizens. We can adopt neither approach in these cases. We are therefore left with two alternatives: to do nothing and leave the people free or detain them.
We therefore believe that these measures are proportionate to that risk. The powers will be targeted on a small group of individuals. I cannot give a figure—a handful is involved but I cannot say whether it is a large or a small handful. A small group of individuals is involved. Those individuals constitute a major threat to national security; that is, as suspected international terrorists. With all due respect to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose work always greatly aids discussions in this House and in the other place, I do not share its conclusion that there is a lack of safeguards in the Bill. There are in fact a number of important safeguards relating to the use of those powers.
First, a detainee will be able to end his detention at his choice if he wishes to go to a third country. That is why I refuse to engage in a debate about whether internment is involved; it does not involve internment in the emotive historical sense in which that word has been used in this country. I refer to the internment of UK citizens who are locked up—banged up—and who certainly have no right to walk out. In this case, these people will be able to end their detention if they find a country that will take them.
Secondly, the powers exercised by the Secretary of State will be subject to full judicial scrutiny. I read reports in the media at the weekend which stated that no judge will ever see the evidence that David Blunkett will have used to make a decision or to issue a certificate. That is simply not true. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission—the relevant legislation went through this House and the other place at the back end of 1997—is well suited to considering these matters, having both judicial and security expertise. The commission consists in total of eight people: four judges and four others who have expertise in security matters. At any one time, there will be a minimum of two judges sitting and one person from the group that I call the lay people. They are in effect conducting a judicial review on the Home Secretary when he signs a certificate. The decisions of the commission will be capable of appeal to the Court
880
of Appeal and to the House of Lords on a point of law. So to argue, as some commentators have, that there is no judicial process, no oversight of what the Home Secretary is doing in respect of such people is, frankly, not the case.
Furthermore, the oversight on the detention powers will be ongoing. There will be an immediate right of appeal against the issuing of a certificate, with six-monthly reviews thereafter, and the additional safeguard of a review earlier than that where a change of circumstances is raised that warrants that. If there is a change between the six-monthly reviews, the detainee, through his or her legal adviser, will be able to make an application to have the matter looked at as a result of a change of circumstances. I cannot conceive of such a request being refused by the commission.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the point that, none the less, it remains entirely possible that a person could be detained indefinitely without ever knowing the allegations against him or her?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall address that. I am going through the process in a chronological manner. I have just referred to the detainees' legal adviser. The detainees can have whatever legal advice they choose, from wherever. Of course, there will be an appointed legal adviser to take the issue before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and that person will come from the Attorney-General's list. He or she will have that access, but will not be allowed to discuss it with the detainee. That is a necessary consequence of not being able to mount a prosecution. If we could mount a prosecution we could deploy the evidence in court. As we are not prepared to use intercept evidence, we are tied and so we have to build in this process to try to safeguard the issue.
My noble friend is correct. Last week, when the Home Secretary appeared before the Joint Committee, he was asked whether someone could be locked up for life. Technically, after five years the matter will have to be reviewed with all the other built-in provisions because the derogation is for five years only. But as the Bill is drafted, the answer, in a simplistic narrow way, would be yes. If one asks the question, "Can you conceive of someone being detained for life in that way?", the answer is probably no.
I cannot conceive of the circumstances because in this position—no doubt the matter will be debated at some length when we consider the Bill—I cannot give examples of what might fulfil those criteria.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Minister has helpfully told the House that SIAC, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, would effectively be conducting a judicial review of the decision of the Home Secretary. Therefore, am I correct in assuming that SIAC will be able to review the decision of the Home Secretary that someone cannot be sent to another country for reasons related to Article 3 or for other practical reasons? Will that also be reviewed by

881
SIAC? In reading the Bill, I am unclear whether the "ouster" clause, as it is called, will oust that or not. If SIAC is to substitute for normal judicial review, that is an important point.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is an incredibly important question which I cannot answer. I suspect the answer may be no, because it involves the interpretation of what happens under Article 3. There is really no way out of Article 3. If the Home Secretary takes the view that we cannot deport someone to a country in relation to which he has evidence that that person will face execution, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, Article 3 is absolute. I do not believe that anyone could second-guess that and say to the Home Secretary, "By the way, we believe that things are okay in country X or Y and you can get this person out".
I do not believe that SIAC would have that capability. I shall take advice on that, but on my reading and understanding of the discussions that we have had, I suspect that that would not be SIAC's role. I have only just started to catch up with the debates in this House and the other place on the setting up of SIAC. At the moment it has had only three cases. There is not much experience in relation to this matter. I believe that the answer would be no.
The oversight on the detention powers will be ongoing. Furthermore, the continuance of these powers will be subject to renewal by Parliament: initially, our proposal is after 15 months, and annually from then on. However, the order that we are debating today will expire after five years unless Parliament agrees to it being extended.
In my opening remarks I said that this is a serious measure that addresses a serious situation. We believe that there is a clear need for the order and we genuinely believe it to be a moderate adjustment to our rule book, following the international terrorists rewriting their own set of rules on 11th September. I commend the order to the House.
Move, That the order (S.I. 2001/3644) laid before the House on 12th November be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord McNally Lord McNally rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the order (S.I. 2001/3644) laid before the House on 12th November until the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill has received the Royal Assent".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am somewhat fortified in moving an amendment that has at its heart civil liberties and human rights to have back in his place my colleague, my noble friend Lord Avebury, for the first time since his recent illness and accident.
The introduction by the Minister lasted for nearly 20 minutes and there were several occasions when he was unsure of the full implications and told us to await the full debate in Committee, so I believe that this order puts the cart before the Horse. The order is not about
882
the new powers that the Home Secretary seeks in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, although the Minister went into a great amount of detail about them. This order assumes that those powers will be granted. My amendment concerns that presumption.
The Minister said that the powers that the Government seek are not to be taken lightly. Yet, as he said in opening, this debate on giving derogation powers is taking place in advance of a debate on Second Reading in another place. I have said in the House before that one of my favourite scenes in movies is in "A Man for all Seasons", when Richard Rich urges Thomas Moore expediency in relation to the law. Moore responds by saying, "Where do we shelter when the wind of tyranny blows?"
I do not accuse Ministers of planning tyranny—I have known many of them for too long to suspect that—but I accuse them of expediency and seeking expedient solutions, one of which is bringing forward this order today. Yesterday, in the Observer, Andrew Rawnsley put the matter well. He said:
"Urgent in their decision making and chaffing against any restraint, the emasculation of Parliament and the judiciary seems to them to make ripe common sense. Holding themselves to be good men and women, they simply cannot conceive that they could ever wield their accumulating powers in any way that is not benign".
It is such a frame of mind that causes the present Home Secretary to talk about "airy-fairy civil liberties" and his predecessor to sneer at his critics as "Hampstead Liberals". It is such a mood of impatience and intolerance which produces today's order.
Last Thursday I specifically asked the Minister whether he saw the Human Rights Act as a piece of fair-weather legislation or whether the Government still shared the view of my party that it was an iron pole around which our human rights and civil liberties are constructed. I was impressed by the robust nature of his reply supporting the Act and our 50-year-old commitment to the convention. Yet, four days later, here we are with a derogation order for powers that are contained in a Bill that has not yet been before this House.
Today is not the day for a detailed examination of the powers that the Home Secretary seeks. They will be properly discussed, as the Chief Whip has just reminded us, at Second Reading and at the Committee stage of a Bill that does not reach us until next week. Nevertheless, as the Minister went into some detail, I ask the House, particularly the Labour Benches, to consider some opinions which may be airy-fairy, but to which Labour used to pay quite a lot of attention. The Observer stated:
"Mr Blunkett has failed to offer any convincing explanation of why these specific powers are needed less than a year after an already severe new Terrorism Act was introduced".
The Independent stated:
"Think again Mr Blunkett before eroding our most fundamental rights".
It went on to say that the Home Secretary's plan,
"is a dangerous step. Parliament must force him to think again before we sleepwalk down this American road to a police state".

883
In a magisterial letter to The Times the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, said:
"I cannot accept that the right of an individual to apply to the courts by judicial review for a writ of habeas corpus can be described as 'airy-fairy' liberty".
In case the Minister thinks that my range of reading is too narrow, let me also quote Mr Bruce Anderson—who would sue if anyone called him a "Hampstead Liberal". He said:
"Blunkett is introducing a range of restrictions that even Margaret Thatcher might have blanched at".
Maybe Labour Back-Benchers will find even more worrying Mr Anderson's conclusions. He said:
"The time for naivety is over. On these measures Mr Blunkett deserves full and unswerving support".
Maybe he does. But he should first argue those measures before Parliament. If he gains approval of them, that will be the time to consider the order.
Today Parliament has an opportunity to remind the Government of our respective responsibilities. Over 130 years ago Mr Gladstone, when addressing Parliament, said:
"Your business is not to govern the country, but it is, if you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it".
He spoke those words to the House of Commons. In normal times the country would look to that House for such a calling to account. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, told us in yesterday's Sunday Times—it is usually in the Sunday Times because the noble Lord does not come here—all that is required of Government Back-Benchers in the Commons is,
"a willingness to nod like a toy dog in a car's rear window".
So it is left to this House, with all its imperfections, to carry out that duty.
We are strengthened in that determination by the view of both Houses in the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Most noble Lords will have read the report in detail, and in particular paragraph 78. I describe that as the "killer conclusion", although it is one which has already been rejected by the Minister. It states that,
"we are not persuaded that the circumstances of the present emergency or the exigencies of the current situation meet the tests".
It continues with strong words. They are not for the Government but for Parliament and this House. It states:
"It is now for Parliament to draw its own conclusions, and for Members of both Houses to satisfy themselves that there are adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the individual citizen against abuse of these powers".
That is for the debate on the Bill. That debate will decide whether the Government shall have the powers for which they seek premature derogation. There is a clear and present duty, to a clear and present danger, for this House to resist the claim tonight for this instrument.
We yield to no one in our determination to defeat terrorism. We match that with an equal determination to protect our civil liberties. The Government must argue their case for new powers and then seek derogation. Refusal by the House to approve the order
884
tonight will be a timely reminder, especially at a time of emergency, that power flows from the people to Parliament to the Government and not the other way around. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the order (S.I. 2001/3644) laid before the House on 12th November until the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill has received the Royal Assent".—(Lord McNally.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it would be tempting today to indulge ourselves with an anticipatory Second Reading debate. I hope that we shall avoid that. I have already thrown away three pages of notes which I regret that I shall be obliged to inflict upon noble Lords at a later date.
Of course the Bill has much in it which is open to criticism. It has content that is unrelated to emergency and inappropriate in detail. But we are agreed that legislation is needed to deal with the new situation that has arisen in this country post 11th September. Therefore, in principle the Bill is welcome, but there is much to criticise as regards its detail. If we accept that principle we can accept the order.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made much of outside criticism of what the Government seek to do in the Bill. He called it "the cart before the horse" and he quoted Moore, the emasculation of Parliament, the Observer, the Independent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, Mr Anderson and so on.
All those matters are valid, only if Parliament fails in its duty in the first place properly to consider the Bill. Whatever may happen in the other place, I do not accept the proposition that this House will avoid its duty. There will be plenty of opportunity on subsequent occasions properly to consider the detail of the Bill and to deal with it. I shall be very disappointed indeed if the Bill leaves the House in the form in which it arrives. That may give rise to an interesting situation subsequently, but that is another matter.
The Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, properly draws attention to many of the difficulties that exist with the Bill. I expect that we shall have many forceful debates before we get to the Motion, that the Bill do now pass. I shall refer only to one point. It illustrates the problem which arises within that report. Paragraph 23 states that,
"clause 23 of the Bill does not in itself make it clear that the purpose of detaining the suspect is solely to find a safe country to which to remove him or her. A suspect might be very willing to go to a country which supports, or at any rate does not oppose, terrorism".
It goes on:
"We asked the Secretary of State in oral evidence whether, for example, he would be prepared to let someone go to Iraq. Syria or Libya. We were reassured when he responded—
'If a country is prepared to take someone, then we would release them under these particular powers, because we arc talking about immigration powers".
I am obliged to say that I am not so reassured. Would we seriously release a man whom the Home Secretary has certified as a known terrorist to a country which is

885
known to sponsor terrorism? I find that proposition extremely difficult to swallow. I would not want to take out an insurance policy on the life of that individual, or indeed on his comfort, because Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prevents the export of someone to a country where either the death penalty or torture is prevalent. All three countries mentioned offer the possibility of death or torture as a fairly normal state of affairs. So while a terrorist may volunteer to go, that would strictly contravene Article 3 of the ECHR, which appears to me to be wrong.
That illustrates some of the difficulties that we shall face when we consider the Bill. For today, however, we do not think it right that we should delay the Bill by holding back the order. The order will apply to the Bill as passed, not the Bill as drafted. For those reasons, we do not support the noble Lord's amendment. The Government may have their order. We will not vote for it; but we will not vote against it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was one of six noble Lords who were members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which it was a great privilege to serve. Our report has already been referred to. It was unanimously agreed by Peers from all three parties and the Cross Benches, as well as by six Members from the other place. We produced our report in record time on Friday, the measures having been published only on Monday afternoon. I pay tribute to the legal adviser, Professor Feldman, and the Clerk to the committee, who made that possible.
I shall speak briefly to one or two issues as a member of that committee. First, I welcome the fact that we have this debate at all. We have it because under the Human Rights Act 1998, what was always a matter of prerogative is now a matter for parliamentary approval. The Government are to be congratulated on having included in the Act a provision that makes clear that the approval of both Houses is needed before they take the serious step of derogating from one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention.
The second kind thing that I should to like to say is that the Home Secretary and his colleagues should be commended for their broad interpretation of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the convention, which, as the Minister explained, in the Government's view gives rise to the need for a derogation. The Government could have taken a narrow view of the right to liberty and said that no derogation was needed, but they did not.
Another matter on which I congratulate the Home Secretary and his colleagues is that they resisted calls from the Conservative Front Bench in the other place to denounce the convention and enter what I would have considered an illegal reservation to Article 3 to allow the United Kingdom to extradite or deport a suspected terrorist to a country where he would face torture, inhuman treatment or the death penalty. I am glad that the Government did not go down that road. That is all positive.
886
It is also positive—I disagree on this point with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—that the Home Secretary has made clear that a suspected terrorist could go to a country that would take him but would immediately set him free, even if that were a country such as Iraq, which harbours terrorists. There is a good reason for that. I think that the noble Lord said that such a person would have been found by the Home Secretary to be a terrorist. That is not right. It is not the Home Secretary's function to find someone to be a terrorist; only a court of law can do that. In such a case, the Home Secretary will have reasonably suspected that someone is a terrorist, but will have to release him immediately, because otherwise there would be indefinite internment. As the Minister has made clear—although the Bill does not make crystal clear— the Government have no intention of interning indefinitely.
The Minister has already explained to the House that in order to pass muster under Article 15 of the convention, the Government must, first, satisfy the European Court of Human Rights—because it is the ultimate guardian of the treaty—that there is a sufficient state of emergency to justify the derogation and, secondly, meet the strict test that the measures in the Bill are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
On the first question, the Select Committee considered that the case had not been proved, and asked both Houses to satisfy themselves on the basis of what the Home Secretary could tell them that there is a sufficient state of public emergency. There are now two opinions: one given on behalf of Liberty by my colleague, David Pannick QC, and another, given on behalf of Justice, by my colleagues David Anderson QC and Jemima Stratford. I declare interests in supporting both of those non-governmental organisations. Those two opinions explore the question in detail, and I shall simply place them in the Library for those who find them interesting. Mr Pannick adopts a robust view; he thinks that there is not a sufficient public emergency. Mr David Anderson gives the Government greater benefit of the doubt on that question.
I suggested to the Select Committee that the real question is not so much whether there is a public emergency, on which the European Court would give the Government a wide margin of discretion, even though, as far as I know, we are the only European country seeking to derogate in such a way—one might have thought that our allies such as Germany, France and Spain would have equal need if there were a sufficient emergency, but that is by the by. The real question is not whether there is a public emergency—an elastic concept—but whether the measures in the Bill are strictly required to meet the exigencies of the situation. On that the committee was clear.
The Home Secretary gave the committee the benefit of an hour's question and answer session last Wednesday evening. We were concerned about several aspects. I cannot go into all of them, because there is not time, but in brief, we were most concerned about the loose definition of "links with terrorism". As paragraph 37 of our report states, that risks

887
"arbitrariness". We were also concerned about the technical question of whether the Home Secretary could issue new certificates against suspected terrorists indefinitely, even when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission had struck one down. Mr Blunkett was good enough to say that he would reread the wording and reconsider.
We were also concerned about the limited powers of SIAC. I support SIAC, as I did during the passage of the Bill that set it up, as a fair compromise. If we are to take the strong step of ousting normal judicial review, it is important to ensure that the independent judge and his colleagues on SIAC have full powers of review. In his opinion, Mr David Anderson points out an important ambiguity that I raised with the Minister previously, which I hope he will consider. It is vital that SIAC is able to assess the reasonableness of the Home Secretary's decision whether someone can or cannot in practice be sent to a safe country.
Another important question, which has already been raised, is whether it is good enough to give SIAC power to review a detention only every six months. I think that that should be possible every month, in view of the curtailment of liberty involved, but six months is certainly too long.
In the introduction to our report, at paragraph 5, we made a point with which I am sure that all Members of the House agree, but which is worth emphasising. Our report states:
"the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, for which we were appointed as the parliamentary guardians, represent core values of a democratic society such as individual autonomy, the rule of law, and the right to dissent, and these must not lightly be compromised or cast away. It is precisely those values which terrorists seek to repudiate and undermine."
In the penultimate paragraph, No. 78, to which my noble friend Lord McNally has drawn attention, we challenge Parliament to draw its own conclusions and to satisfy itself that there are adequate safeguards to protect the rights of individual citizens against abuse of power.
Whether today the cart is before the horse or the horse before the cart, I suggest that one matter is certain: if the Motion is passed and if the Bill does not contain adequate safeguards against abuse of the kind to which the Select Committee and others have drawn attention, the United Kingdom will ultimately face ignominy before the European Court of Human Rights. That is why when we come to debate the Bill it is our special responsibility to build in those safeguards.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he knows that his speeches are well accepted in this House. However, I thought that he should be given the opportunity to explain one of his comments. He spoke of two eminent lawyers, well known to both of us, who gave an opinion on what is a public emergency. Perhaps I may suggest to him that lawyers are not completely qualified to deal with a question of
888
fact which would usually be determined by a Minister of the Crown with full knowledge of matters which he could not divulge in public.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right. What is a public emergency is pre-eminently a political question and is pre-eminently for Ministers and the elected representatives of the people. However, the European Court of Human Rights must look at that as a legal question. The legal tests have been set out in a number of cases and the Northern Ireland state case was one of the best known. Those distinguished lawyers have examined that legal test and the opinion on the basis of the evidence that exists. That is a correct approach because if the United Kingdom Government were taken before the European Court of Human Rights, the first question would be: is there a sufficient threat to the life of the nation to justify limiting the right to liberty?
I have already stated that as regards that question I would anticipate the Government being given a wide margin of discretion, as do both distinguished lawyers in their opinion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the principle of the Bill, the object of the Bill, in particular in Part 4. I agree with the approach of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith but I fundamentally question the method of implementation of the object. I do so for some of the reasons given to your Lordships which I have no intention of repeating.
I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The invitation to approve the statutory instrument on a Motion today is not well conceived. It proposes a derogation from the convention to enable Part 4 of the Bill to be enacted on the assumption that your Lordships accept Part 4 without amendment. It is premature as pre-empting debate in your Lordships' House. The assumption that there would be no amendment is one which may not be made.
There is no doubt that Part 4 is in breach of Article 5. That article largely adopts our indigenous concepts of natural justice as administered by our judiciary. Part 4 is in breach of all those concepts. Enactment of Part 4 fills me with total horror because it would exclude the jurisdiction of our judiciary; it would breach the separation of powers. That is the fundamental source of our constitution, which it is the duty of this House, as the sole guardian, to defend.
As appears from pages 7 and 8 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member—I am a rather insignificant member and have no pretence of speaking other than as to my own thoughts, so there is no interest to declare—the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, when questioned on the matters to which I have referred, in particular on natural justice and the constitution, was unable to give any satisfactory answer.
There can be no doubt that during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House amendments will be tabled such as to require that grounds are to be

889
given for the reasonable belief or suspicion of the Secretary of State before a person is certified as an international terrorist and that person should have an opportunity to answer. Such should obtain on appeal from the decision.
There is no doubt that in due course Clauses 29 and 30, which exclude the jurisdiction of our courts, will be the subject matter of a Motion that they do not stand part. That is the order of debate on Part 4—the details are unimportant today—which would be pre-empted.
Points of concern have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and I shall not repeat them. However, I want to raise one point of which no particular mention, if any, has been made. It is that the derogation is sought under Article 15 of the convention. But there is no assurance that when the derogation is brought before the European Court of Human Rights in proceedings in which inevitably Part 4 if it were enacted would be impugned, the court would accept the proposed derogation. If not, what then would be the position of Her Majesty's Government? Why would it probably not accept the derogation? It would not appear to be—I use words from Article 15 but shall not bore your Lordships with the whole text—strictly required by a public emergency threatening the life of our nation. The court might well, and in all probability would, conclude that in any event it was not a proportionate response to the threat of global terrorism. It is taken for granted that urgent measures—not those proposed in Part 4, but measures to achieve the object of Part 4—must be taken to identify, deport or detain international terrorists.
It is of vast importance that the role of the judiciary should not be usurped for the sake of administrative convenience, to afford what would be a misuse of executive power. It would set the wrong precedent for a government with a landslide majority in another place to seek to introduce such a measure in Parliament.
Before I knew about the amendment, I found the same words—word for word—at the end of my notes. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, in rising to support the order that has been presented by my noble friend, I advise your Lordships that I shall not speak at length but wish to address the specific area of concern—urgency and emergency.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the film, "A Man for all Seasons", when he moved his amendment. My conclusions have been reached not because of a blockbuster film or its content, but on the basis of two events. The first is what happened on 11th September and, perhaps more important, what has happened since in terms of the amount of intelligence and information that we have received regarding Osama bin Laden and his terrorist world-wide network, Al'Qaeda.
Those factors make the order urgent, to protect the people of this nation, as other countries want to protect their people. We have international as well as
890
national responsibilities. The Government would not be introducing the order were it not seen as essential to address the urgency of the situation. It is an emergency measure which I fully support and I am extremely disappointed that the Official Opposition cannot do so by going through the Lobby with us.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the derogation is being sought not so much because there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. After all, detention without trial was introduced in Northern Ireland and then abandoned. It was not reintroduced following atrocities such as the Brighton bomb, the bombing in Canary Wharf or anything else of that nature. The suggestion must be that the derogation is being sought because it gets over a technical difficulty arising out of Article 3, which prevents the Secretary of State from removing an asylum seeker against whom no charges can be proved and who may face prosecution or persecution in another country. The decision, as we heard from the Minister this afternoon, will not be challengeable in the courts.
Are measures such as the abolition of habeas corpus and judicial review strictly required by the exigencies of the current situation? Let us consider the way in which the Government propose to proceed. Information will be provided to the Secretary of State by the security services. His decision will not be unaffected by that information; it will be based on that information. But, his decision to issue a certificate will be considered, at least partly, in secret. The evidence on which he has acted cannot be revealed to the person concerned and, most importantly, the decision of the commission who may review the certificate will be given without reasons.
It has not been found necessary in the United States or in the 40 states of the Council of Europe that may have been affected by the current situation to introduce detention without trial. It is true that the United States propose a severe system of military tribunals to deal with the terrorist threat, but at least there will be a trial and the formulation of a charge.
An 18th century statement of principle by Blackstone reads:
"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism. as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government".
It is more dangerous to proceed along the lines of detention without trial than in any other way. It is not as if there was no alternative. Under the Terrorism Act it is possible to arrest, charge and to try a person for the
"commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism".
I wonder who of those who are subjected to detention without trial cannot be caught by a charge under those provisions.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can comment on the figures that I have read

891
repeatedly in newspapers—I know no more than that—that more than 1,000 people have been detained in the United States in circumstances that commentators have said are not altogether constitutional.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have not read those reports. I understand that although a number of people have been detained, as the noble Lord says, they will subsequently face a charge. That is the important point. A person is detained, evidence is gathered and he is then charged. What is proposed here is that a person can be detained for up to six months. The certificate is then renewable without charge.
The first safeguard to which the Minister referred was that of the independent advocate who will act for the person who has been detained. I fail to see how an independent advocate can challenge evidence and act properly in the interests of the person who has been detained when, by definition, he cannot obtain instructions from that person on the evidence that is put before the commission. He will not be entitled to ask the person who is being detained, "What do you have to say about this? How can I challenge what is being said against you?". The independent advocate is a very weak safeguard.
The other safeguard that was suggested was the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which was considered recently in the Rehman case by the Judicial Committee of this House. Suffice to say that the effectiveness of the commission as a review of the decisions of the Secretary of State was diminished by their Lordships to some degree. It was the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Hoffman, that
"if the appellate body prefers a different view [from the Secretary of State] it should not ordinarily interfere with a case in which it considers that the view of the Home Secretary is one which could reasonably be entertained. Such restraint may not be necessary in relation to every issue which the Commission has to decide".
Therefore, the function of SIAC is not to review ab initio the original decision-maker; namely, the Secretary of State. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has decided that the role of the commission is extremely limited.
I support my noble friend Lord McNally in calling upon your Lordships to determine whether derogation will be necessary after the provisions of this Bill, which clearly are very contentious, have been fully discussed and decided upon in this House.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, "Amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent".
This reversal of Cicero's famous aphorism was proclaimed about 60 years ago by a Law Lord, whom I believe was Lord Atkin, in the famous case of Liversidge v. Anderson. Although he was in a minority of one, those words in his judgment continue to be cited with admiration by everyone who studies the rule of law in our country.
In a democracy most right-thinking people, as we are allowed to say, believe that even amidst the clash of arms, whether in time of war or public emergency
892
that threatens the life of the nation, the laws should nevertheless continue to govern the actions of the executive. It does not follow from that, surely, that in these dire circumstances the laws should remain unchanged. It is the duty of every government and parliament to provide sufficiently for the defence of the United Kingdom. The very writs which summon us to this place command us to consider these vital matters. In the light of that, one needs to consider whether or not the Government are justified in the course which they seek today. We are told by the Government that by reason of international terrorism a public emergency exists which threatens the life of the nation, in the language of the European convention which is now part of our domestic law. In the light of the events of 11th September and what we have learnt subsequently, I do not believe that we should have any difficulty in accepting that.
If that is true, the United Kingdom is empowered by the convention to take measures which derogate from its obligations under the convention, but only to the extent—this is important—strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that in so doing it does not breach any of its other international obligations. I am not aware of any of those. It is quite clear that nothing may be done by the United Kingdom Government under that power unless the measures concerned—we are talking about the present Bill—are strictly necessitated by the danger that the Government have identified. We must examine how the case is put by the Government. I do not believe that it can be put more precisely. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I do not believe that the Government's case pre-empts any debate that can reasonably be anticipated.
The Government say that there are people in this country whose presence is believed by the Secretary of State to present a threat to the security of the UK and whom he suspects to be international terrorists. He says that he cannot deport them to the country from which they come because the conditions which prevail there would make such deportation illegal. Either we must allow them to be at large in this country, with all the dangers that that represents, or Parliament must take some measure to protect this country unless and until, or for such time as, the persons suspected agree voluntarily to go elsewhere where they can be accepted. That is how the Government put the case, and they will justify the Bill that is now being debated in another place.
I believe that in today's circumstances we should accept the Secretary of State's assurance. I am very well aware of the dangers of this kind of legislation. Equally, I along with all noble Lords am very well aware of the dangers which face the civilised world from the kind of terrorism that we saw in action last September. We should accept that there are at large in our country people who fall within that narrow and extremely dangerous category. I believe that in times like these, on matters of national safety of such importance, a democratically elected government are

893
entitled to be, and should be, trusted, subject to safeguards of review, by the Parliament that sustains them.
We were told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNally, that the Government had resorted to expedience and that the proposals were flawed in that regard. I would rather have expedient legislation than inexpedient legislation. I have always taken issue with the pejorative sense in which people employ that word today. One recalls that in the Book of Common Prayer one prays on behalf of certain beneficiaries for such benefits as may be most expedient for them. I do not regard that as too serious an objection.
I also make the point—I am rather surprised that so far it has not been taken—that by derogating from the whole of Article 5.1(f) the Government have gone wider than their purported very narrow purposes justify. But I suspect that technically it would have been very difficult to derogate from Article 5.1(f) alone. In any event, the Government will have to answer before the Court of Human Rights for any measures that they bring forward after derogation and in pursuance of it, as they would have to do before our own courts. I believe that our courts would, and certainly should, strike out any measure that went wider than the Bill that is before another place at the moment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Is he aware that that is a very difficult question? It is not clear to a number of us whether the British courts would have any power of review given that Article 15 of the convention has not been incorporated and the way in which the ouster clause is phrased. It appears that the only tribunal that can do so is the court at Strasbourg.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, no question has ever proved too difficult for the noble Lord to argue, as I remember from my time as Attorney-General. In any event, this must come before the Court of Human Rights; the convention itself demands that it be reported. Therefore, it will only be a matter of time before the legitimacy or otherwise of such further measure is tested. I believe that the Government are entitled to the order that they seek and are entitled to it now. As I understand the matter, in any event it was necessary to make this order pro tem on 11th November because the Bill was to be debated two days later in the other place. How could it be said, short of an order, that it complied with the convention obligations of the Government?
That said, I give warning—if that does not sound too pompous—that the Government will face considerable trouble when the Bill comes forward by reason of Clause 29, which has been dwelt upon so effectively today. I believe that to attempt to exclude from the review of the judiciary actions that are at the centre of the whole process is thoroughly misguided, misconceived and rather disgraceful. It is likely to prove futile in any event, because I do not believe that it will wash with Parliament, and it certainly will not
894
wash with the judiciary. I happen to believe that judicial review is a far more effective safeguard of human rights than even the convention.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, we all have a duty in Parliament to do what we can collectively to safeguard the safety and security of the citizen. But we also have a parallel duty to safeguard the human rights of the citizen as well and that is what gives me concern about this order today.
What in fact the Government are saying to your Lordships' House is "Trust us, trust our judgment. We will do our best although there are narrow and specific circumstances where we, the Government of the United Kingdom, want to stand above the law". It is my strong view that this is not a good enough basis on which to base human rights.
I wish quickly to remind your Lordships' House that we do not come empty headed to this debate. Unhappily, we have long experience of anti-terrorist legislation in this Parliament. Perhaps I should make clear to your Lordships that I come here with attitude about terrorist legislation. I was in the other place when literally overnight the first Prevention of Terrorism Act was steamrollered through that place with all the dire consequences that had for many citizens wrongly, brutally, gaoled for lengthy periods, only later to have those convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.
I remind your Lordships that just 10 years ago, at the time of the Gulf War, 50 Palestinians living in the United Kingdom were detained because of their alleged links to terrorism. Thirty-five Iraqis were picked up and described as "soldiers" together with another 141 Iraqis and other Arabs. In fact, the 35 Iraqis were engineering and physics students. They had been described as soldiers because someone had learnt—it was never hidden—that their scholarships had been provided by the Iraqi military. Making two plus two add up to five, that led people to surmise that they must be soldiers of Saddam.
In fact, at the end of that war all were later released without charge and many repaid the trust which Saddam Hussein had put in them by claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. As regards the Palestinians, one of those detained was a Mr. Abbas Cheblak, a rare and treasured creature in the tangled politics of the Middle East, because he was an advocate of Arab-Israeli rapprochement. The person who led the campaign for his release was none other than the editor of the Jewish Quarterly.
I mention these points because we should not assume that either the security services or the police get these matters right all the time. Whether this was simple human error or over-zealousness at the time of the Gulf War by the security services, we shall never know. It may even have been some kind of PR campaign to stoke up support for the war. In any event—I remind your Lordships of this point—all of those detained were subsequently released. No action

895
to deport was taken against any of them. Indeed, some of them were awarded compensation for that detention.
Last year, under the wide powers of the Terrorism Act, just 16 non-Irish people were detained alongside the 23 involved in the Afghan plane hijack. That does not suggest to me the need for extra powers if those presently in existence are so little used and apparently needed. There are powers in Section 56 of the Terrorism Act to bring criminal proceedings against those alleged to be directing terrorist activities or incitement to commit terrorist acts abroad from within the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister this question. Why are these powers not felt to be sufficient to deal with foreign nationals here suspected of terrorism post 11th September? It will come as no surprise to the Minister, because of our experience in another place, that I find totally abhorrent the prospect of what could be—the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge it—indefinite detention without charge or trial. I say to your Lordships something which is known already from previous experience. There is a real and almost certain risk that if the order is passed and the Bill is carried in its present form, some of those detained will seek to use that detention to further their claimed cause.
The order smacks of all the worst aspects of the former Soviet Union and other repressive states. A person detained will not know the charge against him or her and those legally representing him or her will not know the reasons. When the Minister says that every six months there can be an appeal to review whether there has been any change in the circumstances, I say to the noble Lord that it is impossible for a detained person in this manner to argue that there has been a change in the circumstances if he or she does not know the circumstances which have led to the detention in the first place. That is Kafka at its worst.
I wish to make clear it to my noble friend the Minister that I acknowledge the very real problem of trying to deal, on the one hand, with those foreign nationals living here who cannot be removed or extradited because of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, on the other, those who cannot be prosecuted because of a lack of evidence. But if there is a lack of sufficient evidence to charge, how can that slighter evidence in that comparative sense be used for the much more serious purpose of indefinite detention? It simply does not follow in logic.
It is not good enough to take the risk that big mistakes are going to be made, as they are bound to be, to find cute and cunning ways around the need to respect the laws of this nation where those we suspect of criminal offences are to be charged, tried and, if the evidence is sufficient, convicted. It is my belief that the powers of the Terrorism Act 2000, fairly fresh on the statute book, are wide enough. Those contained in the order are awesome. We are saying to people living here against whom no charge has been formally made and
896
there has been no case in any court, "You are going to be lifted off the streets, out of your homes and detained in prison for as long as it takes for us to decide that you are no longer a threat to the security of this country".
Should the order and the parallel Bill go through, I hope at least that the Minister will be able to say again not simply that these powers will be used sparingly but that they will be used only as a very, very last resort and that as an alternative ever proper consideration will be given to prosecution under the Terrorism Act.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the last time I praised a speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, he began his reply, "I listened with growing eagerness for the 'however clause'". I shall not keep him in suspense. So this time, if he will forgive me, I shall begin with the "however".
The noble and learned Lord made one small point on which I believe him to be in error. He said, "provided what the Government do is not in conflict with any other of our international obligations", which he believed not to be the case. Perhaps I may draw his attention to a clause in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, on which the Government have relied. I refer to Article 33(2):
"The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee for whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is".
It is precisely the phrase "reasonable grounds- which does not appear in Clause 21 of the Bill, where one might have thought to find it. At the least, that risks putting us in breach of our obligations under the UN convention of 1951, which I regard as significant.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. He is a man of courage. He is the only noble Lord to have spoken full-heartedly in defence of the order now before the House.
Lord Acton: My Lords, so did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Earl Russell: My Lords, full-heartedly? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, can recall his concluding words about judicial review. That is what I would have said before turning to the "however clause" had I had occasion to put it there.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, thought it sufficient to cite 11th September and Al'Qaeda. I hope he understands that those of us who wholeheartedly support the Motion tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally, of whom I am one, are not one whit less hostile to terrorism than those who support the government order. I have read the reports in The Times of the Al'Qaeda attempts to construct a Nagasaki-style bomb, as well as the reports of their use of ricin pellets, seven seeds of which could kill a child. I am under no illusion about what we are dealing with, but to my mind that creates an obligation to testify not only to the strength of our feelings, but to put forward measures that are going to be effective.
Thus the question the House must consider is this: are these measures the most effective means of dealing with the situation? It would be a very grave

897
mistake—and it is one which the Home Secretary has at least come uncomfortably close to making—to assume that protecting us against terrorism and preserving our civil liberties are in some way antithetical. They are not. Our civil liberties are one of the weapons we can use in the battle against terrorism. I believe them to be an extremely important element in our weaponry.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Would he concede that, in the arena of terrorism, covert activity is paramount? As a result, sometimes it is necessary to detain suspects on the basis of intelligence and sourced information which could not be presented to the court for fear of causing damage to our national security.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I concede without question the first half of the noble Lord's remarks, but because good intelligence is paramount, ensuring the sympathy of potentially neutral opinion is vital. If an innocent person is arrested, it is likely that the next time a terrorist proposition is put in front of him, he will no longer be innocent.
I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber for the debate held on 16th October. He would have heard my noble friend Lord Alderdice, who knows something about this subject. My noble friend stressed the importance of detaching the extremist terrorist from the potentially sympathetic, semi-neutral opinion in which, to utilise Mao Tse Tung's phrase, "he swims like a fish in water". Every time we over-react, we make that process a great deal harder. Every time we invoke a sense of injustice in those we arrest, we create another potential terrorist. Every time we offend those capable of passing on valuable intelligence, we receive less intelligence as a result. That is the mistake made by Al'Qaeda when the twin towers were attacked. Look at how much more intelligence we have received since 11th September. It was also the mistake made by the IRA when they began bombing the Tube. That campaign could have brought us to our knees within a few weeks, but the IRA gave it up. I learnt a great deal out of that experience.
I am not in politics simply to testify to my feelings. It can be taken for granted throughout Parliament that all stand against terrorism. I do not think that we need to prove it. However, the Home Secretary is in real danger of sounding like the proverbial left-winger who goes about testifying to his feelings in the most eloquent manner, with the result that he does not produce effective measures. I want the measures taken to counteract terrorism to be effective. That is why I am not prepared to vote in support of them until I know in what form the Bill leaves this House. I shall vote for the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord McNally.
Lord Acton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he clarify a point for me? In fairness to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I understood
898
his speech to be totally in favour of the order and wholly against Clause 29 of the Bill. Am I wrong in that?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think that it is possible for a speech to reflect both of those views at the same time, but if the noble and learned Lord wishes to clarify his position, he is in his place and he may do so.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt or intervene in this interesting and rather flattering discussion. In my view, I concluded that the Government were entitled to their order for reasons which I shall not repeat, having inflicted them once on noble Lords. However, I venture to warn the Government of severe trouble in the future in regard to their attempt to exclude judicial review over the whole of the process on which they seek to pin public confidence for the measure.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. As regards the Bill, it will require detailed examination. Long nights lie ahead, but I am sure that noble Lords will complete their deliberations on the Bill on schedule.
I suspect that if no order had been put before the House first, the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches would protest: "No Bill without first considering the order". I do not deny the degree of urgency required here, but I am not absolutely convinced on that point. However, I am convinced about the need for and desirability of the order because of one sentence contained in the schedule:
"It will be open to a detainee"—
who would be a foreigner and not a citizen of the United Kingdom—
"to end his detention at any time by agreeing to leave the United Kingdom".
If the order is put to a Division, I shall support the Government.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I regard this as a somewhat unhappy piece of legislation. It is not one that I can approach with a great deal of enthusiasm; indeed, it goes against most of my political and other instincts. However, we all know very well that from time to time governments have to take steps that they do not particularly like. Noses have to be held, if I may so put it. Over the years more noses have been held than that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is experienced in the internal workings of government.
If the order must be passed, then the Government are under a duty to try to justify it. They need also to justify the passage of the Bill. I have two questions to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench, to which I hope he will be able to respond. First, why do we need to pass the order before the Bill? I do not support the Liberal Democrat Party on this matter, but the thought has occurred to me with a great degree of force, as it has to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. One

899
would have thought to see the two pieces of legislation the other way around; namely, that we would find out what powers were sought by the Bill and that, once those powers had been adequately expressed and the legislation passed, then we would have the order derogating the Human Rights Act. Perhaps there is a reason, which I hope that my noble friend will make clear.
Secondly, what practical difference to the powers of the Home Secretary will the passing of the order make before the passage of the Bill? Does it give him additional powers that he otherwise would not have? Does it enable him to do anything that he thinks he should do which he cannot do now? If that is the situation, the Government will have gone a fairly long way towards justifying the introduction of the order.
I shall not discuss the legislation because the time to discuss it will be when it is introduced. Therefore the temptation to make Second Reading speeches on the passage of the order should be resisted.
Perhaps I may make one final comment to my noble friend who is to reply. I have been called lots of things in my political life, but I have never been called a "fairy" before. There are all kinds of reasons, perhaps, why I have not, but I sincerely hope that that kind of language will be eschewed in future.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, one of the least conspicuous of the harms done by those responsible for the carnage at the World Trade Centre and in Washington on 11th September was to the international legal order itself. Here in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights was created in the aftermath of the Second World War more than half a century ago. If we think about the fundamentals, the situation now is totally different. International terrorism is demonstrably on a scale which we must acknowledge presents a recognisable threat to large numbers of people in different parts of the world.
The protections contained in Article 5 of the European convention allowed for the deportation or removal of a person who is believed to be threatening the life or security of the nation. But if a person cannot be removed or extradited for a variety of reasons, and cannot be tried in the domestic courts, how to meet the threat to the security of the nation—which may be very real—poses a dilemma to which there is no answer within orthodox and established legal traditions.
I came to the House today with an open mind, with no prepared speech, and anxious to hear what noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches had to say in support of their amendment. I have spoken from time to time in debates on the same side as some of the noble Lords who sit on those Benches. But I do not support their argument today. The correct approach for the House as a whole was put with commendable brevity and clarity at the start of the debate by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I support the order rather than the amendment today.
I shall listen with great interest during the course of the subsequent debates, when I am sure there will be opportunities to obtain elucidation and, if necessary,
900
some changes. But to go down the path recommended so eloquently by the spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats in the situation that we, and the nation, currently find ourselves, would be misguided.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked the Government why they wanted the order approved before the passage of the Bill and not afterwards. I assumed that this House was here to make an honest man of the Home Secretary. On the front of the Bill he has, as he is obliged to do under the Human Rights Act, certified that the Bill is, in his view, compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. As an amateur in these matters, it seems to me that, unless the order is passed, the Bill is not at the moment compatible with the convention on human rights.
When the Bill was introduced in the other place—when it received its First Reading and when it began its Second Reading—it was not compatible with that convention. It only will be compatible if we agree to the order today. I may be wrong, but that seems evident to me. I am surprised that no other noble Lord has made the point.
I would rather discuss an order knowing that the possibilities the Government were putting forward were within the law, than discuss it knowing that they were outwith the law until the end of the Bill. So the Government are right to do this.
I am sorry that there have been so many Second Reading speeches because we shall either hear them all over again, or we shall forget what has been said by the time we come to Second Reading. That is a pity. It seems to me that this is a simple point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief speech. I hope your Lordships agree that if ever there was proof required that human memories are short, there could not have been better examples than some of the speeches which have been made in good faith today. If we had had this discussion on 12th September, I doubt whether any of us would have started wondering, "Is there an emergency? Perhaps we need legal opinion. Are the Government safe to assume that there is a public emergency of the gravest order?" Who would have made that suggestion on 12th September?
But we are not America; we are Great Britain. We are one of the countries threatened by terrorism. We are winning the fight on the battlefield. When you are engaged on the battlefield and you are winning, is that not the time when your opponent may take the most reckless action, because he knows it is all over and he wants to make it as painful as possible?
The responsibility of government is sometimes heavy, but the responsibility on an official opposition—I say this with every respect—is also very heavy in times of emergency. I feel that this is not a time for abstention but a time for standing up and saying, "The order is right in the circumstances". When the Bill comes before the House, those of us who

901
are fighters for liberty will look at every line and decide how we will vote for amendments, if amendments there are to be. I assume that there may well be many.
Is not the question today very simple: are we prepared to give the Government the reasonable powers they will receive under the Bill if the vote of the House is in favour of reasonable powers, as I assume it will be? If we are prepared to face up to the fact that we are confronted by an emergency—and by a mad enemy—is this not the time to vote accordingly?
Baroness Strange: My Lords, Clause 42 of the Magna Carta states that all men shall be free to come and go except in time of war. We are all at war with terrorism.
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps I may comment first on the amendment. In doing so, I want to make it clear that I have no complaint, and the Home Secretary and the Government have no complaint, about any of the questions raised in this debate or subsequently. Given the time constraints on a Bill with 125 clauses, we understand that we shall rightly be subject to scrutiny.
Perhaps I may deal with the point as to why the order is being brought before the House today. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised a not unimportant question about the signature on the Bill. It is presently that of the Home Secretary, as the Bill begins its passage in another place; and in due course it will be mine as it passes through this House. It is true that, without the order being promoted, we should not be able to sign the Bill to the effect that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We do not knowingly want to introduce Bills which are incompatible with the convention if we can take action beforehand to make them compatible.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The order having been laid, it would still have been possible to have approved it within the 40-day period provided. Would it not, therefore, have been possible to lay the order and to postpone bringing it before the House?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, it would have been. In a moment I shall come to the reasons why we chose not to do it in that way. The noble Lord makes a fair point. It is the first time that such an order has been made under the 1998 Act. That adds weight to the occasion in terms of the important step that we are taking. We do not belittle any of the questions in relation to the scheduling of the debate and the making of the order. Indeed, I have asked myself such questions. I am still getting to grips with procedures in your Lordships' House compared with those in another place.
Section 14(6) of the Human Rights Act clearly envisages that a designation order may be made in anticipation of the making by the UK of a proposed derogation. Once it has been proposed by the
902
Government that a derogation from the ECHR should be made—and that amendments will accordingly be made to the Human Rights Act to reflect that derogation—it seems eminently desirable that Parliament should be given an opportunity to discuss the matter as soon as is reasonably possible.
By making the order last week, we were able both to make a statement of compatibility in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and to bring the matter to the attention of the House as soon as we could. That is one of the reasons why the order was made and laid before Parliament last week.
The question arises also of when the order should be debated. The legislation clearly requires that this must happen within 40 days of the order being made; otherwise, it lapses. While the exact timing was a matter for the usual authorities, the Government took the view that the debates should take place sooner rather than later.
Once the order was made, Members of this House and of another place would rightly expect the Government to explain what we were doing and why we were doing it. That explanation can be given most effectively in the debates that we are having today in both Houses. Had the debates been delayed for over a month, we should have been criticised for being dilatory in our response. We could easily have taken a relaxed view, but we did not think that that was the right approach.
I should stress that in debating the order we are not taking the will of Parliament for granted. It may appear that way on the surface; but that is not the reality. We believe that the provisions in the Bill relating to detention are, for reasons discussed today, necessary and proportionate—and precautionary in some respects—and we hope that they will be enacted in a form very close to the way in which they are set out in the Bill. The derogation that we propose to make from Article 5 of the ECHR is worded with the provisions of the Bill in mind, and it seems right to debate it in that context.
In the event that the provisions in the Bill end up in a slightly different form, we can also check whether the wording of the derogation notification also needs to be revised. But let us cross that bridge when we come to it. So there is that facility—obviously, were the Bill to be emasculated in either House, it would be a different Bill. But if the Bill is enacted in broadly its present form, we hope that the derogation notification to the European Court can be revised to take account of that without the need to return the matter to this House.
A couple of specific questions were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made a point about where people might be sent back to. With respect, it is not a question of sending people back to a particular place. If they choose to leave the United Kingdom, they will be let out of detention. Presumably they will be escorted to the plane or another means of transport and they will leave our shores. So it is not a question of us having to contemplate sending people back to a place where they will suffer harm and torture.

903
That brings me to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I hope that I can give him an answer that is more accurate than the one that I gave; it is certainly not the one that I gave originally. It appears on advice given to me that SIAC would review whether a person could be removed following a deportation order made by the Home Secretary—there would obviously need to be such an order if someone was to be removed forcibly: for example, as to whether Article 3 would prevent such removal. The powers of SIAC derive from provisions in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. If SIAC agreed that a person could be removed, that would be fine; removal would proceed and the detention powers would not be needed.
Our priorities are, first, to prosecute if we can; secondly, if we cannot prosecute, to remove the person by means of a deportation order. If that is satisfactory and we have agreement on it, and there is no problem with Article 3, that will be the end of the matter. There will be no question of detention. But if matters are the other way round, SIAC can examine the position in respect of whether a person can be removed. We shall no doubt debate the point at greater length in Committee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have in mind the various comments made about judicial review. Am I to understand that, in effect, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will have full powers of judicial review on the merits of a case, subject to the special procedure that is provided for? Am Ito understand that it will have the kind of powers that the High Court would have by way of judicial review—obviously with procedural adjustments?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as a non-lawyer—I am an engineer by profession—my understanding is that the operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is effectively a judicial review on the Home Secretary's decision, first, to sign the certification and, secondly, to order the detention because he does not believe that removal is possible. That being the case—and it is behind closed doors—the commission could review each stage of the Home Secretary's decision and how he has arrived at the point where he believes detention is the only alternative. To that extent, the commission ought to have access to all the information that the Home Secretary has, including his thinking as to why he cannot remove the person, because country A or country B is not compatible with our obligations or Article 3. To that extent, the commission would have the broad-ranging authority to examine the decision. take the point made by my noble friend Lord Corbett that the decision would necessarily be made behind closed doors.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry to intervene again. But is his reply to my noble friend Lord Lester compatible with Clause 33(3) of the Bill:
"Where this Section applies the Commission must begin its substantive deliberations on the asylum appeal by considering the statements in the Secretary of State's certificate"?
904
Does not that block a consideration of the full merits of the claim to asylum; and does it not restrict the power of review of the reasonableness of the Home Secretary's decision?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect, that is another issue. It is one that we shall debate and, I would argue, not one relating to the order. There may be foreign nationals resident in this country who have already gone through the process and secured refugee status; they may have been classified as refugees under the terms of the 1951 convention. If we follow this process through, it could be argued that they would not be making a claim for refugee status, because that would already have been done. Clause 33 therefore takes account of this. That is best left, however, because we are getting into the details of the Bill. I may be wandering down a road where I would mislead the House, and I do not intend to do that.
I reiterate the point about the timing and why we did not want to leave it. If the order ceased to be valid, if it was not approved within 40 days, by resolution of each House, it would lapse. I have benefited from this debate, however. Without the order, we would not have had it. My officials, those responsible for designing this Bill and other Ministers, even in the other place, will have benefited from this debate today. To that extent it has been a useful operation, in terms of parliamentary accountability for the Government, to have it now rather than have it at the end of our processes.
The Home Secretary will bring forward amendments to Clauses 21, 25 and 26, which I believe will fully meet the point about the reasonableness test. We accept that all Ministers operate at all times in a reasonable fashion. If they did not, my learned friends would have something to say about it. If putting it on the face of the Bill brings a greater degree of contentment, then we are happy to do that. We shall bring forward amendments, though I do not know whether they will be brought forward in this House or in the other place.
We envisage that the validity of the derogation could be raised before SIAC and, from there, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. It could be challenged all the way through the judicial process. That is why we are more than comfortable in respect of Clause 29 and the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in terms of the absence of judicial review. This whole process is a very narrow judicial review of the Home Secretary seeking to deal with an issue in the only way that he thinks is possible. Having failed in the sense of a prosecution—that not being possible for the reasons I have explained—he cannot remove someone and therefore is left with no alternative but to detain.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we have just seen the Minister swimming valiantly for shore, clutching the lifebelt thrown to him by the Conservative opposition. What we did not hear was any real answer—other than it had given him and his officials some useful clues about the debate to come—to what I would call the

905
Richardson-Carnegy question which, a little like the Rooker-Wise amendment, is a kind of "killer" question. Why does an order that could last 40 days to 21st December have to be brought right to the front of the process when the Minister himself has conceded that if there are substantial changes he will have to bring another order to this House? We have not had an explanation.
I shall not delay the House for much longer. A number of points have been made. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, even called me noble and learned. I am not sure whether to take that as a tribute or to consult with the lawyers behind me about possible slander. The serious point I make is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It was on his own Benches that we saw the polarisation of the debate: between the noble Lord, Lord Davies, arguing force majeure and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, defending civil liberties. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is not that we have short memories; we have long memories. The memory we have is that, from Fox to Aneurin Bevan, oppositions have taken their opposition seriously. Even at times of crisis and even at times of war they have defended civil liberties and human rights. We believe that the Government are wrong to bring the order forward at the beginning of this process, before we have the full opinion of the House and the full dimension of the derogation that they want. For that reason, I ask to test the opinion of the House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 148.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Avebury, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Barker, B.

Liverpool, E.

Bowness, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Ludford, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

McNally,L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mar, C.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dholakia, L.[Teller]

Methuen, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Moynihan, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falkland, V.

Northover, B.

Fearn, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Geraint, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goodhart, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Greaves, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Razzall, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Rennard, L.

Hylton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jacobs, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

906

Roper, L. [Teller]

Swinfen, L.

Russell, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sharman, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Walmsley, B.

Sharples, B.

Warnock, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ahmed, L.

Grocott, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Attlee,E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howellss of St. Davids, B.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle,L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Billingham, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Blackstone, B.

Chancellor)

Bledisloe, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brennan, L.

Jones, L.

Brightman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chalfont,L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

[Teller]

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cox, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Denham,L.

Morgan, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rix, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Golding, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grabiner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

907

Sheldon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Uddin, B.

Simon, V.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Smith of Leigh, L,

Warner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Strange, B.

Weatherill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Wilkins, B.

Thornton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Tumberg, L.

Privy Seal)

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 3 [Consent]:
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, leave out "an" and insert "the freehold"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
While developing the policy underlying the Bill, one of the important matters that we considered was the extent of the interest that a leaseholder should have in a property before their consent to conversion should be required. It was decided that a lease granted for 21 or more years was substantial enough. That period was not chosen at random—as your Lordships will be aware, it is at present the period that renders a lease subject to registration at Land Registry. Of course, the period still to run might well be less than 21 years at the time of the application to convert. Indeed, the leaseholder might have bought only the last 10 years of a 21-year lease. It seemed a reasonable limit to us. We expressed that limit simply enough by saying in Clause 3(1)(a) that consent should be required from registered proprietors
"of an estate in the whole or part of the land".
That has the virtue of catching freeholders and leaseholders of registered leases without having to go into what would have been unnecessary definition. However, as many of your Lordships will know,
908
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Land Registration Bill provides that leases should be registered if they are for seven or more years.
The first amendment in this group amends Clause 3(1)(a) which now refers exclusively to freeholders. The second amendment introduces a new paragraph which refers specifically to proprietors of leases purchased for a period of 21 or more years, thus leaving our policy as we had at first intended. Finally, the third amendment in the group inserts a new Clause 10 to clarify two points which were the subject of helpful comment from members of the commonhold working group. Clause 10 makes provision for dealing with liability for extinguished leases.
New Clause 10(2) puts it beyond doubt that, where there is more than one leaseholder who is required to consent under Clause 3 and does so, it is only the consenting leaseholder most proximate to the extinguished leaseholder to whom the extinguished leaseholder can look as being liable for any loss.
The way Clause 10 is drafted at present leaves some doubt as to who would be responsible for compensating a leaseholder whose lease was extinguished if there were no superior leaseholder but a consenting freeholder. The new Clause 10 makes it clear, in Clause 10(4), that the holder of the extinguished lease would look to the freeholder as the person liable for loss. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have no objection to these amendments, but I take the opportunity briefly to raise a concern which has been communicated to me by a member of the Bar who was, I believe, a member of the leasehold working party; namely, that under the Bill the rights of some people can be extinguished as a result of consents that are given by others and then compensation is payable. But the problem is that the Bill gives no security to ensure that compensation will in fact be paid as the person who is due to pay it may be insolvent; for instance, where the person who is supposed to pay the compensation is a company in receivership and the receiver is the person who gives the consent. In that case the receiver gives the consent as agent for the company and the benefits from the conversion accrue to the debenture holder who appointed the receiver, but the liability for payment of the compensation is an unsecured liability of the company in receivership. That could, among other things, give rise to problems under the Human Rights Act because the Act is presumably not satisfied by a paper right to compensation but requires an effective right.
I am not suggesting that there is anything that can be done now, but I hope that the Minister will ask her officials to look into the matter before it goes to the other place as the rule surely ought to be that if rights are to be extinguished, before they are extinguished compensation should either actually be paid or should be secured.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am certainly happy to do that. Any consenting leaseholder

909
might, of course, consent without the funds to compensate. The position of the extinguished leaseholder will be that of an unsecured creditor in each case. However, it ought not to be the case that a professional such as a liquidator or receiver should exercise the right to consent when there is a chance that he will be unable to fulfil his obligations to pay. However, we believe that this issue will need looking at. I am happy to consider it further and, if appropriate, for it to be dealt with in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2. line 23, at end insert—

"( ) is the registered proprietor of a leasehold estate in the whole or part of the land granted for a term of more than 21 years,"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Extinguished lease: liability]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new Clause—
"EXTINGUISHED LEASE: LIABILITY
(1) This section applies where—

(a) a lease is extinguished by virtue of section 7(3)(d) or 9(3)(f). and

(b) the consent of the holder of that lease was not among the consents required by section 3 in respect of the application under section 2 for the land to become commonhold land.

(2) If the holder of a lease superior to the extinguished lease gave consent under section 3, he shall be liable for loss suffered by the holder of the extinguished lease.
(3) If the holders of a number of leases would be liable under subsection (2), liability shall attach only to the person whose lease was most proximate to the extinguished lease.
(4) If no person is liable under subsection (2). the person who gave consent under section 3 as the holder of the freehold estate out of which the extinguished lease was granted shall be liable for loss suffered by the holder of the extinguished lease."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Enforcement and compensation]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 17, line 20, leave out "in regulations or in a commonhold community statement"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. These amendments to Clause 36 are minor in nature and are simply intended to ensure consistency of terms across the Bill.
The first removes the reference to compensation made by virtue of this section,
"in regulations or in a commonhold community statement"
in Clause 36(3) as it is redundant to specify where the provision will be contained because the entirety of the clause concerns the content of regulations on enforcement of commonhold duties and compensation.
The second modifies subsection (3)(a) of Clause 36 so as to permit rather than require the inclusion of a provision conferring jurisdiction on a court in provisions which determine the amount of compensation to be paid. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 17. line 22. leave out "including" and insert "which may include"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Commonhold assessment]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 17, line 31, after "required" insert "to be raised from unit-holders"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 amend Clause 37 which concerns the commonhold assessment. At present Clause 37 requires the directors to make an annual estimate of the entirety of the income required to meet the expenses of the commonhold association. This is then split between the units according to the unit percentages specified in the commonhold community statement.
However, there is arguably a missing step in the calculation. The amendments will add the stipulation that the directors must make an annual estimate of the amount which is actually to be raised from payments made by the unit-holders. We believe that this is necessary because there may be cases in which a commonhold association is able to meet some of its annual expense from other sources (for example, where a commonhold association has an income stream from rented commonhold units) so that the initial estimate is only part of the story, and it is a percentage of the amount to be raised from unit-holders that has to be allocated to each unit.
Without this amendment there will arguably be no leeway to take into consideration any other sources of income which could be used to meet the initial overall estimate because subsection (2) of Clause 37 provides that the percentages of the estimate made under subsection 37(1)(a) and (b) and allocated among the units must amount in aggregate to 100 per cent of the estimate. The amendment removes any room for argument.
I turn now to Amendment No. 8. Noble Lords should know that this minor drafting amendment was inspired by an amendment the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabled in Committee but did not move. The

911
amendment removes the reference to Clause 38(2)(c) from subsection 38(3) and replaces it with reference to 38(2)(b). This will clarify that the link is between the requirement for the directors to specify the percentage of the reserve levy to be allocated to each unit and subsection 38(3) which makes further provision concerning these percentages. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 17, line 34, after "required" insert "to be raised from unit-holders"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Reserve fund]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 23, leave out "(2)(c)" and insert "(2)(b)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Termination by court]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 26, line 9, leave out from "liquidator" to end of line 10 and insert "following the making of a winding-up order by the court in respect of a commonhold association".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House if, while speaking to Amendment No. 9, I speak also to Amendment No. 10.
This is another amendment whose only purpose is to make clearer the Government's intentions. Clause 54 deals with the termination of a commonhold association by the court in circumstances in which either the association has been registered in error, in which case the court would be exercising powers under Clause 6(6)(c), or where the court finds that the commonhold community statement and/or the memorandum and articles of association do not comply with the relevant provisions of Part 1 of the Act or associated regulations, in which case it would be acting under Clause 39(3)(d).
In these circumstances, Clause 54(2) gives the court the same powers as it has when making a winding-up order. For the sake of clarity, Amendment No. 9 expresses the powers of the liquidator in these circumstances in the same terms, with the advantage that the powers and duties are set out in Clauses 49 to 53.
Amendment No. 10 simply makes it clear that the powers given to the court in Clause 54(4) are exercisable only in relation to the relevant circumstances set out in Clauses 6 and 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 26, line 11, after "court" insert "by virtue of section 6(6)(c) or 39(3)(d)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Premises to which Chapter applies]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 33, line 51, at end insert—
"( ) But this Chapter does not apply to any part of a building which is not occupied, nor intended to be occupied, for residential use.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we believe that the Government have misjudged the adverse impact that the increase from 10 to 25 per cent non-residential use will have on the future of mixed-use developments, which are a crucial component of the Government's approach to land development for the foreseeable future. We have heard no satisfactory argument from the Government to the contrary. Allowing residential leaseholders to enfranchise where the non-domestic component of the block is so high will act as a deterrent to mixed use. Equally, it gives the RTE company a commercial management responsibility which it is wholly unsuited to perform, exposing the commercial tenants to inexperienced management. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Local Government Transport and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 and 32 relate, once again, to the application of the right to manage to mixed-use properties. Amendment No. 11 seeks to apply the right only to the residential part of such properties. As we understand it, Amendment No. 32 deletes our 25 per cent mixed-use threshold as a consequential amendment. The noble Lord is nodding helpfully.
The noble Lord and the House will be fully aware why we have taken the approach set out in the Bill and also why we do not consider that his Amendment No. 11 will work. I refer to what I said in Committee, as set out in Hansard of 16th October (cols. 538 to 540) and on Report, as set out in Hansard of 13th November (cols. 483 to 485). Perfectly sensibly, the noble Lord has not elaborated fully on his arguments. I do not intend to do so because they are set out in the columns to which I have referred.
However, the noble Lord has made one point. He has brought forward his amendment explicitly, he says, because he is concerned that the application of the right to manage to mixed-use premises will inhibit mixed-use development. He also expressed similar concerns about our changes to the rules for mixed-use enfranchisement. As I said in Committee, we do not agree that there is a problem here. I hope that the noble Lord will have received and read my letter of today's date which explains our reasons for holding that view.
As that letter explains, we are well aware of the concerns expressed on this issue by some parts of the property industry. It is possible that the people who raised the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, are the same people who lobbied the department on this subject. We have taken those concerns seriously and have looked into them closely. Having done so, our firm belief is that they are unfounded.
As has been explained many times, the right to manage is intended to allow leaseholders to gain management control of properties in which they hold a majority stake in the property but where the landlord

913
holds a monopoly over the management. Therefore, where the developer has set up proper communal management arrangements from the outset, there should, in our view, be no particular need for the right to manage to be exercised.
We are aware that enlightened developers already take this approach. Leaseholders are often given the right—with that right written into the leases—to manage their block, or the residential parts if it is a mixed block, through a resident management company. I acknowledge that Amendment No. 11 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is intended to provide for the right to manage to be granted on something along those lines. I have already referred to our views on why imposing a top-down approach will not work.
However, it is much easier for the developer of a block to put in place at the outset appropriate arrangements tailored to the precise circumstances of the building, ensuring a sensible relationship between the management responsibilities for the residential part and for the block as a whole. If that is done properly, the leaseholders will already be able to manage their own homes and there will be no real incentive for the leaseholders to exercise the right to manage.
Developers are also able to take a similar approach where they wish to protect themselves against the prospect of enfranchisement. Furthermore, the Bill will provide the opportunity for commonhold development. That important point is commonly missed by those who have raised concerns about mixed-use development. Commonhold will necessarily involve both outright ownership of individual units and a share in the common management from the outset. The rights to manage and to enfranchise will not be needed and, therefore, will not apply. Consequently, a developer of a commonhold will have full certainty from the outset about what will happen to his investment and will not face the prospect of losing the management or ownership of the commercial units.
I should add that the operation of commonhold or comparable systems in other countries does not seem to have inhibited mixed-use developments in those countries. Furthermore, we know that some developers with experience in such countries have expressed an interest in commonhold development once it becomes possible in England and Wales.
In the light of those considerations, we believe that the concerns expressed in relation to the mixed-use issue are misplaced. Developers who make sensible use of the options which will be open to them have nothing to fear from our changes and, therefore, have no rational reason not to continue to bring forward mixed development.
Of course, we acknowledge that there is a need to help developers to understand fully the options which will be open to them. We are already seeking to do so, and I invite the noble Lord to draw what I have said today to the attention of those who have made
914
representations to him on the mixed-use issue. If they have any questions or wish to discuss the options in more detail, they are welcome to contact either my officials or those at the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I can assure the noble Lord that the position reached by the Bill is the result of careful consideration of the issues—in particular, of the issue which he isolated today as the reason for his amendment. We believe that our approach is the right way forward. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his very full reply. It is not the first occasion on which I have raised this issue but, mercifully for your Lordships' House, it will be the last.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord does not consider that there is anything improper in an outside interest approaching a Member of the Opposition Front Bench and suggesting that a particular course of action might be in the national interest. There have been a wide range of interests that have suggested that the Government's approach to increasing the nonresidential test will be counter-productive.
The noble and learned Lord said that my amendment would not work. However, as I believe he acknowledged generously later on in his remarks, the real reason for opposing the amendment is because the noble and learned Lord does not accept the principle that lies behind it; namely, that the clause set out in the Bill as it stands will have a damaging effect on mixed-use development in the future. That is something with which the noble and learned Lord does not agree. Therefore, a real confrontation of principle arises here. This is my last opportunity; I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 170.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Colwyn, L.

Attlee, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Boardman, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bowness, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Burnham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Buscombe, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Caithness, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fookes, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Fowler, L.

Chadlington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Geddes,L.

Coe, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

915

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Moynihan, L.

Hanham, B.

Noakes, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Northesk, E.

Hayhoe, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Henley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Higgins,L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hooper, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe, E.

Peel, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plumb, L.

Jopling, L.

Rees, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharpies, B.

Marlesford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Stewartby, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Monson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Montrose, D.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Elder, L.

Addington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Evaas of Temple Guiting, L.

Amos, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Andrews, B.

Falkland, V.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bach, L.

Filkin, L.

Barker, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Barnett, L.

Gale, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Geraint, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Billingham, B.

Golding, B.

Blackstone, B.

Goodhart, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Grabiner, L.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brennan, L.

Greaves, L.

Brightman, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grocott, L.

Brookman, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Burlison, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Harrison, L.

Chandos,V.

Haskel, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hayman, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clement- Jones, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hooson, L.

Crawley, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hoyle, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Desai, L.

Chancellor)

Dholakia, L.

Jacobs, L.

Dixon, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jones, L.

Dubs, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Eatwell, L.

Layard, L.

916

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rennard, L.

Levy, L.

Richard, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lipsey, L.

Rooker, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Roper, L.

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sawyer, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

[Teller]

Sharp of Guildford, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Sheldon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Simon, V.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

McNally, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Maddock, B.

Strange, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Methuen, L.

Thornton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Mitchell, L.

Tope, L.

Morgan, L.

Turnberg, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northover, B.

Uddin, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Parekh, L.

Walmsley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Warner, L.

Pendry, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Watson of Richmond, L

Pitkeathley, B.

Weatherill, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Whitaker, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Radios, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Rea, L.

Privy Seal)

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.59 p.m.
Clause 78 [Contents of claim notice]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 38, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) It must include an offer of cover to provide for the RTM company directors' and officers' liability insurance, fidelity guarantee and professional indemnity insurance."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would require the RTM company to obtain the three forms of insurance that are specified. Directors' and officers' liability insurance would protect those leaseholders who are involved in the management of the company; fidelity guarantee would protect leaseholders' funds that are held by third parties in service charge or reserve accounts; and professional indemnity insurance would protect companies against failure in the day-to-day management of a block.
The main beneficiaries of the amendment would be the leaseholders, because it would be their interests that were insured. Contrary to what I suspect the Government will say, the amendment is not intended

917
to put obstacles in the way of the right to manage; it merely involves what one would expect from competent managing agents. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to require the RTM company to include an offer for liability insurance in its claim notice. It is my recollection that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabled a similar amendment both in Committee and at Report stage, but did not move it on either occasion. Having reflected on the matter, we came to the conclusion that the noble Lord had been so persuaded by the powerful arguments advanced by the Government when the Bill was in Grand Committee in the previous Parliament, so we are somewhat surprised that the noble Lord has returned to the issue again.
On the previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel made a number of very sensible comments indicating the inadvisability of putting such a requirement on the face of the Bill. As we are entirely in agreement with them, I hope that they will not mind if I reiterate them here.
First, this amendment effectively makes the provision of liability insurance a qualifying requirement for the right to manage through the back door. Therefore, it undercuts the simple philosophy behind the right to manage; namely, that leaseholders should have the right to a say in the management of their own block by virtue of their investment in the property.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has suggested on a number of occasions that there is a need to build all manner of safeguards into the legislation to protect the interests of the landlord. As we have said before, we fully accept that the landlord will continue to have a legitimate interest in the block under the right to manage. The Bill has been drafted on that premise. That is why the landlord has both the right to be a member of the RTM company, and the rights granted to him to address management failures.
We cannot, however, accept that the landlord's minority interests entitle him to a disproportionate protection such as this one. The landlord already has a disproportionate control over the management of the block. The right to manage addresses that by giving leaseholders the right to manage their own homes. A requirement to prove to the landlord—we note in passing, not the leaseholders with their majority stake—that the company has been given an offer of liability insurance is inappropriate in that context.
Secondly, this requirement is largely worthless, as it says nothing about the level of insurance to be offered. The RTM company could therefore come forward with a laughable and negligible insurance offer and still comply with this requirement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not press us to include a redundant provision in this important Bill.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we would expect RTM companies to take out such insurance as a matter of course. We certainly intend to encourage
918
them to do so in guidance, but we do not intend to require them to do so. No other property owner is required by law to take out liability insurance just because they want to manage and maintain their home. In our view, a requirement which would do that just for RTM companies is therefore unfair, unfounded and unjustified. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer which was disappointingly predictable. If the noble Lord finds the amendment inadequate, why does he not propose an alternative. It is not intended to protect the landlord; it is intended to protect the leaseholders in their function as managers of the property. Despite the fact that I regard the amendment as being of great importance and although the previous vote was lost by a fairly narrow margin, on this occasion I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—
"ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE VALUE
In Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act, omit—

(a) paragraph 2(1)(b);

(b) paragraph 4;

(c) paragraph 5A(2)(b);

(d) paragraph 5C;

(e) paragraphs 9 and 9A;

(f) paragraph 10(1)(b);

(g) paragraph 12;

(h) paragraphs 15 and 16; and

(i) paragraphs 19 and 20."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak not only to Amendment No. 13, but to all the other amendments in this group, except Amendment No. 20. This amendment raises the issue of marriage value. I believe that this is the fifteenth time that I have moved the amendment. At least, it seems like the fifteenth time to me and I dare say to other Members of your Lordships' House who have sat through the whole of the proceedings on this Bill and its predecessor. In my view, the Government have not played fair by sending in an entirely fresh team to conduct their business on the replay. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who has had the ordeal of sitting through the first round and the replay.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 deal with marriage value and the case of collective enfranchisement; Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 deal with marriage value in the case of the grant of an extended lease of a flat; and Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 25 deal with marriage value in the case of the enfranchisement of a leasehold house above the value limit for enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, where marriage value was not payable.
What is marriage value? The simplest case is the last, that of enfranchisement of a leasehold house by the lessee. Enfranchisement in that case means the sale of

919
the freehold reversion to the lessee. Frequently, the lessee will be willing to pay more for the house, for a freehold reversion, than an outside purchaser. There are a number of reasons for that. One is that as leases become shorter, they become harder to sell because of the difficulty, and in some cases impossibility, of obtaining a mortgage. Therefore, acquiring a freehold or an extended lease creates a saleable asset in the hands of the lessee whereas the previous asset was not saleable. Of course, for the resident lessee there is the inconvenience of having to move out of the property. As I said on an earlier occasion, moving house is said to be the most nerve-racking event in most people's lives apart from bereavement or the loss of a job.
The result is that the lessee is technically known as a special purchaser. The freeholder may have a reversion that he or she could sell to an investor for, let us say, £20,000. By buying the reversion, the lessee will increase the value of his or her interest in the property by £25,000. That extra £5,000 is the marriage value. In ordinary market conditions it is true that the lessee and the freeholder will probably agree a price somewhere between the two, say £22,500, and the Government propose to divide the marriage value strictly on the basis of half to the lessee and half to the freeholder. However, we believe that the lessee should not be treated as a special purchaser and should not have to pay any share of the marriage value at all.
The leasehold system itself weakens the bargaining position of the lessee; for example, by making short leases unsaleable. It is said by the Government that the sale should be on a "willing buyer/willing seller" basis, but marriage value arises because the seller is assumed to be willing, but the buyer is not only willing but eager to purchase. We believe that that creates something that is not a level playing field. We believe that the freeholder should properly and reasonably be entitled to the same price for the reversion that he or she would receive if he or she sold it on the market to a third party.
We do not believe that that would be, as sometimes is suggested, a breach of the Human Rights Act. In the case of the Duke of Westminster, the European Court of Human Rights accepted as valid the method of valuation under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that was far more damaging to freeholders than anything that we suggest.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for giving way. Was that a unanimous decision of the European court, or was it—as I believe—a rather narrow majority decision?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I think that it was a majority decision. But a decision is a decision. This position is miles away from the Duke of Westminster's case. That was a strong case. I was surprised that the European court decided it in the way that it did. This is a completely different situation. The Government in their election manifesto in 1997 proposed that they would provide for enfranchisement and would abolish marriage value.
920
The abolition of marriage value would be of significant benefit to tens of thousands of people. They, on any footing, would have to find a substantial sum to purchase the freehold or an extended lease. By abolishing marriage value, which is only a relatively small proportion of the total purchase price, it would be easier for lessees to purchase the freehold or an extended lease. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It concerns the tapering of marriage values. I was impressed by the noble Lord's argument. However, I cannot entirely follow it. I suggest an intermediate process whereby if between 50 and 80 years there is an increase in the marriage value then that should be properly calculated. It should not be simply left. as my noble friend said on Report, "to the market" or whatever, to establish. For that reason, I half support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but, nevertheless, air Amendment No. 20.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, your Lordships have heard before that I thoroughly oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggests. His course would be totally detrimental. This is a well-established accepted principle and methodology of valuation and property transactions. I shall not bore the House by repeating all the arguments that I have used before, except to say that I remain of the opinion that I oppose the amendment.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, like the noble Earl. I have spoken once before on the subject of marriage value. Whatever argument one deploys on the subject, the fact is that if a landlord sells his reversionary interest to a third party, he does not receive any share of marriage value. He gets instead exactly what his reversionary interest is worth. The Government have not disagreed with that proposition but claim that this is a compulsory purchase transaction. Therefore, the landlord shall receive extra compensation in the form of a share of marriage value.
The Government's views have changed since the 1967 Act. The Government still recognise that the leasehold system is
"totally unsuited to the society of the 20th century, let alone the 21st century".
Those words were used in a November 1998 consultation paper.
Today no country has a leasehold system except Britain. So why should the Government not want to help the remaining 2 million leasehold tenants by excluding marriage value? For a change, let us look at the matter from the point of view of the landlord. The leasehold system is designed to give the landlord a second, sometimes a third and even a fourth bite of the cherry. It is a system whereby a tenant can effectively buy his own home. Then he or his successors can buy it again and sometimes again and again.

921
The great sympathy that the Government express not to do anything to disadvantage the landlord is to imply that we are dealing with two equal sides of an equation. The reason for all this legislation to phase down, if not to terminate, the leasehold system, is that hopefully the Government recognise—certainly the previous government did—that the leasehold system is onerous and that the weaker party' namely, the tenant, needs some help to get out of the system. Clearly the abolition of marriage value is the help that is needed. It was good enough for the 1967 Act, which the Labour Government brought in, so why cannot it be applied to higher value flats and houses?
It is true that leaseholders will gain from enfranchisement or lease extension. As the Government have indicated before, in the former case they can grant themselves a 999-year lease. But we are talking about people's homes. Why should they not have virtual outright ownership? I fear that the weakness of the Government's argument is the belief that landlords and tenants are two sides of the same coin, when the truth is that the landlord's interest increases in value, excluding inflation, on a daily basis, while the tenant's value—I remind your Lordships that this is his home—decreases in value on a daily basis.
Lastly, I deal with an argument that was used in early stages of the Bill; namely, that if a landlord is in serious breach of the lease the tenant may acquire the freehold without marriage value. That is certainly a fair proposition. But the Government argue that we cannot allow other tenants to buy their freeholds without marriage value as it would reduce the penalty on the bad landlords. If I may say so, two wrongs do not make a right. This is a very weak argument. If one wants to have a penalty on bad landlords they could receive a reduced proportion of the tenant's acquisition price. But to argue that you have to keep the penalty for landlords without fault to create this distinction is, in my opinion, absurd.
I urge the Government to think again about the issue. I urge all of your Lordships to support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not follow him at all in what he said. How can the tenant's interest decrease when the value of leases have been going up for many years? That is an increase and not a decrease.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I believe that I said that excluding inflation. Inflation disguises the true situation. I shall be referring to that with regard to another amendment. If there was no inflation, the tenant would be very clear that its value goes down every year—every day indeed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find this amendment, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the statements made by
922
the Minister on the previous occasion all slightly conflicting. I was quite impressed by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that tapering would automatically happen and therefore the marriage value would not apply. I find the text of Amendment No. 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, rather too definitive in setting matters out. Therefore, I do not strongly support his amendment this time, whereas last time I strongly supported its principle.
Is the marriage value simply that there is an element of compulsion that the landlord is being forced to sell? Is a marriage value given to compensate him because, as was explained a moment ago, if he puts his property on the market to sell the reversion he will not get any marriage value? Is the marriage value simply because he is being obliged to sell?
I commented at the previous stage of the Bill in relation to another amendment that charities act like any other landlord. I have had an irate letter from someone involved in the charities issue. It says that that was impugning the character of charities. That was not the case at all. As a chairman of a charity myself, I know that we are under an obligation to the Charity Commission to get maximum return for whatever we handle, whether it be property or anything else. So I think that he certainly misunderstood my view on charities.
Getting back to the point about the charities, it means that any charity wanting to sell a property, if there is a marriage value in the Act, cannot possibly exercise any discretion to reduce the price or agree to a reduction in price. It has the same official duty as a trustee. Whereas a private landlord could have a discretion, it means that an executor, a trustee or a charitable trustee would not. Therefore marriage value will be quite significant in cases where there is no right to relinquish part of it.
When the Minister replies, will he tell me whether it is the element of compulsion that means that people are entitled to marriage value? It may be accepted practice, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has said, but that does not make it desirable. I should like an explanation of why the Government believe that provision to be necessary.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House? I wanted to speak to Amendment No. 20—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is Third Reading and noble Lords can speak only once.
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it may be the 15th time that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has addressed the issue of marriage value, but every time I have heard him do so, it sounded as fresh as on the previous occasion.
I know that the issue of marriage value is of great concern to the noble Lord, and to other noble Lords. He has explained his position at some length during

923
earlier debates on the Bill. I fear that we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. It remains our view that the Bill strikes the correct balance between the competing interests of landlords and leaseholders. We are not willing to make any further concessions.
To answer the specific point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, we cannot support an alternative valuation method that would result in a compulsory and substantial transfer of resources from one private individual to another. It is both the element of compulsion and the fact that substantial assets are involved that lead us to adopt our position. As I said last week, we must recognise that marriage value exists when the freeholder sells to the leaseholders. We propose to divide that gain equally between the parties. That means that leaseholders obtain added value, in the form of the ability to grant themselves new leases, which exceeds the price that they paid for it.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel raised the question of tapering. We discussed that at some length last week. I know that my noble friend has strong views on the matter, but, as I said last week, the fact remains that the current valuation basis provides its own taper. The price payable for enfranchisement increases progressively as leases shorten.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, wanted to speak to Amendment No. 20. I shall therefore move that amendment in its place, so that the noble Lord can do so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. I thank my noble friend for that sign of what is to come.
The price payable for enfranchisement increases progressively as leases shorten. We have taken the view that marriage value is likely to be de minimis where leases have more than 80 years to run and, to avoid arguments over insignificant sums, we are providing that no marriage value will be payable in such circumstances. As leases drop below 80 years, marriage value will progressively increase but will be split equally between the parties. We do not accept that there is a case for a further arbitrary apportionment of the marriage value which would effectively reduce the price payable by leaseholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, raised the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The 1967 Act reflected the different political and economic circumstances of the day and allowed enfranchisement on a basis that was extremely favourable to leaseholders. We no longer consider that equitable but do not seek to withdraw the right to enfranchise on that basis from those who currently enjoy it.
The noble Lords, Lord Jacobs and Lord Goodhart, referred to the promise made by my party when in opposition. We did not promise to abolish marriage value in An End to Feudalism. We sought views on two options: abolition and sharing marriage value equally between the parties. We have decided on the latter.
924
I turn to the final point raised, which was that the landlord will have received the equivalent price for the sale of a freehold when he first granted the lease. That may or may not be the case, but he would have granted the lease on the assumption that he would be entitled to either the freehold reversion at the end of the lease or a fair price for the sale of his interest—including marriage value. by contrast, the current leaseholder may have purchased the lease when the unexpired term was relatively short, at a price that reflected that. Abolition of marriage value would result in a substantial windfall gain at the expense of the landlord, which is difficult to justify. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are approaching the close of our debate on marriage value. My noble friends and I feel strongly on the matter. We have not had an opportunity to divide the House on it before, because we did not reach it on Report of the previous Bill, and reached it only late in the evening on Report of this Bill. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45 Not-Contents, 182.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Barker, B.

Maddock, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Methuen, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Falkland, V.

Northover, B.

Fearn, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Geraint, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.[Teller]

Razzall, L.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.[Teller]

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank. L

Roper, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jacobs, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tope, L.

Ludford, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Berkeley, L.

Amos, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Andrews, B.

Billingham, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Blackstone, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Blatch, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Boardman, L.

Attlee, E.

Borrie, L.

Bach, L.

Bowness, L.

925

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Brennan, L.

Chancellor)

Brightman, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Jopling, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burnham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Caithness, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Levy, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Chadlington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chandos, V.

Lockwood, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Luke, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Coe, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

[Teller]

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Elder, L.

Noakes, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Northesk, E.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Palmer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Parekh, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Filkin, L.

Parkinson, L.

Fookes, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Peel, E.

Gale, B.

Pendry, L.

Geddes, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Golding, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potteraewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rea, L.

Grocott, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Richard, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rooker, L.

Harrison, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Henley, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Seccombe, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hooper, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Howe, E.

Simon, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

926

Thornton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Whitty, L.

Wilcox, B.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Privy Seal)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.36 p.m.
Clause 124 [Freeholder's share of marriage value]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 125 [Disregard of marriage value in case of very long leases]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause—
"THE CROWN
This Chapter binds the Crown."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for raising the issue for the first time at the Bill's second Third Reading stage. I notified the Government that I intended to do so and most kindly and generously they said that they would respond in a manner which did not criticise me for the way in which I have drawn their attention to the matter. The issue arises over Crown exemption from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.
The Crown is not bound by the legislation but has given a voluntary undertaking to enfranchise properties held on long residential leases unless one of two conditions apply: first, where a property stands on inalienable land, which is defined in the Windsor Estate Act 1961; and, secondly, where property or land has a long historic or particular association with the Crown; for example, the garrison at St Mary's on the Isles of Scilly.
It has been suggested that these exemptions conflict with the Human Rights Act on the ground that they violate the right to property under Protocol 1, Article 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the prohibition of discrimination, articulated in Article 14. To that extent, therefore, the Bill fails to comply with the Government's undertaking. I shall be most interested to hear the Government's reaction to those suggestions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister replies, can the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, explain whether the provision applies only to this leasehold enfranchisement legislation or to all such legislation? I should have been able to work that out but I have been unable to do so. Although I have a degree of sympathy with the notion, perhaps this is not the moment at which to suggest that an undertaking from the Crown is questioned as implicitly as is the case in the amendment. If the provision applies only to this

927
legislation, it would be inappropriate to introduce it for only a part of the leasehold enfranchisement regime.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, on a point of clarification, perhaps I may say that it is not the undertaking from the Crown that is criticised; it is the discriminating way in which the undertaking has effect. In the case of some Crown properties, the Crown will honour that undertaking, but in the case of other Crown properties, because of their special status, the Crown will not enfranchise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said, seek to apply the rights of collective enfranchisement and lease renewal for flats, and the rights of enfranchisement and lease extension for houses to properties held by the Crown.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, these amendments apply our amendments without applying the legislation that they amend. However, I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, that they are merely a means of probing how the undertaking given by the Crown operates. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to deal with these points.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will know, the enfranchisement and lease extension provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 are not directly binding on the Crown. That does not, however, mean that Crown leaseholders do not hold the relevant rights. As the noble Lord knows, the Crown has undertaken to Parliament to comply with the legislation voluntarily. That means that in practice, and subject to certain specified conditions, any leaseholder who would be entitled to enfranchise or extend a lease under either the 1967 or the 1993 Act, if the legislation were directly binding on the Crown, will instead be able to do so under the undertaking. That is all set down in the Crown's undertaking, which was formally announced to Parliament by the then housing Minister, Sir George Young, on 2nd November 1992 at col. 19 of Hansard.
We have been in discussion with the Crown about the undertaking. We wish to ensure that the undertaking continues to give Crown leaseholders the same rights as they would have if the legislation applied directly. As such, we have asked the Crown to confirm that the undertaking will apply to the provisions of the 1967 and 1993 Acts, as amended by the important changes in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill. I am happy to say that the Crown has given us that confirmation.
The noble Lord referred to concerns that the present arrangements for Crown enfranchisement are not compliant with human rights legislation and with the ECHR. I know that general accusations have been made to that effect by Crown leaseholders who are dissatisfied with the way in which the undertaking applies to them. However, I am not aware that any specific grounds have yet been put forward to suggest
928
why the existing arrangements might not be compliant. The noble Lord will be aware that it is difficult to mount a detailed defence when the precise allegation is not known.
We are satisfied that the existing arrangements do not give rise to any problems of ECHR compliance. The question of whether or not the relevant Acts directly bind the Crown is something of a red herring. As I have explained, Crown leaseholders have the same rights as other leaseholders. They are simply delivered by a different means. That may be slightly unorthodox but it gets us to exactly the same place.
It is of course true that the Crown undertaking is subject to a number of exceptions. However, that is no different from the approach set down in the legislation. For example, there are exemptions for designated rural areas and charitable housing trusts. Again, the approach is entirely consistent on both sides. I should add that we are content that the exemptions set down in the undertaking are justified. If we were to apply the legislation directly, that would be done on the same basis as is already set down in the undertaking. The outcome would therefore be no different from that achieved under the present arrangements.
It is correct that Clause 106 makes the right to manage binding on the Crown and that Clause 163 does the same for numerous other statutory provisions. That, again, is simply a question of delivery. It ensures that those rights, including a number of existing ones that formerly did not apply are open to Crown leaseholders, as well as other leaseholders. As I said, the undertaking already delivers enfranchisement and new lease rights to Crown leaseholders. As that is already the case, we see no particular need to make statutory provisions to the same effect.
I can appreciate that those who fall outside the undertaking would be unhappy about that. I should say that there are more than two exemptions from the undertaking. The noble Lord referred to two, but he will accept that there are others. It would be inappropriate for me to go into individual cases. However, as I have said, we are satisfied that all aspects of the undertaking are appropriate. If we were to apply those rights directly to the Crown, we would do so in the same terms as already apply under the undertaking. As such, Crown leaseholders are in the same position under the present arrangements as they would be if we were to apply the Act directly because we would do so subject to the same exceptions.
As I said, it is simply a question of delivery. As far as I am aware, the Crown fully undertakes its undertaking. In those circumstances, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving such a full reply to my question. It was certainly not my intention to attack the undertaking. I entirely understand why the Crown is taking that approach, which is perfectly satisfactory and consistent with the convention.

929
My criticism is rather about the discriminatory way in which the undertaking is applied. The noble and learned Lord rightly said that there are other areas in the Bill that make exceptions to rights to enfranchise, but those areas are explicit and are stipulated in the Bill. The definition of what does and does not fall within the terms of the Windsor Estate Act and the concept of historical inalienability are much less clear. That is why the human rights point has been raised.
It would not be appropriate to put the matter to a vote. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 132 [Landlord's share of marriage value]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 133 [Disregard of marriage value in case of very long leases]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause—
"TAPERING OF MARRIAGE VALUES
For leases where there is an unexpired term of more than 50 but less than 80 years, for each year in reverse chronological order following the eightieth, the amount of marriage value shall be increased by one-thirtieth pro rata, until the fiftieth year at which point the marriage value shall revert to full value."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving the amendment simply because I do not think that we had a very serious debate on the previous grouping. I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, has to say as I think that he has been shut out on this matter.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but it is not fair to say that I was shut out. I did not know the rules and I did not observe them. That is a true admission. However, I have been given a second bite at the cherry.
I strongly support the amendment. Since the Government decided to exclude marriage value for leases with the remaining term of 80 years and upwards, the situation is clearly anomalous if some tenants have, say, only 79 years left. In those circumstances, the tenant will be obliged to pay 50 per cent of the marriage value rather than nothing.
On Second Reading, I proposed a complete taper from 80 years down to 10 years. However, on reconsideration of the matter, I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would be fairer because it only takes it from 79 years down to 50 years, which I believe would be sufficient.
It may be a little surprising that the Government did not propose any taper, but then that is because their position on this matter has not been fully understood.
930
They regard marriage value at 80 years and upwards as being de minimis and their proposal to abolish marriage value at that level is to save unnecessary administration and wasteful negotiating costs. I agree with that approach.
If, for example, one looks at the value of leases in Newport and Cardiff, the marriage value on 80-year leases is close to zero, and those years just below 80 will also have negligible marriage value. Therefore, a taper is not required. The problem arises in Greater London where marriage value can amount to tens of thousands of pounds, even at 80 years, so the penalty for being a year or two short on the lease becomes significant without a taper.
The Government can reasonably argue that they had no intention of reducing the cost of either enfranchisement or lease extension by this measure—or any other measure for that matter. They could claim that if marriage value after all has real value at 80 years, they had now better remove the clause abolishing marriage value over 80 years. I believe that that has a certain logic.
On the other hand, if the Government allow the clause to remain, in all equity there must be some kind of taper below 80 years. I urge the Government to think again. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is very modest and just, and I strongly support it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, puts his case clearly and with great vigour. We have started marriage value only at 80 years because we believe that above that level it is negligible. That means that normally when it kicks in at 80 years the amount of marriage value will be very small. It will become larger as the years go by, but because it is very small when it starts at 80 years a taper is built into the whole process anyway. That is why it seems unnecessary to introduce an artificial second taper as proposed by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. There is already a taper because the marriage value will go up as the years go by, starting from a very small beginning at 80 years.
We are not attracted by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel because we believe that the circumstances themselves provide the taper. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, and the Minister. My noble and learned friend appears to believe in the market according to Marshallian economics. I am not sure that I believe in it. Nevertheless, I invite my noble and learned friend to study Marshall and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 136 [Reduction of qualifying period as tenant etc]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 66, line 11, at the end, insert—
"(1C) This Part of this Act shall not have effect to confer any right on the tenant of a house where—

(a) the house is for the time being let as two or more flats or units; and

(b) the tenancy is superior to those held by the other tenants,

unless, at the relevant time, the tenant has been occupying the house, or any part of it, as his only or main residence (whether or not he has been using it for other purposes)—

(i) for the last two years; or

(ii) for periods amounting to two years in the last 10 years."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 26. We return to the same matter that we debated at Report stage, during which time I received support from all sides of the House on the point that I then sought to raise. To recap, by changing the residency rules the Government have given incredible new rights to head lessees who will be able to expropriate the properties of existing landlords and benefit from any marriage value in future transactions, should they happen. A good number of these head lessees are deliberately set up as overseas tax havens. They are perhaps people whom one would not want to see as landlords in many of our cities, but obviously these are the friends of new Labour.
It would be quite wrong for them to be given these privileges at the expense of existing landlords—the Church, the charities and the pension funds—who will lose a considerable amount of money. We calculate that in the major estates of London the Government's draconian proposals could take effect in over 500 properties. There are millions of pounds at stake. Therefore, by tabling these amendments I seek to help the Government shed the new image that they will gain for themselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have received a letter from the Leasehold Reform Professional Committee, which fully understands, as do I, the point raised by my noble friend. One does not want to see a commercial head lessee enfranchising over people with flats in a house who would otherwise be able themselves to enfranchise. Nevertheless, it is concerned about the amendments because it believes that the undertaking given by the Government at the previous stage of the Bill provided better news. It would prefer that these amendments are not accepted today.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. It has been suggested to me that we should invite the Government to look carefully at the amendment because it appears to go further than the general support expressed at Report stage. We all recognise that there is a problem with head leases and that perhaps the wrong people
932
will enfranchise. It is my understanding that this amendment takes the matter much further. I invite the Government to look at it carefully.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks to help the Government he is going about it in a strange way. To contrast these wicked head lessees who are friends of new Labour with landlords who are widows, orphans and the starving millions appears to be a little extreme. However, the noble Earl has a point. We said that in relation to his amendment at Report stage. He suggested ways in which we might address the concerns which he put forward last week.
We agree with the noble Earl that head lessees should not be able to make windfall gains by enfranchising in these circumstances. We now accept that the Bill could be interpreted in a way that allows that. We are presently considering changes to put the matter beyond doubt and shall introduce an amendment in another place to achieve that. We shall certainly consider the approaches suggested by the noble Earl, although we also bear in mind the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. I shall inform the noble Earl of our proposals in due course.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's response. I am particularly encouraged by his observation that not only do I have a point but there is a flaw in the Bill which needs to be rectified. Thank goodness we have had the time to highlight this matter. It has also given the Government time to table at this stage at least one third of the amendments to clarify earlier parts of the Bill.
We are still concerned that without a residency test there will be a new speculative element in the market which has not existed so far. That will arise on short leases and leasehold houses and it will affect prices where there are two competitors pursuing a property, one of whom is a speculator and the other is a potential owner occupier.
Having said that and registered the point yet again, I am extremely grateful for what the Government intend to do. I look forward to seeing the amendment to be tabled in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 141 [Exclusion of shared ownership leases]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 142 [Tenant's share of marriage value]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Jacobs Lord Jacobs moved Amendment No. 28:
Before Clause 147. insert the following new clause—
"MINIMUM TERM FOR LEASES AT A PREMIUM
(1) No lease of a flat or house may be granted at a premium unless the term of this lease is not less than 300 years.

933
(2) In this section "flat" has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of this Part and "home" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been debated before only briefly and yet it could have significant implications for the leasehold system in this country. We all recognise that this Bill breaks important new ground; first, with the right to manage and, secondly, with commonhold. However, we now understand that there is virtually no prospect of the existing 2 million leaseholders achieving commonhold. What is not fully understood is that from the tenants' point of view if they are able to obtain enfranchisement and secure a 999-year lease then as much as 90 per cent of the benefits of commonhold could be achieved under such leases.
However, I fear that the Government have overlooked the fact that landlords—I refer particularly to those in Greater London—are intent on maintaining the leasehold system as far into the future as can be imagined. If a Greater London landlord has already existed for 150 years there appears to be no problem in continuing for another 150 years, and perhaps longer. I do not decry that possibility, but it goes some way to explain why leases are still being granted for terms of 125 years, 99 years, 75 years and
believe it or not—20 years.
The principle is always the same. The tenant will pay the virtual freehold value for leases in London of 75 years and upwards. But from that moment onwards for every year the lease diminishes the landlord's reversionary interest increases and the tenant's interest decreases. That is disguised somewhat by the fact that with property inflation the tenant's interest does not appear to diminish so much while of course the landlord's interest increases enormously.
The principle that the landlords wish to establish is that of a second bite of the cherry. That is to enable the tenant or his successors who believe they purchased their own home to purchase again in 75 or 99 years and then at a greater market value. That is a "nice little earner", as they say. This amendment is designed to extinguish the landlord's interest and enthusiasm for achieving successive bites of the cherry. Perhaps the amendment would be better if it were for 999 years, but I still believe that 300 years is sufficient. I am sure that the Government recognise that the landlord is not being deprived of any element of value when he grants a lease for 300 years.
What, therefore, can be the objection to this amendment? Primarily, it is a limitation of consumer choice. With the exception of 20-year leases to which I shall come, the consumer pays virtually the freehold price in Greater London for leases of 75 years and upwards. The price range is between 90 per cent and 98 per cent of the freehold value. Consumer choice would mean that tenants would prefer to have a 999-year lease or certainly under this amendment, a 300-year lease. By this amendment we are not restricting the tenant's choice, but the landlord's choice because it is the landlord who has an interest in granting the shortest possible lease commensurate with obtaining the maximum value.
In the case of 20-year leases it is a different kettle of fish, for here landlords successfully sought to avoid the 1993 Act by declining to offer leases greater than 20 years before the Act came into being when 21 years was the expected cut-off point. These properties can no longer be enfranchised and I am sure that your Lordships will accept that landlords did not offer the consumer a choice of 20 years or of, say, 75 years, and insisted it was 20 years or nothing even though such tenants had reasonable expectation of being granted a normal length lease on renewal.
It is intended by this amendment that the landlord cannot grant a lease of 20 years for a capital sum. It would have to be a 300-year lease. However, it should be recognised that in Greater London one does pay a lesser sum for a 20-year lease, believe it or not, up to 60 per cent of the notional freehold value. So after 11 years, for example, a tenant who wants to sell his remaining lease of nine years would go to an estate agent who would tell him immediately that it is not saleable unless he can acquire a new 20-year lease. But by that time his nine-year lease is only worth about 30 per cent of the notional freehold value.
Just to make it absolutely clear, perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. If a flat has a notional freehold value of £300,000, these Greater London landlords would sell a 20-year lease for up to £180,000. At the end of 11 years the tenant would have to pay another £90,000 to buy a new 20-year lease, assuming that there is no inflation. If there is inflation of just three per cent per annum the tenant would have to pay £124,000 to convert his nine-year lease to a 20-year lease. So in the end the tenant will have paid out £300,000 over a period of just 11 years, which was the value of the virtual freehold property in the first place.
Therefore, are we to say that, in the interests of consumer choice, we should allow 20-year leases to be granted for a capital sum? I believe that we would be doing the tenants an immeasurable favour if we were to say that all leases for a capital sum should be for a minimum period of 300 years. Landlords would rapidly lose interest in the possibility of further bites of the cherry and the leasehold system would wither away, which after all, is surely what the Government want.
I challenge the Government to survey leasehold tenants once again and find out whether they would prefer to retain leases of 20, 75, 99 and 125 years or whether they would prefer to acquire at full market value a 300-year lease. Could the Government also survey the landlords? We could then agree whether consumer choice is wanted by the tenants or by the landlords.
I have dealt with the question of consumer choice. The remaining objections raised by the Government at Report stage are not significant and could be responded to fully in another place. However, a statement by the Minister, the noble Lord, McIntosh of Haringey, cannot be passed over. On 13th November, at col. 549 of the Official Report, he said,
"Of course, we will monitor the development of commonhold after the Bill is enacted. We expect it to become the preferred form of tenure and that leasehold will gradually wither on the vine".

935
He should have added that the Bill will do nothing for the 2 million leaseholders who will remain shackled in the present system. This amendment, therefore, is designed to rectify the situation. I urge your Lordships to support it. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I believe that the amendment would prevent a willing buyer from acquiring a short lease from a willing seller. Why? There are plenty of reasons why a willing buyer might be willing. He might be a middle-aged person, single, divorced or widowed and with no children. Rather than pay rent for a period of 20-odd years he might prefer to shell out a capital sum. Why should not that be possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, had a happier evening on his birthday last week than we are having this evening.
In his absence, and as he knows, we discussed this issue at some length, but I believe that I should set out the Government's case again as he has so helpfully set out his own. The amendment reflects the view that we should remove the attractiveness of the leasehold system to landlords and developers in order to promote the use of commonhold. We are confident, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, recognised in the quotation he read from the speech I made last week, that commonhold will be attractive to developers and will be widely adopted. Many current developments already offer 999-year leases and a share in a leaseholders' management company. However, until commonhold has been tried and tested we consider that it would be premature to restrict the use of leasehold.
Any restriction on the granting of leases would limit the choice of the purchaser, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, because it is a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. It is very difficult to see how we should intervene unless there is some distortion of the market which I do not find here.
If a person wishes to save on rent or to fix housing costs over a period by paying a capital sum for a short lease, we believe that he should be permitted to do so. The amendment, as drafted—I know that this is an extreme case—would prevent the granting of a six months' tenancy for a single payment.
Furthermore, there may be circumstances where a developer or landlord has only a leasehold interest and cannot grant leases beyond the term of his own interest. A very long minimum period such as 300 years or 999 years would mean that the landlord could rent out units only on periodic tenancies and could prevent redevelopment from taking place. We know that some local authorities have properties on land which they hold on a leasehold basis. If a lease of that sort runs out after 150 years, should we be saying that because they cannot offer a lease of 300 years they should be prevented from selling those leases to tenants under the right-to-buy scheme? I very much doubt if tenants in such a situation would support a
936
move of that kind. As I have said before and his been quoted back at me, we will be monitoring the development of commonhold after the Bill comes into force. We expect that it will be the preferred form of tenure and that leasehold will gradually wither on the vine. But we would be prepared to consider possible restrictions on its use in the longer term if there was a clear need to do so and if the benefit to be gained outweighed the disadvantages. I cannot say that t hat is the case now.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, has also argued the case in particular about 20-year leases. The market for these leases is very specialised involving a limited number of high value properties in a limited area. It is not typical of the market generally. People who may pay very substantial sums of money for a short lease should be aware of the nature of the interest that they are buying. Many purchasers are businesses which view these leases as a medium-term business asset.
It has been suggested that landlords who offer such leases are exploiting a local monopoly. However, there is no such thing as a local monopoly in housing; no one has to live in a particular high-value area. People who can afford to pay £500,000 for a 20-year lease on a flat in Eaton Square should be able to find somewhere else to live if they wish to ensure longer-term security for their money.
If I may say so, I do not consider this to be a particularly liberal amendment.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I did not deal with minor issues such as six-month leases because I thought that they could be dealt with elsewhere. Perhaps I may respond to two points. First, the 20-year leases came into existence only when certain Greater London landlords knew that new legislation was due to be enacted. They gauged the cut-off point and then offered 20-year leases with no option to tenants who expected significantly longer leases. To say that that represented choice for the consumer is, I believe, mistaken.
Secondly, as regards those holding leases which do not extend for longer than 150 years, that fact is that if under the current legislation the landlord has only a limited period left to run on the lease, under the new legislation he will still be obliged to go back to the freeholder to negotiate an extension. That is not an insuperable objection. I wish to mention a point which I do not believe has been fully taken on board—although perhaps I did not expect that it would be—and if it is wrong I should like to be proved wrong. The Government should conduct surveys among landlords and tenants to find out exactly what all the parties want. I have said that tenants want very long leases, as long as 999 years, and that they would be prepared to pay for those long leases. The Government claim that what tenants really want is many different lengths of lease: 20 years, 75 years, 125 years and so forth I do not think that that is correct. If the Government were able to take up my challenge, they would be better able to deal with me on another occasion.

937
Once again, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 166 [Appeals]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 86, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) In any proceedings in the Lands Tribunal on appeal from a leasehold valuation tribunal, the fees payable and costs awarded shall not exceed such fees and costs as may be specified for a leasehold valuation tribunal under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 12 to this Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would add a further subsection to Clause 166 on page 86 as the Bill is presently drafted. However, to deal with the matter in detail, one must turn to pages 125 and 126. Schedule 12 covers the relevant points.
I am keen to introduce this protection. The noble and learned Lord knows that I have introduced the matter on several previous occasions. I am concerned that excessive costs and fees are used to put pressure on people. They are told that if they take their case to the leasehold valuation tribunal, win or lose, the case will progress to the Lands Tribunal. If the people concerned thought that they were able to afford the leasehold valuation tribunal, they certainly will not be able to afford anything after that. That serves as a serious deterrent.
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his place. I believe that he took up the issue when the legislation was earlier debated in the Moses Room. The lack of a ceiling on fees and costs is used as a form of moral blackmail. It is unfair and frightening for those who find themselves in this position. It is impossible to quantify the numbers who have been prevented from pursuing their case to the Lands Tribunal.
At the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned examples where people had won their cases but then found themselves in a most unfortunate position. If the Government wish to demonstrate that they are keen for people to enfranchise their property, as well as to deal with the various problems that may arise under the leasehold valuation tribunal, then it is important that such a sword hanging over people's heads in the form of unlimited costs and fees when the case goes to the Lands Tribunal should be removed.
I have read carefully the differences between fees and costs and I appreciate the details. I was also interested to learn that the procedures as set out in the schedule already allow for a reduction or waiver of fees if someone is in a difficult position financially. However, there is a difference between helping those in desperate financial straits and helping a person who has been careful with their money and who does not wish to enter into such a procedure with no idea of what the costs and fees will be. Provisions have been put into the schedule which would allow the Government to set the limits. Fees are covered in
938
paragraph 9(3). The £500 set out under heading (a) refers to the limit of £500 for which we argued and won in 1993. Heading (b) states that,
"such other amounts as may be specified in procedure regulations".
Costs are similarly covered in paragraph 10(3)(a) and (b). It is possible for the limits to be changed.
I understand that the legal system cannot be run so that all the expenses are borne centrally. People must be willing to bear a proportion of their own expenses in life. However, it would be unfortunate if people were unable to enfranchise their property simply because they could not arrange for matters to be dealt with by the tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I did so on Report and I am happy to do again, although I recognise some force in the argument put forward by the Government; namely, that this is a matter to be dealt with as part of any new legislation on tribunals. In principle, however, I believe that the noble Baroness is absolutely right.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has clearly explained, the effect of this amendment would be to limit the fees payable to the Lands Tribunal and to limit its ability to award costs. As on the previous occasion, I appreciate that the risk of a substantial costs award can deter leaseholders from resisting appeals to the Lands Tribunal or even making use of the leasehold valuation tribunals in the first place, and that unscrupulous landlords have exploited this on a number of occasions.
As the noble Baroness will know, we have introduced a requirement in Clause 166 that, in all cases, appeals can be made to the Lands Tribunal against a decision reached by the LVT only with the permission either of the LVT concerned or the Lands Tribunal. That is intended to prevent frivolous or intimidatory appeals by landlords. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness would respond by saying, quite fairly, that that would not deal completely with the situation that she has identified.
As I explained last week, Sir Andrew Leggatt recently concluded a wide-ranging review of the tribunal system as a whole. The Government are still consulting on the outcome of that review. It will provide an opportunity to consider all aspects of Lands Tribunal procedures, including its costs regime. I suggested on Report that the noble Baroness might agree that this issue would be better dealt with in that context when her arguments, which have considerable force, can be put.
However, I appreciate the strength of feeling in support of making early changes through the provisions of the Bill before the House rather than awaiting the conclusions of the broader work in the Leggatt review. In that light, we are prepared to take the matter away and consider carefully whether we

939
should put forward an appropriate amendment in another place. In the light of that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may press him further on it. The significance of including limits on costs and fees in this Bill would make a difference to how the Government's attitude as regards the wish of many people to have more rights over their property is perceived. To await the report of Sir Andrew Leggatt and then to deal with it as a complete matter would be a different issue. I should like to think that the Minister will press, I presume, the Lord Chancellor's Department, to bring forward an amendment in the Commons which would assist people in a positive manner, rather than waiting for further legislation.
Other ways could be found to deal with this problem, such as reaching firm decisions on how the costs and fees would be calculated. Provisions in the Bill before us allow for the fees to be fixed. I wish to see the creation of a known fee. I do not intend that the procedure should cost absolutely nothing; people should be obliged to pay a known fee, even if the amount were to vary as time went by. I press the Minister to respond on that point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is clear from what I have said that I am not in a position to give any assurance as to what may happen. However, I am prepared to say that we will take the matter away, consider it very carefully, discuss it, and address the issue of whether we should bring forward an appropriate amendment in another place—which, as the noble Baroness knows, is a movement from our position at Report stage. I hope that with those assurances she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If the noble and learned Lord feels that I can help in any way in the drafting of the amendment, I hope that he will discuss it with me. I find him an honourable person and I know that he would not say that if he did not mean to do it. He will certainly have me on his back if it does not happen. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 30:
Before Clause 168, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS
(1) After such consultation as he considers appropriate, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a scheme to regulate managers of property under this Part.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) may take the form of

(a) a professional regulatory body,

(b) a licensing regime, or

(c) such other arrangements as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

940
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include procedures for extending eligibility for membership of any scheme to other managers of property."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to one of the unresolved issues in the Bill; that is, the regulation of managing agents. The matter was debated both in Committee and on Report but we have come to a stalemate. On Report, my noble and learned friend said that my amendment went down a channel he did not wish to follow. I have therefore redrafted the amendment to allow the Secretary of State. after consultation, to do more or less whatever he wants.
Your Lordships recognise that we have to get something into the legislation which will allow the regulation of managing agents. It is not enough to say that that may come in future legislation and so on; it has to come now. My noble and learned friend said on Report that we can introduce legislation from time to time, but my argument is that the amendment is necessary for this Bill at this time in order to get the legislation on to the statute book. That would save any government—it is not a party political matter—from having to produce new primary legislation for the regulation of managing agents.
I cannot see what is wrong with my amendment. Noble Lords will have read the text of the amendment—I do not need to go through it— which, in effect, states that, after consultation, the Secretary of State may do this, that and thus, whatever he wishes. It is time for the House to say that we need to get this last unresolved issue on to the statute book when the Bill leaves the House. I beg to move.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there has been a printing error in the Marshalled List. I shall therefore call the amendment as follows. Before Clause 168, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List, together with the words,
"(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in this matter, on which I have spoken on a previous occasion. The amendment is totally in line with the professional approach that the Government and many others in the housing world are striving to take towards managing properties across all sectors of housing. It is very important.
As the noble Lord pointed out, this is an unresolved issue. If the Government want the Bill to work and people to have better conditions and better management, this is a vital part of it. I hope that the Government will respond to the noble Lord in the way in which they responded to the previous amendment and make sure that something is done about this issue when the Bill arrives in another place.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Williams of Elvel, will take it all the way.

941
However, I do not think the amendment goes far enough. The Minister and I have discussed this matter. I believe that all agents should be regulated, whether they be managing agents, letting agents or estate agents who are buying and selling property. In this century, we should certainly have much greater regulation. As has so often been pointed out, one is dealing with people's homes, which is probably the major investment of their lifetime. As a surveyor, I am sad to admit that there are far too many cowboy surveyors. In the property transaction industry, one needs absolutely no qualifications to set up as a managing agent, letting agent or residential agent. That is totally improper in this day and age.
The problem could be solved if the Government were to implement Section 21 or 22—from memory, I believe that it is Section 21—of the Estate Agents Act 1979. If the provisions of that Act were implemented, it could solve the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and ease my concerns.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am particularly pleased with subsection (3). I am very much in favour of the proper regulation of estate agents. As I have said before, in Australia everyone has to be qualified for whatever they do in estate management or sales. Subsection (3) states:
"Regulations under subsection (1) may include procedures for extending eligibility for membership of any scheme to other managers of property".
That will enable people who have been making their living through managing property—or accountants, or solicitors or someone who is qualified in a different way—to be approved and registered.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, whether or not the text of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will achieve his objective, we strongly support the objective. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will give your Lordships' House a clear indication of the Government's intention to act in response to that objective at some early time in the future.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel wishes to ensure that managing agents of leasehold property meet certain standards. As I have said before, we support this objective. I see, too, that the noble Lord has taken on board our earlier comments with regard to not prejudging the best way to go about this. He has made a real attempt to leave the way open for any kind of scheme that we might devise. He has, in effect, trusted the Government with very broad and sweeping powers. I wonder whether he would be quite so trusting if the Government were an administration of a different stripe.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend—I hesitate to intervene—this is not a party political matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend is not making it a party political matter.
Moving smartly away from party politics, there are some difficulties in my noble friend's proposition. There would be no point in setting up a regulatory scheme that lacked sufficient powers for enforcement. For example, under a licensing scheme we would need an effective way to stop rogues from operating without a licence. Otherwise, they could simply carry on as they have always done with complete disregard to the law.
If we did decide to go down the regulatory route, we might want powers to allow leaseholders to withhold service charges under certain circumstances; we would certainly need a power to impose fines; and we might even want to explore the possibility of harsher penalties for the real hard cases. That is not something that we could leave to secondary legislation; it would have to be provided for on the face of the Bill.
We would also need to consider certain practical issues. For example, we should need a power on the face of the Bill to fund any new body and to prescribe its constitution. Moreover, my noble friend will recall that we are still considering whether any scheme should be confined to agents, given that problems may be caused by the landlord instead, or indeed by any other person responsible for the management.
On the face of it, the amendment appears to allow us the flexibility to decide on that point at a later stage, as we should wish. However, it would not enable us to make arrangements for the replacement of, for example, a landlord. Therefore, if a landlord were banned from managing leasehold properties, there would be a sort of interregnum when no one would have the responsibility—or the power—to manage the property at all. That would hardly be satisfactory and we ought to make provision on the face of the Bill to resolve any such difficulty. This is further complicated by the fact that we can think of two different ways in which we could deal with that problem. It may be that when we consult on this issue consultees will come forward with a third, better option.
Doubtless, there would be other matters that we should need to address on the face of the Bill which have not even occurred to us yet. Creating a power to implement a scheme of unknown scope, nature and detail is an astonishingly ambitious goal. Again, I thank my noble friend for his trust in us. However, we truly do not think that we could make adequate provision on the face of this Bill to cover all eventualities, or indeed even to come close to doing so.
We believe that the right course is to proceed with consultation, as we promised we would, on how to deal with this issue. If the consultation leads to the conclusion that we should legislate, then we should bring forward legislation in the first available legislative vehicle that would allow us to do so. We should use our best endeavours to seek to achieve that as soon as the legislative timetable allowed. Obviously, I am not in a position to say when that would be. We should hope that it would be in the next Session, but

943
plainly that would depend on a whole range of unpredictable issues on which I am not in a position to comment.
In the light of those remarks, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he confirm that his consultation will be about the regulation of all agents? Or will it be limited, sadly, to managing agents?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be limited to managing agents.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response. I cannot say that it comes as either a great surprise or a great pleasure. I believe—and I hope that this matter will be taken up in another place—that there should be a provision on the face of the Bill to allow the Government to introduce, by regulation, a proper system of regulating managing agents. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend's department will reconsider the matter. I hope that when the Bill comes before another place the Government will produce a coherent and sensible provision to meet the concerns that have been expressed in this House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Land which may not be commonhold land]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 89, line 5, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of the Report stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, undertook—generously, but perhaps rather rashly—to come back to the House at Third Reading to let your Lordships know the timetable for the Law Commission's work on land obligations. In fact, I have received a reply not from the noble Lord, but from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in the course of which she states:
"The Commission's work on land obligations is to some extent contingent on the outcome of Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. With that and other priorities in mind, they do not expect to go out to consultation before 2003".
I recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, expressed his extremely creative views on positive obligations in relation to freehold land as long ago as 1965–36 years ago. I suppose that the distance between now and 2003 is somewhat shorter than that. However, the noble Baroness has told us only that the Law Commission will be going out to consultation at that time. What matters to this House is when we shall see a Bill that will at last put into the law of the land all the work that the noble and learned Lord did so long ago. That is why we have tabled this amendment on flying commonholds.
The Bill as it stands forbids flying commonhold. The amendment seeks to remove that prohibition, so that if someone is possessed of the jurisprudential or engineering ingenuity to resolve the problems, that person is not prevented from using this new tenure. It is a permissive amendment—a new approach to the problem—and I hope that the noble Baroness will find herself in a sufficiently generous mood to concede this very contentious point. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly said, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that he would come back to this issue, and I have pleasure in doing so now.
The scheme of land obligation will, if accepted, replace positive and restrictive covenants and the disadvantages attaching to the present position. As the noble Lord knows, in its Eighth Programme of Law Reform, a copy of which is in the Library, the Law Commission stated that it is working on a project that will consider both easements and analogous private law rights, particularly profits à prendre, together with a further consideration of land obligations. We know that that will be an extensive and detailed investigation, and one that is long overdue.
The Law Commission makes the point that the work on the land obligations—as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, rightly says—is to some extent contingent on the outcome of Part 1 of this Bill. With that and other priorities in mind, it does not expect to go out to consultation before 2003. But your Lordships will have noted that the Law Commission has been dealing expeditiously with these issues and we want more than anything to have this matter dealt with in a comprehensive and holistic way.
I ask the noble Lord to take courage—we waited for some 75 years for the Land Registration Act, but it is now with us. The Law Commission has been energetic in that regard. Therefore, I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Your Lordships should know that, throughout our debates on the Bill, those of us who have borne the heat of the day—not all of us have worked on the Bill through its previous stage and this one—have now debated nearly 1,000 amendments, if we include the proceedings prior to the general election. Much as we have enjoyed our often lively debates, I am sure that all noble Lords will be as relieved as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I that we have at last reached the final amendment at this stage of the Bill's progress. It would be an appropriate and "fitting sweet" birthday present for my noble and learned friend, whose birthday it is today, if we could close our deliberations on a harmonious note.
Your Lordships will know that we still have problems with positive covenants and we continue to say that a piecemeal approach is neither safe nor

945
satisfactory. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will feel able to give my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer a fit and proper birthday present.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I am disappointed with her reply. I can see no harm in a permissive amendment that would permit the lawyers to test the courts on these issues. The common law has proved a very creative instrument in this country over the centuries. Why should it not do so in respect of this matter? Who knows? The judges may relieve the legislature of the heavy burden of yet another Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, with another seven or eight occasions upon which the issue of flying commonholds was debated. However, I will respect the fact that it is the birthday of the noble and learned Lord today, and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Premises excluded from right to manage]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to applaud the draftsman for including in this Bill an index of defined expressions. This is a most helpful device which saves the reader much time.
Your Lordships will find in Clause 68 an index of all the expressions which are specially defined in Part 1 of the Bill. Column 1 lists all the defined expressions in Part 1. Column 2 lists the sections in which the definitions are to be found. In addition to saving the reader much time in tracing a definition section, an index also avoids the risk that the reader may overlook the fact that a word in common use has a special meaning. There is a similar index in Clause 111 which covers Chapter 1, Part 2 of the Bill.
Let me briefly illustrate the value of such an index. Clause 91, for example, relates to information which has to be given to an intending managing company. There is a requirement in Clause 91 relating to information recorded in a document. The question at once arises, does the word "document" have its dictionary meaning or a special meaning, including perhaps a tape-recording or a floppy disk? If it has a special meaning, where is that meaning to be found? Both questions are answered immediately by the index in Clause 111. Column 1 of Clause 111 includes the word "document", so that the reader knows immediately that the word has a special meaning. Column 2 tells the reader where that special meaning is to be found.
This helpful device was, I am told, first tried out in the Social Security Act 1975 and the Reservoirs Act 1975. It has occasionally been repeated. I would like to
946
see the inclusion of an index of defined expressions the rule, rather than the exception, in the case of all long and complicated Bills. The example set by this admirable draftsman should, in my respectful opinion, be followed in the future.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has congratulated the Government on Clauses 68 and 111, but I am sure that your Lordships would wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on the contribution he has made in making Clauses 68 and 111 possible.
For the past five years the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has been a persistent critic of the Government's normal refusal to provide such definition sections. It is a great tribute to his persistence that the Government now, in this difficult and complex Bill, have produced the answer that he wanted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is one of the greatest legal draftsmen of modern times, and the fact that he has paid the Government the compliment he has is indeed a very great compliment.
I would like to congratulate the Government on getting their Bill. It is the second time that they have got their Bill, because they got it just before the general election. Your Lordships very nearly lost it for the second time, had it not been for the unscrambling of an arrangement which we all thought would take place a week before the general election.
I would urge the Government to produce, at the earliest possible moment, a consolidation of leasehold legislation. It is now desperately needed. Although consolidating legislation is politically unglamorous, from the point of view of the citizen it would be of huge benefit. May I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord and his team to urge those who decide legislative timetables to give this matter their most serious consideration?
I hope that the Government will also monitor closely the progress of the commonhold legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his colleagues on the Liberal Front Bench and my colleagues on my Front Bench are sad that the Government were not able to find a way of enabling blocks of flats to be converted to commonhold by less than the unanimous decision of the leaseholders. I hope that the Government will be right about the attractions of commonhold, but I suspect that more will have to be done if this imaginative and worthwhile new form of land tenure is to become the habit rather than the exception.
In conclusion, I should like to thank those many members of the Chancery Bar, not necessarily of my political persuasion, who have lent their time and skills to assist the Opposition in its loyal work.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in a number of respects, the first of which is the very well-deserved tribute

947
which he paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for the work that he has done on this and other matters.
Secondly, I should like to add to the noble Lord's appeal for consolidation legislation. The legislation dealing with enfranchisement, extended leases and so on, is in an absolutely hideous mess at the moment. It is virtually impossible for anybody to find their way through it, and I believe that it is important to try to get this in a comprehensible form. That clearly requires consolidation legislation.
I would also like to join the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his tribute to the members of the Chancery Bar, who have been very helpful in many respects and have achieved a number of amendments to this Bill, and indeed also to the Law Society for its comments on the Bill.
Finally, I would like to say that most of us—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Maddock, Lord Jacobs and I—will be more than glad to see the back of this Bill. We have spent an enormous amount of time on it: a great deal more than any of us expected when we started on our deliberations. Although it is not fundamentally controversial, it has thrown up a perhaps surprisingly large number of issues of no little importance. As it is, the Bill is not perfect, in our view, but I believe that it will move English property law forward in the right direction.
I wish it well in the other place and, apart from what I expect will be a brief revisit when we come to the consideration of the Commons amendments, I think that we are all glad to see the back of this Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, just in case anyone believes that this is just a lawyers' Bill, we have been helped by a wide range of practitioners outside the House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all those who have participated so energetically—I emphasise that word—in the perfection of the Bill. It has been a united effort. We are very conscious of the great compliment paid to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. We are sensible of it and we hope that this will be emulated, to his satisfaction, by many others who follow us. I do not exclude anyone. Everyone in the House today has toiled hard to make the Bill the perfect instrument that it should be.
On Question, Bill passed. and sent to the Commons.

European Arrest Warrant: EUC Report
7.50 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Scott of Foscote rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee, Counter-Terrorism: The European Arrest Warrant (6th Report, HL Paper 34).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the authorities—I am not certain who they are, but I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for
948
not identifying them—for making time available this evening at short notice to debate some important matters of concern arising out of two draft framework decisions that have recently emanated from Brussels. One is the draft framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the other is the draft framework decision on combating terrorism.
I shall start with a little background. The two framework decisions, with several others, form part of the intended legislative response of the European Union member states to the horrors of 11th September and to the growing realisation of the problems of terrorism that member states, as well as the United States of America and other western countries, face.
In putting forward the draft proposals, the European Council has set a timetable—a so-called road plan—for dealing with these and the other measures to which I have referred. The tightness of that timetable is no doubt a reflection of the urgency with which a response to the events of 11th September is viewed. The timetable requires a final decision to be taken on these two measures on 6th or 7th December. Bearing in mind that the original proposals were received for scrutiny only at the end of October, your Lordships will understand the difficulty that the timetable has placed on those whose responsibility it is to try to scrutinise them and see whether changes should be recommended.
The Select Committee has obtained some written evidence from Fair Trials Abroad and Statewatch and on 7th November, at very short notice, Mr Bob Ainsworth, the Home Office Minister, appeared before the committee to answer questions and give us some valuable information, elucidating the Government's intentions with regard to the measures. We are very grateful to him for coming at such short notice, but plainly problems remain.
In the meantime, since 7th November, the target for scrutiny has been a moving one. That is not surprising, given the shortness of time in which the matters can be considered. A number of amendments have already been made to the original proposals, which have removed some of the objections that had been identified to some of the articles in the draft. No doubt there should and will be further amendments, but time is short. The purpose of this debate is to give your Lordships an opportunity to express the concerns that remain on some of the provisions.
I draw your Lordships' attention to those parts of the current proposals that seem to me to be of concern and to warrant some comment. Despite the title, the combating terrorism measure presents fewer problems of principle and worry than does the European arrest warrant proposal. The proposed measure on combating terrorism identifies a number of offences under national law—it does not purport to create any new offences—that are committed with a terrorist aim, as defined. They are then to become terrorist offences and will attract higher penalties than they would attract if committed without that terrorist aim.
The terrorist aim is fairly broadly defined. Your Lordships will find it in the draft, so I need not take up time by reading it. Like most readers of the original

949
proposal, my particular concern was that it should not impinge on the rights of association and of peaceful demonstration that we all believe that those who live in a democratic country under the rule of law are entitled to expect.
In its original form, there was considerable room for concern that the impingement was beyond what was reasonable, but my view is that the document in its present form has satisfactorily met those worries. In its present form, I do not think that it will allow interference with rights of peaceful demonstration or of association in support of causes, no matter how unpopular those causes may be. Once demonstrations or associations begin to have a terrorist aim, as defined, they rightly move into a different bracket and will attract the proposed higher penalties.
I find the European arrest warrant proposal much more worrying. Its purpose is to replace the current extradition procedures between member states with a much speedier summary procedure. Most people with experience of extradition procedures would agree that, at present, they are unacceptably drawn-out and that there is considerable room for simplification and improvement. That is particularly so for extradition between the United Kingdom and other member states in whose judicial systems and procedures, broadly speaking, we in this country have confidence.
However, we have to remember that everyone in this country, including those regarded as fugitives from justice in other states, are entitled to the protection of our laws while they are in this country and entitled to be protected by reference to the standards that we believe are appropriate. In principle, we should not send people to be tried abroad unless we can be satisfied that they will receive a fair trial and unless there is a proper case for them to answer in the foreign country that seeks to try them.
Our present extradition procedures have three important built-in safeguards. One is the so-called double criminality rule. We do not extradite people to face trial on charges that we do not recognise as offences. We would not extradite someone to face charges of homosexuality that would not be criminal in this country or to face blasphemy charges. Many examples can be found.
Secondly, there is a requirement that before a person is to be extradited, it must be shown that there is a proper case for him to answer. That is colloquially called the sufficiency test—there must be a sufficient case. We would not extradite if, by our standards, there was no proper case to be answered.
Thirdly, extradition under current procedures is, in the last resort, subject to a political decision to be taken by the responsible Minister—the Home Secretary—as to whether the individual should be sent to the country that has requested him for trial. That, too, constitutes a safeguard. I do not believe that the Minister would give his consent to the extradition of someone to a country which did not guarantee by our standards that that person would receive a fair trial.
950
The proposed European arrest warrant makes substantial inroads into each of those three safeguards. I invite your Lordships in considering the proposals to take account of the following points. First, although the European arrest warrant is being dealt with as one among several counter-terrorist measures resulting from the awful events of 11th September, it is only marginally concerned with terrorism. The arrest warrant procedure will apply to every crime which commands a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment or more. It will apply to every person who, having been convicted, has absconded but who has been sentenced to four months' imprisonment or more. We are speaking of relatively trivial offences. Of course, a sentence of 12 months indicates a certain seriousness, but we are not speaking of terrorist offences; we are speaking of offences across the whole spectrum of the criminal law that attract these, relatively speaking, not very condign sentences on conviction.
That being so, and given that the concept of a European arrest warrant has been around for some time—I believe a consultation on the subject took place in March this year or at around that time—it is difficult for me to understand why it has been thought necessary to deal with this particular matter with the strict timetable that is being applied to all the genuinely counter-terrorist measures that are emanating from Europe. This is a matter where in my view considered opinion and considered judgment should be brought to bear. It will be highly regrettable if we bring into effect legislation which is insufficiently considered and is subject to all the defects that insufficiently considered legislation brings with it.
It is perfectly true that the framework decision, if it becomes final in this form on 6th or 7th December, will not as such be of direct effect in this country. There will still need to be primary legislation. But the Government will be under an obligation to member state partners to bring into effect legislation which corresponds to the decision which they will, on that hypothesis, have agreed. The scope for manoeuvre will not be broad. I urge the Government to take great care that the final decision is not hastily reached, that proper in-depth consideration to some of the concerns that have been expressed is given and that the bandwagon that is carrying along the bulk of the counter-terrorist measures does not, willy nilly, and to the detriment of the public in all member states, carry with it this measure before it is ready.
So much for the timing of the extradition arrest warrant measure. As to dual criminality, Article 2 of the measure lists a whole raft of offences where the double criminality safeguard will no longer apply. These are broadly—I emphasise the word "broadly"—offences which are common to all member states. However, some of the descriptions of the offences in the list in Article 2 are extremely broad and it is not possible to be sure how the offences in particular member states are framed. For example, one of the listed items comprises "racism and xenophobia". I ask myself what offence is that. One can immediately think of football hooligans waving Union Jacks or chanting slogans at some football match in some foreign capital.

951
But what offence in this country would fall within the category of racism and xenophobia and what kind of offences might foreign countries have which would fall within that kind of description? We simply do not know.
Counterfeiting the euro is also listed. It is notable that the dual criminality safeguard is not removed from the offence of counterfeiting sterling, but it is in the case of counterfeiting the euro. What is "swindling" supposed to cover? A swindler is a term of abuse. What is the offence? What kind of offence may foreign countries have which could fall under the generic description of swindling which we would then have to recognise without applying a dual criminality safeguard? I suggest that a little more precision may be needed in the compilation of the list of measures which will lose the double criminality safeguard.
The European arrest warrant procedure will, of course, start with the arrest of the subject who is named in the arrest warrant. There will then be a hearing before a person described in the measure as the "executing judicial authority". The executing judicial authority will. of course, have to be satisfied that the right person has been arrested. There will be a hearing at which the individual arrested can deny that he is the person named in the warrant. There may be an issue as to his age as no one will be required to extradite someone who by their domestic standards is not of the age of criminal responsibility. The terms of the article in question that is supposed to achieve that—Article 3.3—leave a great deal to be desired. If your Lordships read it you will see that it more naturally includes geriatrics rather than children. It refers to people who are no longer of the age of criminal responsibility, which does not sound to me as if it is apt to cover children, but it is certainly intended to cover them.
As regards the executing judicial authority, in a letter of 6th November to Mr Jimmy Hood MP, the chairman of the scrutiny committee in the other place, the Minister stated that the executing judicial authority for the United Kingdom would be the Bow Street magistrate. I hope that the reference to the United Kingdom was a mistake and that the letter meant to refer to England and Wales. There surely is no reason why someone arrested in Scotland should not be dealt with by an executing judicial authority in Edinburgh, or why someone arrested in County Down should not be dealt with by an executing judicial authority in Belfast. At the moment, however, the only statement as to who is to be the executing judicial authority that I have seen is the letter from the Minister that I mentioned which identifies the Bow Street magistrate as the authority for the United Kingdom. I suggest that that matter requires some attention.
The information that must accompany the arrest warrant includes a description of the circumstances of the offence. That, of course, is only fair to the person arrested. However, there will no longer be any sufficiency test. It will be no function of the magistrate of the judicial authority before whom the arrested person will appear to consider whether those circumstances by our standards warrant a trial.
952
That brings me to another point of concern. It was made clear by the Minister when he appeared before us to give evidence that it was not proposed that the arrest warrant should be available to carry someone off to the member state in question for the purposes of interrogation. It is intended to produce someone for trial. However, the investigative process in a number of European countries is carried out under the aegis of a judicial officer, the investigating magistrate, the juge d'instruction. That is not a procedure we have in this country. It is not at all clear at what stage in his investigation the investigating magistrate will he able to issue an arrest warrant to bring before him from this country or any other member state an individual where he is not yet satisfied there should be a trial but requires more information from the individual in question.
I refer to Article 1 of the proposed measure. The extradition will have to be confined to the suspect. It will not apply to someone who is simply a material witness. However, it is difficult to see how it will not allow a warrant to be issued to require production in the foreign country of the suspect for the purposes of getting further information for the trial rather than for the trial itself. That is a consequence of the removal of the sufficiency test. Perhaps that is intended. But if it is, that must be faced up to. There will be an element of interrogative purpose behind the new proposal.
The timetable that must be followed where the arrest warrant has been issued is very tight. After the arrest in this country of the individual concerned, there is a period of only 30 days before a final decision must be taken. The measure provides for there to be simply one single appeal. Therefore, the arrest takes place, and the individual, if he is in England or Wales, is brought before the Bow Street magistrate. There is then an opportunity for one appeal. Whether it is to the Divisional or the High Court does not matter; there is one appeal only.
Therefore, what of the emerging issues of law that may arise or that may need to go to a higher court—that is, to the Appeal Court or even to this House? There is no provision for that. The individual must be extradited. If the final decision is that he should not have been extradited then I suppose that we must rely on the country concerned to send him back. Where there is a serious issue of law as to the scope or the applicability of the arrest warrant procedure that has arisen, there is no flexibility to allow postponement of the removal of the individual.
I believe that the bail provision also requires attention. When individuals in this country are arrested, there is a presumption in favour of bail. I respectfully suggest that a similar presumption should be made where individuals are arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant. Of course, if there is a proper case for keeping the individual in custody, he will be kept in custody. But, in my view, the language of Article 12, which deals with this matter, is not apt to make it clear that the same presumptions will apply in relation to arrests under the European arrest warrant as apply in relation to ordinary domestic arrests.

953
The expression "specialty" has a particular meaning in extradition law. It means that once a person who is being extradited for one offence has been detained by the foreign country, he cannot then be tried on a whole raft of different offences for which he would not have been extradited. That is dealt with in the proposed measure simply by saying that, where a person has been removed to the requested country under the European arrest warrant, he cannot be tried for an offence that is not one of the listed offences without the agreement of the competent authority. I take it, although it is not clear, that the competent authority in this country will be the Home Office.
A political decision will then be made as to whether it is right to allow the individual to be tried on another offence. There will not be an opportunity for the matter to be tested judicially; it will simply be an executive, political decision. I suggest that that is also a matter of concern. I do not know whether that is the intended result but it certainly appears to me to be the result of the measure as drafted at present.
Overriding all those points are the European Convention on Human Rights concerns. I should like it to be the case that if an individual could bring before the magistrate firm evidence justifying the belief that he would not receive a fair trial in the extraditing, or requesting, country, that would be a reason not to allow the warrant to be executed by his removal.
Of course, every country that is a member of the European Union is a signatory to the ECHR. But the fact that a country is a signatory to the ECHR is a guarantee only that later a complaint may be made about treatment to the court at Strasbourg. It may be some years after the event before that is dealt with. In my respectful opinion, it is a necessary safeguard for individuals who are the object of European arrest warrants to be able—by all means let the onus be on them—to satisfy the magistrate that, for whatever reason, if they are taken abroad they will not have a fair trial. If they can satisfy the magistrate of that, I do not believe that they should be extradited and I do not believe that it would be consistent with our standards of jurisprudence that they should be.
Those are my concerns in relation to the measure. In my view, the two greatest are that which relates to extradition for the purpose of interrogation and that which relates to the ECHR. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee, Counter-Terrorism: The European Arrest Warrant (6th Report, HL Paper 34).—(Lord Scott of Foscote.)
8.14 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, having already backed the Government tonight in their application for an immediate derogation from Article 5 of the ECHR, I do not find myself as yet in the grip of a new habit. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has just said.
954
I believe that, as a new member of Sub-Committee E of the European Union Committee, I should be appropriately brief.
Perhaps I may take up and endorse, in particular, two points made by the noble and learned Lord. They relate, first, to dual criminality and, secondly, to the ECHR point—that is, the need for confidence that a warrant that is sought to be backed in this country will not, if executed, lead to treatment in the requesting country that would be in breach of that convention.
With regard to the question of dual criminality, perhaps I may refer to what the noble and learned Lord said about juge d'instruction in certain continental jurisdictions. He rightly said that juge d'instruction is connected with the prosecution and may very well either demand extradition or continue detention under extradition for the purpose of interrogation. I have had some experience of how that can protract matters before a suspect is brought to trial, if, indeed, he ever is.
Noble Lords will remember the case of the "Eksund" ship that was arrested by the French off the coast of western France and found to have on board arms intended for the IRA. I believe that I am right in saying that, following the detention of the suspects on that ship, four years passed without a trial occurring. That was perfectly all right by the ECHR. For was it not a judicial authority that was in charge and supervising the arrangements? Therefore, for reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, I believe that we are entitled to seek to look behind the form and examine the likely substance.
I also have some experience of an agreement between two countries. Our own country and the Republic of Ireland agreed to back each other's warrants. It worked very well while it lasted, and it lasted for a long time. The reason that it worked well was because each country had confidence in the judicial and justice arrangements of the other. Therefore, there were no qualms as to what would happen in that context if a warrant were executed in this country and people were sent to Dublin or vice versa.
It worked very well but, unfortunately, Dublin resiled from it unilaterally after Ireland had ratified the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. At the time, I believed that that decision derived from political considerations rather than from any objective lack of confidence in our arrangements here. However, whatever the reason, it meant that a great deal of trouble was involved in trying to make the new system work, and some pretty ghastly results were experienced to start with.
Under the proposed framework decision, which we are discussing, we are offered another backing of warrants agreement. The difference is that our confidence in the arrangements of each and every foreseeable requesting country is a good deal less than fervent. In the course of our hearing, which the Minister was good enough to attend, on the occasion referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, the Minister gave at least me—and, I suspect, most, if

955
not all, of us—the impression that he believed that ratification of the ECHR, which membership entailed and which would have to occur if membership was to be granted, would by itself ensure that all justice arrangements in the requesting country would be reassuringly compatible with the convention. I think that that is essentially the Government's position, having read the Minister's response to the letter from my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who was chairman of the committee. If so, surely no member state could take offence if it were proposed that there should be written expressly into the decision a provision that made it perfectly clear that a requested state would be able to withhold execution if there were sensible grounds for doubt about whether there would be a proper delivery of ECHR standards in the requesting country if the warrant were executed. I cannot see that there would be grounds there for taking offence.
However, the Minister said, "You do not really need to worry about the matter"—I paraphrase in the interests of time but I hope that I do so fairly—"because written into the preamble are relevant provisions". However, a paragraph in a preamble to a decision of this character is generally less certain in its effect than is an express provision clearly written into the main body of the instrument. I do not find paragraph 11 of the preamble to the draft decision, which is set out in the Minister's letter of reply, to be an exception to that rule. It is designed on the face of it to restrict the possibility to refuse the execution of the European arrest warrant. It says that that is to ensure the effectiveness of the procedure. That is made subject only to the condition that the execution of the warrant does not lead to a violation of fundamental rights. That leaves the matter entirely in the air when it could perfectly easily and without the prospect of causing offence have been made absolutely clear if a provision had been written clearly into the instrument.
However, the Government rely on the preamble to sustain their comfortable response to the criticisms that we thought it right to put at the hearing. They have been put more forcibly and eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, than I could do. I am afraid that the response, intended to comfort as it was, fails sufficiently to comfort me.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I, too, had the privilege of serving on the committee, which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. I believe that this is his first report as the new chairman. It was a pleasure to serve under him, as it was to serve under his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, summarised the committee's central concerns, and I shall not repeat them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, made a speech with which I entirely agree. Again, I shall not repeat anything that he said. I want to say a few words about the objectives of the Euro-warrant draft directive, the counter-terrorism proposal and human rights.
956
I make it clear that I strongly support the objectives of both of the measures. That is implicit, if not explicit, in what was said by our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in his introduction. It is very good news that there will be Europe-wide moves within the EU to counter terrorism effectively and to make it much easier for fugitives to be extradited from one member state to another to face a fair trial. It is also clear, as has already been said, that existing extradition procedures are antiquated and need to be streamlined.
I do not regard the three traditional safeguards, which were referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott—the double criminality safeguard, the sufficiency test and the political decisions of the Home Secretary—as being necessary safeguards within the context of the EU. However, it is essential that there should be safeguards for the effective protection of the fundamental rights of everyone within what is called in the jargon "the European judicial space" so that they have equal protection throughout every member state of the EU. That is particularly important in the context of the enlargement of the EU because new states with totalitarian political backgrounds and traditions that did not involve an independent judiciary or legal profession are likely to be admitted to the EU sooner rather than later—and there will be more or less effective monitoring of standards before they are admitted. If such measures are introduced, we have to bear in mind that they will apply not only to the existing member states of the EU but, as membership increases, to candidate states.
What protections are given within the Euro-warrant draft framework directive for basic human rights and freedoms? There is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, paragraph 11 of the preamble. However, that is a very soft and unsatisfactory safeguard. There is also Article 24, but that contains, as it were, a nuclear deterrent—it is so radical that it is most unlikely ever to be exercised in practice. It allows a member state to decide to suspend the application of the framework decision with regard to another member state in the event of a serious and persistent breach or violation of fundamental human rights, as is provided for in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. It is hard to imagine circumstances in which one state will ever exercise that option unless something very extreme indeed has happened. Noble Lords may note that the provisions apply only in respect of a serious and persistent breach. In other words, one unfair trial does not matter and several unfair trials do not matter; there has to be a serious and persistent breach of such gravity that the state exercises the option under Article 24.
Otherwise, the only safeguards lie in the specificity with which particular articles of the framework decision have been drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, expressed our concerns about that in detail to the Home Office. A reply was given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Bob Ainsworth, in a letter dated 16th November 2001 To be more precise, his reply is contained in two letters—one undated and the other dated, and they differ The

957
dated letter was signed on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State, and we are meant to treat it as the final letter; the undated letter is an earlier version. I mention that because in the earlier version we were promised "primary legislation" to implement the directive. I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear that we will get primary legislation, not subordinate legislation, in relation to the implementation of the directives.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, yes, there will be primary legislation—an extradition Bill will be brought before Parliament early next year. It will contain this measure once it is finally agreed. It will be done in no other way than through primary legislation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. The counter terrorism Bill gives power to do that by subordinate legislation which is why I mentioned it. If that power is not to be exercised, that is reassuring.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In the light of the narrow scope that national parliaments will have to alter the decision, does the noble Lord consider that, in the circumstances, primary legislation is a great advantage? I fully support primary legislation, but given the extremely constrained circumstances in which our Parliament will operate following the decision, does he agree that the protection of primary legislation is more of a chimera than a reality?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that in so far as influence on the framework decision is concerned, primary legislation is irrelevant. On the other hand, it is always reassuring that we have full scrutiny in this House and in the other place of legislation that deals with fundamental rights, freedoms and duties.
The more I read Mr Ainsworth's reply, the more puzzled I am about what all this means. As it has not been analysed in previous speeches, perhaps I can make clear some of my concerns. The issues were clearly formulated by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and in the letter of reply the Minister correctly says:
"The Committee was of the view that the Framework Decision needed strengthening to make explicit reference to a right for the executing judicial authority to refuse extradition on ECHR grounds".
Pausing there, I am satisfied, although I would like the Minister to agree or to disagree with what I am about to say. In regard to this country, the Human Rights Act will apply to this area, as to any other, and therefore domestic UK courts will have the duty to secure compliance with the ECHR in the way that they exercise their powers. I am not concerned with the position of UK courts; I am very concerned with
958
the position of the courts of the other member states of the European Union. Not to put too fine a point on the matter, and being as tactful and as diplomatic as I can, the independence of the court systems from the executives in some existing member states and some future member states of the European Union is not wholly free from doubt.
In reply to that concern we are told, first, that there is paragraph 11 of the preamble and, secondly, that the Government are satisfied that decisions made under the framework decision will be ECHR compliant. That may be true of compliance in this country, but I do not understand how they can be satisfied that they will be ECHR compliant in other member states. Within the framework decision we legislate for all member states.
A little later the letter says:
"Protection for the individual is contained in the domestic incorporation of the ECHR into the requesting state's criminal justice system".
That is true, but what happens if domestic incorporation into other member states' systems is an illusion because, in reality, the ECHR is not taken sufficiently seriously by their courts? There is then a curious passage, which I do not understand at all, dealing with speciality, the rule that one cannot extradite for crime A and prosecute and try someone for a wholly different crime. I simply do not understand these two sentences, and I would be grateful for clarification. The Minister says in the letter:
"The UK has … indicated that, within the structures of this agreement, we would not intend, generally, to apply the dual criminality test to requests made to us, even where it is required of us".
I do not know whether that is an oxymoron or tortology or both, but it is certainly an odd, contradictory statement. If it is required of us, surely we have to apply the double criminality test. The letter continues:
"We therefore"—
the word "therefore" makes no sense—
"do not expect speciality to be applied for the prosecution of fugitives within the EU".
It must be my own stupidity, but I find those two sentences completely opaque.
As regards bail, which has already been dealt with in previous speeches, we are given no satisfaction as to whether Article 5 of the ECHR, presumption in favour of bail, is or is not to apply to the framework decision. In so far as reliance is placed upon the European Court of Human Rights as the ultimate guardian of human rights, and for that matter the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, I simply draw to the attention of the House the important report by the evaluation group to the Committee of Ministers of the European Court of Human Rights of 27th September of this year, where

959
the President of the court, Judge Luzius Wildhaber, and others made it quite clear that the system in Strasbourg is "seriously overloaded", that,
"the Court's ability to respond is in danger"—
I am using their words—and that,
"Urgent action is now required",
if the whole system is to be preserved from decay. They make a number of recommendations which I hope the Government of the United Kingdom will be prominent in supporting.
It is clear from the evaluation group's report that we cannot rely upon the Strasbourg court, with the long delays in its procedures, with its huge over-burden of caseload, with the lack of resources and so on. We cannot rely upon that court to come to the rescue of the framework decision. We have to rely upon national courts and upon the safeguards that are written in. The one safeguard, above all, that needs to be written in is a safeguard that every decision taken by prosecutors or judges in the requesting state or the sending state, must be compliant with the ECHR. Without that kind of safeguard I fear that this will, understandably, remove existing safeguards, but not put anything in their place that will give the necessary assurance and protection to the citizens of Europe.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a question to him as I believe him to be an expert in such matters. Suppose an individual in Pennsylvania commits a minor crime with a maximum sentence of 12 months imprisonment—not a federal crime but a crime according to the laws of the state of Pennsylvania—but before he is brought to trial he absconds to, say, Wyoming. Is it not the case that he can be extradited from Wyoming to Pennsylvania only with the greatest difficult, if at all?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I believe the answer is that it depends upon whether it is a state offence or a federal offence. I do not want to cause shortening of life to eurosceptic noble Lords with what I am about to say, but effectively the framework decision recognises that there are some kinds of offence that are federal so it is easy to transfer someone across member states, and there are other offences that are not federal, but state offences, for which it would be much more difficult to do so if the states of the European Union so consider.
8.38 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am sure that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will have raised the blood pressure of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I start by expressing my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, for bringing this matter before the House and for explaining it with his customary clarity.
Primarily, I want to concentrate on the way in which these measures, in particular the measure on the arrest warrant, are being pushed through with a haste which, in my view, is wholly unnecessary and seriously
960
dangerous. I start from a premise—I anticipate that it will be agreed by every Member of this House—that legislation that is rushed through in haste, upon a knee-jerk reaction to a particular event, is likely to be unsatisfactory and to produce unforeseen and unwanted consequences. The recent classic example of that is perhaps the Dangerous Dogs Act. But there are many more. Occasionally, of course, there can be genuinely inevitable circumstances which necessitate rapid legislation. But one needs to look very closely to see whether in each case there is a real need for such haste.
Secondly, if one has to legislate in haste it is normally desirable that such legislation should be temporary, allowing for calmer and more thoughtful consideration before it becomes embedded in the statute book. The arrest warrant measure dismally fails to pass either of those tests.
In the wake of the events of 11th September, the Council has proposed a raft of measures which it asserts are necessary or desirable to deal with terrorism and which it insists should be decided in early December of this year. Some of those—the terrorism measure is one—truly relate to terrorism. But others, and particularly the proposal on the arrest warrant and on surrender procedures, do not in any way relate to the events of that date. Indeed, the Minister candidly admitted to the committee that he could not give a single example of how this measure would have been of any particular use between 11th September and today.
Further, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, has said, this arrest measure is not one to deal with terrorism. It applies to all criminal offences for which a sentence of one year's imprisonment can be imposed. It is not for an offence which will in fact get a sentence of one year, but for which the maximum penalty is one year. That includes driving offences, shoplifting and all kinds of matters that are a long way from being terrorism or anything like it.
These proposals on what really one might call "automatic extradition without safeguards" have been around for a considerable period. The Minister, in his letter and in his evidence, suggested that the fact that they have been around for some time is a point in favour of now dealing with them rapidly. The reason why they have been around for a long time and have not been enacted is because there are very valid objections to them which have not yet been satisfied, and not just because they have been sitting indefinitely in someone's in-tray.
Therefore, I, and I suspect others, inevitably feel that this arrest measure has been hitched to the bandwagon of 11th September in order to smuggle it through in the wrappings of anti-terrorism when normal and more deliberate consideration would have allowed time and scope for proper consideration of the major alterations that it will make to our entire system of extradition. Like others, I accept that there is a good case for some alteration to and simplification of the extradition system. It is a slow, cumbersome and over-elaborate system. But the fact that it need,, some

961
overhaul and some change does not justify the rapid passage of this completely new regime which requires proper thought and amendment.
It is not an exaggeration, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, to say that the measure provides a completely new regime under which warrants from any country in the enlarged Community are executed almost automatically and where the role of a British court and a British Minister is almost entirely removed. It will apply to any country which has signed up to the Community unless it has behaved so badly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, that it has virtually been expelled from the system. It will not enable someone to say, "Well, granted the system in that country is very good for most things, but it is totally unfair to me as a gypsy or a homosexual and I won't get a fair trial". There are a number of other serious defects to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
The Minister expressed hope that some of these concerns may be allayed by further changes. But those hopes are not achievements. The unnecessary haste involved here is not just a question of inconvenience or a requirement on the scrutiny committee and so on to work harder and more quickly; it genuinely virtually nullifies the whole process of scrutiny and the opportunity of the relevant organisations to make useful representations and to warn of the dangers.
Perhaps I can illustrate the point. The subcommittee questioning the Minister had been given an English text of the proposal upon which it had framed its thoughts. Shortly before it met it received an untranslated French text which made major changes. The noble and learned Lord was either modest or honest enough—I know not which—to say that he was not able to make much use of that. Certainly, I was able to make none. But that was not the end of the matter because in the course of our questioning it turned out that that the French text with which we had been supplied was even, by then, out-of-date. The Home Office had yet a further French text which had been deposited that very day and which none of the committee had seen.
It was hardly surprising that in those circumstances the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, commented:
"We are at a slight disadvantage".
That must come near to being one of the understatements of the year.
This travesty of the legislative process does not originate from Her Majesty's Government. The timetable is the work of the Commission or of the presidency or suchlike. I feel strongly that the Government have gone along with the timetable far too readily. I urge the House to express the same sentiment. I hope that even now the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government will insist on having enough time for proper deliberation of this important and controversial matter.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I, too, am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and the Select Committee for enabling this debate to take place. I feel considerable diffidence as a non-lawyer entering into an argument with so many distinguished lawyers who are much more experienced in these matters than I, but I feel that the issues raised in the proposed European arrest warrant are extremely important. They affect the rights of individuals. At the very least, they are a significant change in the legal procedures that would apply before extradition. That is why I speak, and for no other reason.
The seriousness of the situation potentially was illustrated in a remark in a recent newspaper article written by the director of Liberty. He said:
"What … [this warrant] could mean in practice is that a British Police Officer will arrive at your door with, for instance, an Italian Police Officer in tow to arrest you. They will take you via an impotent British Court to Italy where you will be dumped in a prison to await trial, perhaps for something somebody thinks you did when on holiday".
That is possibly a slight exaggeration, although I have a close friend who, on an Italian beach, spotted a young boy trying to pinch his wallet. He gave hot pursuit to the child and found himself arrested by an Italian policeman for threatening a child. It took several years and a lot of money before he managed to get himself out of that situation. Of course, it will be pointed out that such situations may arise under any legal system, and I accept that. However, that makes one pause before removing the requirement of prima facie evidence or consideration of the likelihood of a fair trial before extradition.
Because the issue is so serious, I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said about its timing and handling. The impression has been given, although the Government may not have intended it, that the provision is linked to 11th September. I accept that the issue of the European arrest warrant has been under consideration for a long time. But it seems that what is proposed goes beyond the conclusions of the 1999 Tampere European Council. It was there specified that the European arrest warrant would apply only to the most serious offences.
What is proposed in the framework document does not apply only to the most serious offences. If it was about only the most serious offences, would it apply to illicit trafficking in plants? If it was about only the most serious offences, would it apply to notions of xenophobia, which is not even a crime in British law? If it was about only the most serious offences, why, under Article 1, could someone be extradited who has been sentenced to only four months in prison? Extraditing people sentenced to four months in prison—does that really cover only the most serious offences?
If we are to have no examination of prima facie evidence and no argument about whether a fair trial will occur in another country, the measure implies

963
considerable trust in other countries' legal systems. When he appeared before the Select Committee, Mr Bob Ainsworth said that it is necessary to
"have a very considerable degree of confidence in the judicial structures of countries with whom we arc going to enter into these arrangements."
I must say that I could not feel such confidence about all the applicant countries to the European Union. There are some applicant countries in which a judge can currently be bought—and inexpensively.
The Government's reply is that all that will be covered because the countries will sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. They may do so; I am sure that they will, but that will not guarantee that their legal systems are free of corruption. A country may well appear to have more harmonious relations with its ethnic minorities, freedom of the press and a parliamentary system, but that does not guarantee that its judicial system is one to which we should impart all our trust.
There are also the existing members of the European Union. Mr Ainsworth told the Select Committee that he was
"Not aware of existing members of the EU where there are concerns about the validity of their judicial systems."
I wonder whether he should consult Mr John Mortimer QC—a pillar of the Labour establishment—who, commenting on attempts to harmonise legal provision in Europe, wrote an article in the Daily Mail last year. He said:
"There is a real danger that our precious rights and liberties may be lost in a vague and haphazard attempt to impose a single system of law on Europe … Would you care to be arrested on the say-so of a Greek or Spanish judge and be packed off, with no case having been made against you, to face a trial under a foreign system in another country?"
He continued:
"You can be kept for a long time in a Spanish or Italian prison in the hope that the suspense may force a confession, or that some sort of evidence might turn up."
Perhaps Mr Ainsworth might also like to consult the more than 300,000 people who demonstrated a few years ago in the streets of Brussels against their judicial system, because they strongly suspected that Mr Doutroux, who had escaped from prison after being been sentenced on a paedophile charge, was enjoying protection from among the elite in the judicial and political system. The Belgian Government was forced to try to introduce measures to ensure that, in future, judges would not be political appointees. Of course, it would take years for that situation to be wholly rectified.
Or perhaps Mr Ainsworth might like to read the words of Mr Strauss-Kahn, the former Finance Minister of France, who has recently been found not guilty of forgery. He had this to say about the French legal system:
"In our system, you are presumed innocent until declared guilty. The reality is you are seen as guilty from the moment the judicial system is interested in you."
Many in France are deeply critical of the system of juges d'instruction to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden referred.
964
I make those points not because I seek to argue for one minute that there should not be extradition. I do not seek to argue that there should not be improvement and speeding up of the system. I am saying that it is wrong that one should not be able to examine the prima facie evidence in a case before extradition or to raise the issue of whether a fair trial is likely.
One of the major concerns highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, is the principle of double jeopardy. That is an important principle, because it means that the law of another country cannot be applied extraterritorially in the UK. It cannot be right for someone to face trial for something that our Parliament has not made criminal. The latest draft of the framework decision is an improvement in that Article 2 now includes a positive, rather than a negative list. But that still leaves grave cause for concern.
It is argued that because all the categories of offence are, broadly speaking, offences in all the signatory countries, there need not be verification of double jeopardy. It is therefore claimed that double jeopardy is not really being abolished. Surely, that depends on the detail. Different offences may be defined in different ways in different countries.
For example, in a charge of fraud, which is an offence listed under Article 2, intention to defraud has to be shown in Britain, but not in other countries. The offences of racism and xenophobia have already been referred to. As far as I know, there is no such offence as xenophobia in British law. Of course, there are laws against racial incitement and we know that the Home Secretary has proposed a new law against religious hatred. As I read it, Article 2 permits that a British citizen could be extradited for an alleged offence of xenophobia committed in this country. I may be wrong about that, but that is an extremely important point on which I hope that the Minister will comment.
Could people be extradited for offences listed in Article 2 if they were committed in this country? That appears to be the case—not just for xenophobia but other offences listed in Article 2. I hope that we will not find the editor of the Sun, the admirable Mr Yelland, extradited for xenophobia after a few provocative articles and editorials arguing against European integration. To my mind, xenophobia is a much overused phrase—especially in the European Union.
It is easy to envisage several complicated situations. In some EU countries, it is an offence to sell Nazi insignia. French courts have been trying to extend their jurisdiction even to the United States to cover people trying to sell such insignia there. I wonder whether the director would allow an Internet provider to be extradited if a site were offering details of insignia.
The speciality rule was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and that is extremely important. And it is extremely important if it is true, as the Government have claimed, that one cannot be extradited only for interrogation purposes. They claim that that is the case, although as the noble and learned

965
Lord said, Article 1 suggests otherwise. But if you cannot be extradited for interrogation purposes, it would be even more important that the speciality rule should still apply. Article 22 indicates that a person who has been surrendered may be prosecuted for an offence other than that for which the European arrest warrant was issued.
It is true that the article then goes on to qualify that reference by reference to Articles 2.3 and 2.4 and the question of whether the offence was committed in this country. If that were so, it would be necessary to have the consent of this Government for a prosecution. However, it appears from Article 22 that a person might be extradited for one offence and then charged with another.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment on one important point which I shall attempt not to labour. It is the question of sovereign immunity, state immunity and international crimes against humanity. Broadly, they are the kind of crimes raised in the case of General Pinochet. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I have no intention of going into that case, but it is directly relevant to the issue of the European arrest warrant. We must know whether such cases involving former heads of state arriving in this country will be subject to a streamlined procedure, which would not have been the case prior to the creation of the European arrest warrant.
I know that some members of the Government thought that the case of General Pinochet illustrated a need to accelerate extradition procedures. I drew the opposite conclusion but we need to know the direction in which the Government are going. I could find no reference in the documents to crimes against humanity, torture, genocide and so forth. They are possibly covered by the references in Article 2.2 to murder and grievous bodily harm, but it is important to know. If the answer is that the Government have moved in the direction of speeding up extradition for such cases, I am bound to say that I believe they are making a profound mistake.
I do not believe that the world can live with a system in which any middle-ranking judge in any country can decide to prosecute a former head of state for an offence wherever it was committed. Judge Garzon has tried his hand at Mr Berlusconi, the Argentinians and the Peruvians. He tries to extend his reach all over the world. There is an argument for an international criminal court—it is not one I share—but there is no doubt that it is a recipe for chaos to give junior judges such powers. I believe that one day former Presidents Bush, Carter and Clinton and possibly even our present Prime Minister will come to rue it if that is the direction in which we are moving.
I have the greatest reservation not just because of the last point—and I should be grateful if the Minister would address it—but because the measure removes important safeguards for the individual.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I shall concentrate on the European arrest warrant rather than on the definition of "terrorism". However, I share the fears expressed about the suppression of legitimate protest. The European Parliament is doing its bit to try to improve the definition.
When the first European Union summit on justice and home affairs took place in Tampere two years ago, the heads of government expounded on what an area of freedom, security and justice, as proclaimed in the Amsterdam Treaty, would consist of. Many of us in the European Parliament then expressed concern that the member states would cherry-pick the security agenda and not equally emphasise the freedom and justice aspects. I believe that our citizens could appreciate the need to cut the bureaucracy and delays in classical extradition procedures. I recall a case a year or so ago of a British student murdered by being thrown off a train in France. The way in which the problems of extradition were batted between France and Portugal illustrated some of the problems.
Our citizens could appreciate that need to speed up the process but would not appreciate cutting corners as regards the protection of fundamental citizens rights. There is in principle a strong justification for a European arrest warrant to stop the delays—what the EU Justice and Home Affairs Minister, Antonio Vitorino, has called "the tyranny of technocracy"—but we need to have parallel measures to protect legal rights.
The elimination of the role of executive authorities for most aspects of the surrender procedure and the streamlining of those procedures would be a step forward in stopping criminals being able to play off one jurisdiction against another and escape scott-free. If governments and parliaments do not pool sovereignty in this area, I fear that the terrorists and criminals will be sovereign.
The problem with the proposal of a European arrest warrant is that the ministries of the interior are running the show, not ministries of justice. The development of such an internal market for policing and prosecution must respect two fundamental parameters if it is to be acceptable. It must ensure basic civil rights and it must be agreed democratically. I would feel more reassured if there were recognition by our own Government of a twin-track approach that mutual recognition must be accompanied by a programme of ensuring common minimum judicial standards and safeguards. But the answer of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Mr Ainsworth, to a suggestion by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in the course of his inquiry was less than encouraging.
My noble friend Lord Lester suggested that proper standards of protection for basic rights and freedoms should be written into the decision itself so that they could be monitored by the European Court of Justice and national courts. In response, the Minister made it clear that he saw the mutual recognition of prosecution efforts and efforts to have similar judicial

967
and defence standards throughout the EU as alternative proposals rather than as complementary and parallel moves. He completely misunderstood the point that my noble friend was making. Indeed, he reproached my noble friend for wanting to maintain the status quo of lengthy bureaucratic delays in extradition. I venture to guess that that was not my noble friend's purpose.
There needs to be a simultaneous programme of legal rights simultaneously with European warrants and other cross-border criminal co-operation measures to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights are respected in practice. I am very much indebted to the organisation, Fair Trials Abroad, which is an admirable organisation run on modest resources, I regret to say, but which does excellent work. It highlighted some of the issues in evidence to the committee. The organisation carried out some research into legal aid and the availability of competent legal advice and the representation on criminal matters for non-Greek citizens arrested in Greece. It shows that such availability for people with little or no financial means was uncertain. The main cause was that public funds for payment for lawyers were non-existent or derisory. There is evidence that the same is true in Italy, Portugal and Spain. Fair Trials Abroad said that competent lawyers would expect reasonable payments by the states involved. On the question of real access to justice through translation and interpretation facilities, a survey on provision was carried out on the criminal justice system of five EU member states. The findings show an unacceptable gap between existing legislation and practice. There was a lack of recognition by justice systems of the fundamental right to understand and to be understood and an absence of recognised training programmes or clear professional standards of competence. Above all, there was a lack of adequate remuneration. Those are practical problems and although the proposal mentions access to legal aid and interpretation, if there is no substance given to it by real effort and common agreement among member states, those rights will be regarded only in their breach.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned, there needs to be a presumption of bail, which is absent in the proposal. Fair Trials Abroad makes an interesting suggestion for a body that is similar to Eurojust, which facilitates interstate prosecution. One could have a body called Eurorights to facilitate interstate protection of citizens and monitor the workings of criminal jurisdictions in the European legal area. That is an interesting suggestion.
Reference was made to a monitoring system set up by the Council of Europe in 1998 to examine the national justice systems of all EU member states. A shortlist of problems included political interference in the administration of justice, corruption, shortage of resources, delays and a prosecution that was too close to the judiciary. One is in a slightly difficult position in mentioning all those problems. It is not to sound superior or to think that everything is wonderful at
968
home and it is not to sound chauvinistic. But there is variation in legal and judicial standards throughout the EU.
The situation when enlargement takes place to include eastern and central Europe will be even more worrying. One need look only at the report produced last week by the European Commission on progress on enlargement. Some of the problems reported include low prison standards and corruption in the justice system. There is much support throughout the EU for harmonisation in external border controls, so I fail to see why we cannot aim for an approximation of defence rights on a similar principle.
Another step that could be taken to entrench fundamental rights in this context would be to incorporate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law, which would mean European Court of Justice competence.
I referred earlier to the problem of the rights of people who are arrested abroad and I mentioned Greece. I wish to raise the case of a dozen British and a couple of Dutch plane-spotters who have been arrested and imprisoned in Greece on charges of espionage. Some of these people are my constituents as I am a Member of the European Parliament. I understand that there is to be a magistrates' hearing tomorrow. I appeal to the Greek authorities to grant bail to those defendants. It appears that, although they have been naïve, they have not been spying; they just have a passion for their hobby of plane-spotting. There are disturbing reports of very poor prison conditions. I have heard their Greek lawyer on the radio and have no reason to doubt his competence or that of the magistrate, but it makes the concept of a European arrest warrant more difficult to sell if EU citizens in another member state appear to be treated unfairly.
EU justice and home affairs measures are agreed under the Third Pillar according to the EU treaty, which essentially means intergovernmental cooperation. The European Parliament is merely consulted. We have the impression that usually we are ignored, but we work assiduously to deliver our opinions in order to substantiate our claim to joint legislative authority—co-decision with the council—as soon as possible, but that is not yet the case. Therefore, there is a democratic deficit in Brussels. But why do the Government propose to make it worse with the democratic deficit in Westminster? The proposed enabling power to implement by statutory instrument EU agreements in the field of justice and home affairs means that these measures would escape democratic accountability anywhere.
The example of other precedents is misleading. Areas such as the environment or the internal market are examined and scrutinised properly in the European Parliament in Brussels because there is co-decision. The justification put forward for secondary legislation to implement Third Pillar measures in a timescale which meets the current requirements will not wash. Once in force this emergency provision may well become permanent and be used to enact other measures agreed under the Third Pillar. Even for anti-terrorist measures it is inappropriate.

969
I conclude that if we are to have a system of European arrest warrants there must be a system of guarantees of due process to parallel the Euro-warrant scheme so that individual rights are protected. I concur with many of the observations raised earlier in this debate.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Select Committee who had the privilege to attend Sub-Committee E when the Minister gave evidence on these issues. I have two causes for concern. One is the general concern, which I believe is shared by most if not all members of the committee, that the events of 11th September are being used by the European Union to push through further powers in haste and without due scrutiny. The doubts expressed by those who understand the legal issues much better than I do suggest that the urgent wish of Ministers to show solidarity could end in bad decisions.
For example, we are asked to accept extradition to another country whose criteria for terrorism might include such things as putting up a poster saying "Free the Kurds" and whose normal procedures for interrogation before trial could include torture, or at the least undue pressure, and the removal of a statutory right to habeas corpus. A number of countries whose standards of legal procedure are very different from own await entry to the EU as part of enlargement.
The Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, discussing the Commission's own report of November 2000 under the Copenhagen criteria, said that this acknowledged progress in the candidate countries in adopting the acquis but questioned their capacity to implement and enforce it. I do not believe that when it comes to it the EU will refuse entry on those grounds, so we may in future have some very difficult decisions and situations to face.
The European arrest warrant covers not only terrorism. It does not seem right that there should be hasty and in effect irrevocable decision-making on such a vital and broad issue just because we are apparently driven by the single issue of terrorism. Moreover, I have a strong suspicion that another and wholly indefensible reason for the tight timetable, with its virtual failure to allow scrutiny, is the determination of the Belgian presidency to be seen to have done something significant. Incidentally, with its reported refusal to allow the FBI access to suspected terrorists held in Brussels it cannot be said that the Belgian Government have demonstrated commitment to the spirit of the projected legislation to combat terror. We appear to be in a situation in which it is too late to argue and we shall have no choice but to implement the framework decision by primary legislation, despite the fact that it will have the effect of abolishing many traditional grounds for refusing extradition.
970
My chief concern, however, is the council framework decision for combating terrorism which is associated with the decision on the European arrest warrant and is subject to the same urgent timetable. The small print contains some vital and disturbing measures and initiatives to be followed as part of the action plan decided on 21st September by the Council of Ministers. These are listed in a so-called "Road Map". They include decisions that every EU intelligence and security agency shall be required to pass on to Europol all relevant information they hold on terrorists. The council also approved the creation of a Europol intelligence unit to be staffed forthwith by intelligence officers. It is that very intelligence which is one of our most valuable contributions as a country both to military operations and the fight against terrorism.
What are we to make of such entries in the Road Map, under "progress already made", as a first meeting chaired by the head of national security held on 11th and 12th October when instructions were given by the president of the Council by a letter dated 10th October to the heads of all intelligence services to provide him with concrete proposals in the very near future for co-operation and exchanges of information between all intelligence services, regular meetings of heads of intelligence services, strengthening cooperation between police services including Europol and intelligence services and the setting up of a team of anti-terrorist specialists within Europol? The body responsible is to be the member states and the Europol management board. Who are they?
The president has, according to the Road Map, sent a letter to his colleagues "insisting" on the presence of liaison officers from the intelligence services. By 15th October most of the member states, according to the Road Map, would have sent specialists to Europol. The team was to be operational by November of this year and it must report to the Council in March 2002 on progress made and problems encountered. There is to be peer assessment of national arrangements for combating terrorism and an unspecified number of working parties.
Finally, a delegation made up of representatives of the Ministry of the Interior—I take that to be the Belgian Ministry of the Interior at the moment—including the Department for State Security and the Ministry of Justice, and the police services of the present and incoming presidencies, the Commission, the Council secretariat, and Eurojust, all to travel to Washington on 18th October to discuss arrangements for working parties in terrorism troikas every six months and for the Europol team of counter-terrorism specialists (sic) to work with American counterparts and so on and so on.
Have we gone mad? Who is going to do all this and to what good end? Has the Intelligence Committee been consulted both on the issue of the effective protection of any intelligence that we might be mad enough to hand over and the effect all this feverish activity will have on our very effective intelligence

971
relationship with the United States and indeed on many other useful and effective bi-lateral relations we have with other intelligence services?
These decisions will have the most serious consequences. We already have carefully monitored arrangements with NATO to protect intelligence fed in there. Europol, on the other hand, is known to be a very leaky sieve, even in dealing with its present work on organised crime. There has been at least one case of a Europol official selling information culled from its computer. I shall not mention the nationality of the person concerned, but it is quite well known.
As long ago as 1994, when a Select Committee of this House reported on Europol, it said how vital accountability would be for a body about to be given,
"formidable powers to acquire and manipulate secret and highly sensitive information".
It was talking then about information on organised crime and was concerned about the protection of sources. It was assured by the then Home Secretary that any future agreement would require ratification by Parliament. At that time terrorism was expressly excluded from Europol's mandate, but it now appears in the Nice Treaty in the new Article 31. Europol has thus extended its reach from organised crime to terrorism. As there is no effective oversight, control over, or scrutiny of Europol—its members are appointed by an EU committee and not by the nation states and report only to that committee—I ask what power of scrutiny or control we shall have? Will decisions be taken by QMV?
Intelligence is not just information, it is an aspect of defence and as such should have the protection of the veto. Will it do so? Above all, there is no threat to the security of delicate information so serious as a proliferation of amateur, uncontrolled and unprofessional bodies with access to intelligence. There is little point in trying to safeguard intelligence passed to NATO and the ESDP if it is to flow out of the back door.
The Minister who was before the committee, Mr. Ainsworth, was kind enough to say, when I asked him about the Road Map for intelligence, that although it lay outside the remit of our discussions on the arrest warrant on that day, he would write to me. However, I felt obliged to raise the matter on the Floor of the House tonight because of the urgency of the timetable of events. Therefore, I hope that he will not think me discourteous to do so. The issue will come up again when we deal with Part 8 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. It would be helpful to know what the position is by then. I shall add only that the intelligence services may have better things to do than to send people with real work to do to attend the European equivalent of a tupperware party and not just one but dozens of working parties, troikas and, no doubt, focus groups. I recognise that I have a certain déformation professionelle in approaching these matters. Perhaps a more apt metaphor might be that we are likely to see a great many busy chickens sitting on a great many addled eggs.
972
It is right that the EU should take terrorism seriously; I welcome that. However, I do not think that this is either an effective or useful way of doing it.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I, too, speak as a member of the European Union Committee who was privileged to attend the meeting of Sub-committee E where the Minister gave evidence. I wish to highlight a number of matters of concern, in particular as regards the framework decision on combating terrorism. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for reminding the House that the European Parliament is also working on the decision.
Many noble Lords have raised anxieties about the speed with which such major changes are being introduced. I echo those concerns, as do a number of international human rights organisations. The head office of Human Rights Watch is on the 34th floor of the Empire State Building in New York and therefore could not be accused of being out of touch with the need to combat terrorist attacks. It has stated that,
"in the rush to agree these proposals, critical public debate and input from civil society are being sacrificed".
As I understand the framework document, it contains proposals for new law with new offences. new maximum penalties and new definitions of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The framework raises a large number of questions, yet it is to be agreed by 6th December.
Much is heard about the "democratic deficit" within the European Union. By "democratic deficit", presumably we mean that many decisions are taken at European level that the people of Europe have not heard about, their representatives have not been consulted on, interested groups have not been able to comment on, and which then affect the lives of all of us. Does the Minister consider that the democratic deficit will be reduced by the process we are going through here?
Certainly, it is reasonable to assume that the citizens of Europe expect to be protected from terrorism. They want their governments to take the right measures to do so. How can they make a judgment on the proposals? How can they evaluate the claims being made for them? In what discussions can they participate as regards the possible courses of action, the alternatives and the evidence that support the course of action we are discussing today rather than other possible paths that might be taken?
I shall move on to make a point about the definition of terrorist offences in the Council framework decision. I refer to the latest text from the Council of the European Union, the 26th October version. It sets out what will be defined as "terrorist offences". The latest version is clearly an attempt to tighten up the definition and to answer criticisms on its catch-all character. I am somewhat reassured by the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. But for further reassurance I should like more clarification.

973
The framework decision still defines as terrorism acts,
"seriously affecting the political, economic or social structures of a country or of an organisation governed by public international law".
It defines as a terrorist anyone threatening to commit any of the acts listed or participating in a terrorist group or supporting it. The proposal also makes promoting, supporting or participating in a terrorist group a criminal offence with a penalty of up to eight years' imprisonment.
On the basis of that. I should like to put the following scenario to the Minister in the hope that he can resolve some of the problems I have had in understanding the document. Imagine a rather lonely 18 year-old in his first year at university who meets up with a group called, purely for the sake of argument, the "Anti-globalisation Coalition for the Destruction of Multinational Exploiters", or some such title. The members of the group persuade him that he should join them and go out to fight multinational companies and the policies of, perhaps, the World Trade Organisation that encourages them because, the group claims, they exploit workers in the third world. So the group decides to organise a sit-in of the local office of such a multinational company, which involves breaking in.
This young man is convinced by their arguments; he is glad to have some friends. So he joins and goes around the town putting up posters about their sit-in. Is it possible that once these proposals are law, anyone in this country or any EU country could define those activities as a terrorist offence? If this young man were charged with such an offence, is he likely to be punished with a prison sentence of eight years? Noble Lords may find this rather far-fetched, but there are states—even EU candidate states, perhaps—where putting up a poster in certain circumstances is a terrorist offence, and the penalty can be a substantial prison sentence.
A look at the Justice and Home Affairs website of the European Union, which is called "Terrorism—the EU on the move", confirms such suspicions. It states that,
"the European Commission has put forward proposals aimed at eliminating legal loopholes in the EU that may help radicals suspected of violence escape justice".
Statewatch is an organisation which watches the European Union. It suggests in its evidence to the committee's inquiry:
"The Commission proposal is either very badly drafted or there is a deliberate attempt to broaden the concept of terrorism to cover protests such as those in Gothenburg and Genoa".
In the other place, Chris Mullin MP, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, asked the Home Secretary whether he would ensure that whatever definition of terrorism was finally agreed, it was,
"robust, watertight and confined to dealing with terrorists and not with the other people who might, from time to time, get up the noses of the established order".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/01; col. 928.]
974
When I arrived at the House today, I received a reply from the Minister, Mr Bob Ainsworth, to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the committee's report. In regard to the definition of terrorism, the Minister states:
"the basic position as far as the UK is concerned is that, as with the definition contained within the Terrorism Act 2000, the definition should sweep up certain types of activity when committed with a particular motivation in mind".
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what that means.
There are wider implications. Up until now the European Union has been a force for great good in the world, working for the abolition of the death penalty, supporting the United Nations human rights machinery and supporting the activities of many organisations working for democracy and human rights throughout the world. By taking such precipitate and questionable action, the European Union puts in question its sincerity and credibility in promoting human rights observance in other parts of the world.
On 13th October, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Lord Russell-Johnston, said:
"If, in facing terror, we give up on freedom and humanity, the terrorists have won".
Can the Minister assure us that this proposal will not diminish the basic and hard-won freedoms of European Union citizens?
9.35 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, undoubtedly, since 11th September there has been a very real mood of revulsion against terrorism across Europe. In so far as the Government seek to seize the moment and secure across Europe a greater determination in the combating of terrorism, no right-thinking person could do anything other than support that most worthy of objectives. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, indicated, although there may be issues around the exact definition of terrorism, the basic intention of the framework document demands the support of a great number of people.
I was grateful to receive a letter signed by the Minister, dated 13th November, relating to the Antiterrorism. Crime and Security Bill. He concludes with the words:
"I hope you find this useful".
I did, until I came into the Chamber for this debate, and in particular until the point when the noble Lord intervened during the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to indicate that a separate extradition Bill would be brought before the House.
Looking at the document that has helpfully been provided, I am puzzled when I relate it to Clause 110 in Part 13 of the Bill dealing with the implementation of the third pillar. The explanation of the clause includes the statement:
"Reinforcing police and criminal and judicial co-operation with our EU partners is a key part of our response to international terrorism".

975
I cannot believe that anyone would have any real objection to that. It goes on:
"EU leaders at their recent summit after the US attacks agreed a number of ambitious measures on police and judicial cooperation to help tight global terrorism".
That is a worthy enough ambition.
"These included urgent progress on plans for joint investigative teams, on measures to simplify the seizing of assets of terrorists across Europe and on measures to speed up extradition arrangements between member states".
The document goes on to indicate, as I understand it, that the speeding up of extradition arrangements is to be brought into being by resorting to secondary legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what was intended by that provision if we are to find in the implementation of the third pillar under Clause 110 that there will be no provisions at all relating to extradition. If there is a distinction to be drawn between extradition matters that relate to crimes of terrorism and those that relate to other crimes, some of us would have considerably fewer anxieties than we presently have. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, correctly pointed out, the proposed draft directive takes us well beyond anything to do with terrorism. It takes us into all manner of crimes.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, indicated that some of those crimes might be pretty minor. Under the law of Scotland, the crime of breach of the peace technically attracts a sentence of life imprisonment. Breach of the peace is the charge that the Procurator-fiscal in Glasgow uses when he has an unpleasant young man urinating up closes and using loud and abusive language to people who are otherwise peaceful.
I am not suggesting that the authorities in Scotland would be so dumb as to utilise extradition back warrants to secure the return of people who have committed offences of that limited character, unpleasant as they may be. But we must not get ourselves into the frame of thinking that when we deal with these proposals we are dealing only with what are necessarily the most serious crimes in the calendar. The crimes are extremely wide-ranging, and that needs to be clearly understood.
I have less difficulty with those provisions relating to extradition which might relate to terrorist offences. But I am strongly opposed to a broadening of the provision, in a way that appears to me to be surreptitious, under the cloak of the present concern and revulsion in relation to terrorism, so as to unpick what has been an extremely complicated system of extradition across Europe. I have considerable sympathy for what I understand to be the Government's description of our existing arrangements as outdated, cumbersome and slow. If my confidence were such as to believe that, by the introduction of these changes, we would sweep away all those difficulties and I felt that there was a real, careful and proper protection of the rights of individuals, again, what right-thinking person would wish to object to these changes?
976
The position is far from that, however. It has been extremely difficult, as a number of those who have sat on the Select Committee have identified, to follow exactly what has been the Government's thinking. The first text we had was in French. I am sure that there are other members of the Select Committee whose French is perfect, but I have to confess that I had some considerable difficulty in understanding fairly significant passages within that directive. It is only today that I have managed to lay my hands on what I understand to be the up-to-date version of the draft in English.
What is more misleading than anything else is that I have also today, for the first time, managed to lay my hands on what were the responses to the Government's document on their proposals for extradition reform. These were set out in what I understood to be a review document, described as The Law on Extradition: A Review, published in March 2001. What perplexes me is that, in the letter from the noble Lord's ministerial colleague in the Home Office, he says, tinder paragraph 9 of his letter of 15 November:
"Proposals closely resemble agreed UK policies set out in The Low on Extradition".
It seems to me, from what is only a relatively cursory examination of those responses to the document, that no unanimity or agreement is achieved following on that review. Indeed, if we take even the designated district judges at Bow Street Magistrates' Court. what they seem to see as a greater priority than any change within Europe is the desperate need to modernise the treaty with the United States of America.
There are a number of other very telling criticisms made in the responses that were received. The one that caught my eye most vividly was the case of Gale v. Governor of HMP Holloway. Mrs Gale's extradition was requested by Portugal for money laundering offences. If a warrant for her arrest were to be sought under the proposed draft, money laundering could be included in that list. However, as is narrated in their submission:
"It was agreed by all parties that she could not be convicted in Portugal because her husband had been acquitted of the predicate drug trafficking offences. However in Portugal once an arrest warrant has been issued by a public prosecutor there is no power to stop the proceedings going to trial".
When this came before Lord Justice Laws—who, as many noble Lords will appreciate, is an exceptionally distinguished judge—he said in his judgment that,
"it seems to me plain beyond any possibility of doubt that it would be unjust and oppressive to return the claimant, having regard to all the facts I have stated springing from the acquittal of her husband. … As I have said more than once, she cannot now be convicted of these offences".
With the greatest respect to Lord Justice Laws. he is unnecessarily restrained in his judicial language. It would be plain daft to return someone under an extradition arrangement, or under a warrant, to a court in circumstances when one knew that she could not be brought to trial.
As I understand the draft proposal, there are grounds for either mandatory or discretionary non-execution. However, I cannot see that it provides for

977
the particular set of circumstances that I have just outlined. If I am wrong about that—and this is what I want to identify and try to understand—what is the improvement on what exists at the moment?
Let me get away from Bow Street magistrates, who may have many such applications to deal with and who may be very expert. Let me take the luckless sheriff at Edinburgh, who would deal with these matters in Scotland. Is he to know that under the procedural rules of Portugal, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, once an arrest warrant has been issued by a public prosecutor there is no power to stop the proceedings going to trial, because her husband had, in this case, been tried and acquitted? He cannot possibly be expected to know the detail of procedural law across the European Union even at the moment—and even less so once the Union is extended.
In such circumstances, provision will inevitably have to be made for some judicial examination of what is to be done—whether the arrest warrant is to be allowed. Once that is in place, all the unnecessary delays and bureaucratic complications that we are seeking to set aside will come back into place by another route. That is why we need to have a more protracted debate to understand exactly what improvements the Government believe will be brought about by the changes.
On the matter of representations to the Government, I can only conclude by looking to their own summary. On page 97, it says:
"From the responses received, there was strong support for retaining the dual criminality requirement".
I understand that the removal of that requirement is central to the changes that the Government are discussing in Europe at the moment. We need to understand that against the background of a significant number of representations, not coming from the "heidbangers" on the judicial or legal scene, but from such bodies as the Law Society, Justice, Liberty, the sheriff of Edinburgh and many others. There are real objections to the removal of dual criminality. We ought to understand exactly why the Government have set that aside, notwithstanding the objections made.
We are grateful to the Government for agreeing to have this debate this evening. I had understood that urgency was part and parcel of our deliberations and that we had gone at the issue so quickly because it was going to be in the anti-terrorism Bill. If the Minister is now telling us that there will be an opportunity for an extradition Bill at a later stage, I earnestly request that we take our time over it to ensure that we do not allow sets of circumstances to emerge that will be more complicated or will do nothing to improve the current position. I look forward to the Minister's response.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was good enough to suggest that my blood pressure and that of other Euro-sceptic Peers might have been somewhat raised by the answer
978
given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I hope that noble Lords will be relieved to hear that, on the contrary, I was not at all surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lester, confirm what I had feared—that these two directives are the first attempts by the European Union to establish a federal EU criminal system.
What is, of course, typical of the EU—but so typical as not to raise one's blood pressure—is that these advances in its power were, in effect, stolen under the cover of the darkness of the events of 11th September. The EU always seeks to advance its powers. The ratchet in its progress to total domination of Europe has never gone into reverse—indeed, the treaties prohibit that. However, it is deeply depressing that the Government have fallen for such a ploy on this occasion.
I shall repeat a question that I put to the Minister last Thursday, 15th November, at col. 680 of the Official Report, because I did not get a satisfactory reply. Have we really come to such a pretty pass, thanks to our subservience to the so-called courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg, that Her Majesty's Government could not extradite Mr Osama bin Laden to stand trial in the United States of America—in the courts of our greatest ally—because he might face the death penalty, whereas British subjects now face the prospect of being arrested on the say-so of a Belgian magistrate to stand trial in Brussels without habeas corpus or trial by jury? Have we really gone so mad? I should like the Minister to say yes or no to that if he can.
I have three quick questions slightly more targeted on the framework directives. First, I am serious in pressing the noble Lord on the meaning of "xenophobia" in Article 2 of the arrest warrant directive. What exactly is the crime here? I fear that we really must have an answer on that, if only because some of us Euro-sceptics are already accused of xenophobia, sometimes even by Members of your Lordships' House, just because we believe that the Treaties of Rome and pretty well everything that pours forth from Brussels are hopelessly misguided and fundamentally dangerous for the democracies of Europe. One problem here may be that the Government in their wisdom gave jurisdiction over racism and xenophobia to the European Union under the Amsterdam Treaty, so their room for manoeuvre may be limited. But at least the Government should say what they think that crime is. Can the Minister give a clear, irrevocable assurance—I hope that he is listening as this is an important question—that I will not eventually be sent to the Gulag for eight years without the option just for believing and saying that the sooner the United Kingdom gets out of the European Union the better?
The second question on which I wish to press the Minister is whether these directives would have made any difference at all to the events of 11th September. As I read it, when the Minister went before your Lordships' Select Committee on 7th November he could not think of how that might be. However, I

979
imagine that the Government have had time to think about that. Therefore, will they be so good as to give us an answer now?
Finally, and most importantly, can the Minister tell the House what is the Government's room for manoeuvre on these directives? Leaving aside whether or not they want to, can the Government block them, or are we caught in some way by some ghastly form of majority voting sewn into the treaties? I should be most grateful for an answer to that. Can we block this legislation or must we agree it and must we in the end put it into our domestic legislation in pretty well pure form?
9.52 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in this matter in that I am a vice-chairman of the council of Justice and I also have a relationship, though a somewhat looser one, with Fair Trials Abroad.
Until the general election I served on Sub-Committee E of the European Union Select Committee and I am very pleased to see that the report continues to follow the high standards followed under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who was the chairman of the sub-committee during most of my period on it.
The draft framework statements have had a universally bad reception from everyone who has spoken this evening. That applies not only to the usual suspects such as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but also to those who are known in your Lordships' House for their support for the European ideal such as my noble friend Lady Ludford. Therefore, clearly something is badly wrong.
I start with the framework decision on terrorism which was mentioned by two speakers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Stern. That was important as it emphasised that it is not only the European arrest warrant that has to be looked at but also the framework decision on terrorism. I was particularly struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who knows a great deal more about intelligence than most of us and her concern about the possible impact of the decision on intelligence gathering, if it is implemented in its present form. I think that it is justifiable for Europol to have its own intelligence capacity though it would plainly be highly desirable that there should be some degree of democratic accountability for Europol if that were to happen.
But certainly, if indeed it is true that there is an obligation on national intelligence services, including our own, to pool their intelligence with Europol with the increased risk of leaks that that involves, that is obviously a matter which any government of the United Kingdom would wish to consider very seriously. I certainly hope that the present one will, and I await with interest what the Minister has to say about it.
I turn to the subject of the European arrest warrant. This is a matter which has taken up the bulk of the debate this evening. I can see considerable advantages
980
in a properly drawn European arrest warrant. I believe that, among other things, it would certainly speed up the procedure.
One of the safeguards to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, referred was the present requirement for a political decision by a responsible Minister. If we were satisfied that the trial in the country to which the accused could be extradited met fully the standards required by the European Convention on Human Rights, I should certainly consider that it was no longer necessary or desirable to include a political decision before the extradition could take place.
I believe that there are many disadvantages in involving a political decision in this field. The issue that perhaps tempted me most strongly to support the existing European arrest warrant was the suggestion that it could be used to extradite the editor of the Sun to France or Germany next time that newspaper, on the eve of a big football match, published another article about "Frogs" and "Huns".
However, more seriously, I believe that, first, we must not be too complacent about our own system. We must recognise, for example—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. When he says "more seriously", does he agree that whether or not someone can be extradited for something that they have written in this country is quite a serious issue?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that that is in the world of fantasy. I do not consider it to be a serious possibility. However, we must not be complacent about our own system, and we must recognise that other countries may well have reservations about some aspects of our system. One has only to look, for example, at the frequent cases during the late 1980s and 1990s in which decisions relating in particular to terrorist offences were overturned by the Court of Appeal after people had spent many years in prison.
I believe that we must also look at the reverse position; for example, for many years extradition from Spain was not possible. The result was that parts of Spain became known as the "Costa del Crime" because of the large numbers of English criminals who had taken up permanent residence there. It is, of course, now possible, although still quite difficult, to arrange extradition from Spain. However, there is a long-standing and, I believe, wholly unjustifiable principle by which some countries—notably Germany—refuse to extradite their own citizens. I f the European arrest warrant gets round that particular restriction, I believe that there will be a great deal t o be said for it.
However, having raised those issues, it is claimed that a great deal is wrong with the European arrest warrant. A number of points obviously require study. One is the question of dual criminality. I believe that it is absolutely right that where an issue is no longer regarded as an offence in this country—that obviously includes various forms of homosexual behaviour

981
which were, in the past, criminal here and are still criminal in other countries in the European Union—we should not deport or extradite people.
There is the question of the modification of the speciality rule, the question of the right to bail pending return and the question of trials in absentia. Above all, there is the question of possible extradition to countries in which the judicial process does not observe the principles that are required under the ECHR even if nominally the country in which those courts are situated has signed up to the convention.
There are plainly issues—in particular in connection with human rights—that need to be resolved before a framework decision for the European arrest warrant is ready for adoption. That is why we think that it would be deeply regrettable if the Government signed up to it on 6th or 7th December. We also believe that that ties in with certain aspects of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. We shall have to look at the matter in more detail but we are deeply concerned about the fact that Clauses 109 and 110 of the Bill will give the Government the right to bring third pillar framework decisions into law in this country by statutory instrument.
We are of course glad that if the Government are going to introduce the European arrest warrant, they will do so through primary legislation. It is clear that they could have done so, had they so wished, through secondary legislation after the Bill's enactment. If that were so, fundamental issues that are raised by the European arrest warrant would have received limited scrutiny by the European Union Committee—there might have been a debate on the statutory instrument, but that would be limited to 90 minutes in the other place. We agree that if there is primary legislation, the Government will be constrained by the terms of the agreement to which they have signed up.
Today is not the occasion on which to debate whether Clauses 109 and 110 should remain in the Bill. However, the European arrest warrant in its present form is plainly not ready to be approved by the Government or included in a framework decision. Serious matters have been raised this evening and the Government should consider them seriously before they accept that the European arrest warrant is in a suitable form for incorporation into the laws of this country.
10.3p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on giving us an opportunity to debate this matter. I respectfully share his judgment about the terrorism dimension of the warrant; and his view about the relatively minor role that that will play compared with other provisions.
First, I want to discuss the legislative process. I was very struck, when looking at the minutes of evidence of Sub-Committee E, by the evidence given by Mrs Pallett, which appears in paragraph 71. Speaking honestly and accurately, she described the legislative
982
process leading up to the decision. She said that up to 14 days will already have been spent—or will be spent—by senior officials. That will be followed by meetings with ambassadors in COREPER. There will then be a meeting with the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs and the matter will be wrapped up at the European Council, early in December.
I mean no disrespect whatever to Mrs Pallett when I say that what she has described is the most egregious form of intergovernmentalism. In this process there is no mention of any parliament, either the European Parliament or any national parliament. Some of my noble friends on the Benches behind me do not share my views of the merits of the role that the European Parliament plays. However, I shall at least ask your Lordships to accept that had the constitutional principle of co-decision applied to this process, we would not only be looking at a document that has been thoroughly discussed in public, but also at one that has a great deal more democratic legitimacy than it will have as a result of the process that Mrs Pallett described.
Moreover, not only is the European Parliament excluded, but so are all the national parliaments. Were it not for the foresight of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and his committee, noble Lords would have had no opportunity whatever of any input into the decision that is about to be made. Indeed, technically we are not scrutinising any document at all.
Do your Lordships have any power? I suggest that your Lordships have one. The decision of the European Council will have to be taken unanimously. Our representatives at the council have the power to say no. The reaction of the Minister to your Lordships tonight, and more generally the reaction of his colleagues to what your Lordships say between now and December, is crucial to your Lordships. We depend on the Minister to deliver for us what we believe this decision needs if it is to represent the best traditions, not only of the European Convention on Human Rights, but also of the rights for which citizens of this country have fought so hard for so many centuries.
My second observation on this decision concerns the role of the European Court of Justice. Up to now in the United Kingdom, the European Court of Justice has played no role in criminal affairs because we have never been part of the Schengen arrangement. This document will change all that. This is not the first time that the European Court of Justice will be able to overrule domestic courts; but it will be the first time that it will be able to do that in criminal affairs which intimately affect the rights of the individual citizen.
Although Article 34 of the Treaty of European Union prevents the doctrine of direct effect in third pillar matters, it is still possible to make, once the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is established, preliminary rulings; and it may be that the doctrine of indirect effect under the great case of Marleasing will also apply. But if the last word about

983
our rights under this warrant depends upon the European Court of Justice, what opportunity are we given under this decision to get there?
As far as I can see, there is no process of appeal; and, under the provisions for contesting a request made by a requesting state, there is no route by which an individual citizen, who appears in front of the Bow Street magistrates, can get to the European Court of Justice, the ultimate arbiter of what the decision says. Why? We are being lectured by the European Commission about how important it is that each member country respects the constituent parts of the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is a fact that the European Community and its institutions have refused to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. It has never signed the European Convention on Human Rights.
So we have the extraordinary sight of a European Community, which is not prepared to accept the disciplines of a European Convention on Human Rights for its own institutions, telling us, the member states, to accept the convention in our own affairs.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that it is not quite fair to put the matter that way? The position is that the European Commission has advocated changing the treaty so as to enable the institutions of the European Community to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights. But that has never been accepted by the Council of Ministers, and indeed by successive British Governments. So it is not exactly the fault of Brussels that this has not happened.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, or—if I may add to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—indeed, the Court of Justice of the European Community, many of whose members have been extremely sceptical about the Community's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I am not making an anti-European Convention on Human Rights point; I am simply suggesting to the Minister that here we have an element of jurisdictional confusion which must be resolved before the decision is agreed by the European Council. It is not at all clear—as Humpty Dumpty said—who is master here. Is master the European Court of Justice or is master the European Court of Human Rights acting under the convention? That surely is crucial in a document which deals with individual rights.
I turn to my final observation. That is on the doctrine of mutual recognition. It was well put in the discussions in Sub-Committee E that there were three alternatives for the Community with respect to the extradition rule. Either the status quo; or a single European judicial area with a single set of courts and a single hierarchy; or the solution in-between, which is the solution of mutual recognition.
I make no complaint about that. The decision to adopt the system of mutual recognition was the right one. But if your Lordships glance at the way in which
984
the principle of mutual recognition has operated in the European Community throughout its history, your Lordships will see that the directives, or, on some rare occasions, the decisions, which have introduced mutual recognition of each member state's legal system in a particular context, have always contained a set of minimum standards. I am most familiar with the environmental directives. There the set of minimum standards are invariably the standards of the state that has the highest environmental standards.
We must not let the European Council get away with the illusion that the principle of mutual recognition means that one has to accept the standard of each individual member state. It is the duty of the European Community to write into the decision or directive a set of principles in which it believes. I cannot believe, looking at the state of the decision before your Lordships, that the principles that are contained therein would be regarded by any person reasonably knowledgeable about human rights and human standards as satisfactory in relation to the historic traditions of any member state in the Community, let alone the United Kingdom.
Many noble Lords have spoken most eloquently about the particular issues which concern your Lordships—bail, specialty, dual-criminality, the lack of time for appeals and the uncertainty about what one can appeal on. All those matters need to cease to be opaque and become crystal clear and represent the standards that reflect the standards in the European Convention of Human Rights. Why is that so difficult? Why are the Government having so much difficulty about that? I must confess that I am bewildered.
The Government can say no. In 1997, the Government introduced a Bill to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into our legal system. It is now part of the law of the land. It has reinforced the freedoms already acquired so painfully over many years in our country. I cannot believe that, having made so much effort to ensure that our standards are so high, the Government are prepared, in the context of the arrest warrant, to throw them all away. That is rank hypocrisy.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Kingsland, finished on an extravagant note, if I may say so.
I shall do my best to do justice to the debate—I probably have an hour's material here to do so. I will not use it. I have made notes about issues raised by noble Lords, so I have a cross-check and shall write to them specifically about anything that I do not cover and copy it to all noble Lords who have spoken.
In effect, I shall race through the preamble and then deal with as many points that have been raised as possible, and I hope that I can give specific answers to some of them. I cannot offer Bob Ainsworth—that is up to the Select Committee—but Bob was clearly a star. I had thought that his letter was quite good, but I have re-read it 10 times during the course of the debate and can well understand why noble Lords have

985
questioned it. Nevertheless, we will do our best now and in future to offer as much information as possible on the many legitimate questions that noble Lords have raised.
I pay particular thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, for introducing the debate. He gave a clear overview of the central issues. At one point, I wanted to rise to respond to him, because I could have spent longer setting out the Government's position on many of the issues that he raised. I do not have positive answers on all of those issues, but in due course I shall be able to be more specific on some of them. We welcome that opportunity.
I must make absolutely clear that the proposals were in preparation well before the events of 11th September, so they are not part of the reaction to that day. However, the events of that day have obviously given impetus to the Commission's work.
The Government are fully committed to the prompt delivery of the Tampere agenda. Common sanctions for serious crimes and mutual recognition of judicial decisions are two key elements of that agenda. At the special Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20th September, and at the European Council the following day, it was agreed that the framework decisions should be ready for adoption by the Council on 6th to 7th December. I realise that that time scale is tight, but the events of 11th September have speeded up the process.
The purpose of the framework decision on combating terrorism is to create a legal framework of terrorist offences and penalties across the EU. Of course, the United Kingdom already has comprehensive counter-terrorism legislation in the form of the Terrorism Act 2000, with which your Lordships will be familiar. But not all countries within the Union are in a similar position. Only six member states have specific counter-terrorism laws. In recognition of that, action at EU level is clearly desirable.
Perhaps I may briefly cover some of the matters covered by the terrorism framework decision. It creates a list of terrorist offences that are already provided for in UK law. The question of how those offences should be defined as terrorist acts is still a matter for negotiation but, as with UK law, the essential ingredients are a specific type of action coupled with a particular type of motivation. Those are clearly set out in the articles.
A key issue in the document is the penalties that terrorist offences should attract. The UK position is that penalties should meet the treaty commitment to adopt minimum rules for penalties in the field of terrorism. We therefore favour a meaningful approach—not one based simply on the lowest common denominator but one that shows the would-be terrorist that the EU is serious in the fight against terrorism. However, we are sensitive to the concerns of some member states about applying that approach in the document. No one dissents from the view that
986
terrorism is a particularly serious type of crime and we should not give anyone inclined to terrorism the idea that we are a safe haven in the European Union.
Otherwise the document covers areas such as the protection of the victims of terrorist crime, in recognition that victims of certain types of terrorist offences—for example, extortion—are vulnerable. Therefore, in order to protect those victims, member states are asked to ensure that the investigation or prosecution of the terrorist-related offence is not entirely reliant on the evidence or accusation made by the victim of the offence. That is an important document and it is regrettable that we need it. However, we are committed to it and will continue to work towards its successful conclusion.
The framework decision on the European arrest and surrender warrant is also essential. That has constituted the main part of today's debate. It is part of the commitment to obtain mutual recognition of judicial decisions as the cornerstone of future EU co-operation. It is timely that the proposal is ready for discussion and adoption now. The rapid surrender of those accused of terrorist crime and other associated serious crime to finance terrorism will be essential to ensure rapid and effective prosecution and thus greater security within the EU.
The Government are fully committed to the elimination of dual criminality with mutual recognition. It is a protection which no longer has any place in the dealings between mature democratic members states of the EU. We must not work on the basis that every new proposal will be subject to gross abuse. I am not saying that there has not been abuse at various levels within the EU, but it is not a presumption on which we examine new legislation and actions which we must organise. We are all signatories to the ECHR. It is explicitly recognised in the EU and it underpins our dealings. We are late in including it into our domestic law. There is a presumption that we are the best and the only ones who play by the cricket rules. However, as one speaker pointed out, there are concerns elsewhere in Europe about some of our procedures, so there is a two-way flow of genuine debate.
The principle of the European arrest warrant is to eliminate the barriers to swift extradition. There have been some changes in approach from the Commission's original proposal, which the Government strongly favoured as it reflects our broad approach to mutual recognition. However, we accept that that causes problems for some of our EU partners. The list approach, which seems likely to secure general agreement, goes a long way towards our final objective of full mutual recognition. It provides a long list of offences where dual criminality will not apply and provides optional dual criminality in respect of other offences. Therefore, it should be straightforward for practitioners and it addresses directly the more serious crimes which terrorists are likely to commit.
We are also encouraged that EU partners share our commitment to rapid decision taking on request for surrender, although we are concerned that deadlines should not result in the release of a fugitive wanted for serious crimes.

987
I shall now try to answer as succinctly as possible some of the specific issues which were raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and others spoke of the purpose for which a person has been extradited. I understand the apparent contradiction, but it is clear from all my manuscript and briefing papers that Article 1 of the framework indicates that the European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. There is therefore no provision for pre-prosecution surrender. I cannot spell out our intention any clearer, but that is our intention. There is no opportunity. There may be other routes, but not via the European arrest warrant. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured on that point.
The framework decision leads to national governments providing for the detail in line with national practices. I appreciate the fair point that the letter from Bob Ainsworth was available only on Friday and today to most noble Lords. It is a fairly lengthy document and I wish that we could have provided it sooner in the light of some of the issues raised. Indeed, we shall follow up some of the issues that have been raised regarding the letter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the matter of competence. We are working from the presumption that competence is well placed and that not every request has the potential for abuse. We have many years experience in working with our European partners on these matters. I can give some figures, which may not be generally known. In the 10 years up to 1990, the Home Office made 227 surrenders world-wide—an average of 23 a year. In the 10 years to 2000, there were 354 surrenders world-wide—an average of 35 a year. We have experience of extradition requests over the years. Since the prima facie evidential requirement was abolished, requests have been made both carefully and sparingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to dual criminality and the confusion on the wording in Bob Ainsworth's letter. The letter made it clear that dual criminality was not required for offences on the common list. For all other offences above the 12-month threshold, dual criminality would be optional. The dual criminality test would not be applied for those offences for incoming requests, even if when the request was made the other member state applied the dual criminality test to our request.
We consider that dual criminality should be abolished completely between EU member states. That is a clear enunciation of the policy, but we could accept the need for some restrictions where extra-national jurisdiction is concerned. Obviously, there is an issue of difference in some respects, but that is our clear position.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Minister say whether that principle would extend even to a case where, for instance, a foreign country sought the extradition of a national for undergoing an abortion, which is not an offence in this country?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall have to add that to the letter that I shall write. It is a fair question, but I am not in a position to give the noble Lord a straightforward answer.
Bob Ainsworth undertook to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and I understand that he will do so before the end of this week.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked about heads of state. I understand the background, although I am not as familiar with it as he is. I cannot give an answer today on the position of heads of state, which is covered by the law on sovereign immunity and is not in the framework decision. I understand why the noble Lord raised that point. International conventions on genocide are moving towards extraterritorial consideration. There will be tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, showing a development towards greater international jurisdiction for those crimes rather than retaining national tests of dual criminality.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, also asked about racism and xenophobia, which are examples on the list. I understand that most of the crimes on the list are straightforward; we recognise these types of crimes. Questions of interpretation are agreed or defined at EU level and are then placed in the national framework of national law. I do not have an answer on the xenophobia issue, especially on the argument of someone writing something in this country, which one noble Lord described as fanciful. The question deserves an answer, and I shall seek to put it in writing.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He may come to my question in his reply, in which case I am being premature, but before he passes on from the concerns that were raised earlier, will he deal with two important matters? The first relates to the Bob Ainsworth letter. I said that there seemed to be a contradiction on double criminality and the speciality rule. Is it the Government's position that someone could be extradited without double criminality for crime A and then prosecuted in the requesting state for a wholly different crime?
Secondly, is it the Government's position that the state that is being requested can refuse to give effect to the request if there is cogent evidence that an unfair trial will take place in the requesting state?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to the second question is yes—I certainly hope that it is—because we should not send people to courts where we are not satisfied they will receive a fair trial. As to the first question, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, quoted Article 22.1. However, he did not go on to quote Article 22.2 which provides that people who are surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant in the issuing state may be prosecuted, sentenced or detained for an offence other than that for which the warrant was issued. However, if the offence is one of those referred to in Article 2.3—major terrorist offences—any such prosecution, sentence or detention is subject to the agreement of the competent authority

989
in the executing state. Therefore, there is an attempt to reach agreement, even if the original charge and arrest have been extended to something else.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister, if he consults Hansard he will see that I did quote the second part. I do not remotely complain about that. Perhaps I may return to the question of Article 2 offences. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to write to me about the question of xenophobia which was dismissed so airily by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As a general principle, he must be able to answer the question whether the offences listed in Article 2 are extraditable if committed in this country.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot do so because if those offences are committed in the UK most of them are prosecutable here. We are talking about extortion, murder, money-laundering and everything else. Those offences committed here would be subject to our jurisdiction. I shall take advice and write if we can think of examples where an offence committed in this country is extraditable to another country. That appears to be a contradiction in terms. The argument about xenophobia is the only one that comes to mind. On the other hand, I do not want to think on my feet. Most of the offences on the list, if committed in this country, should be prosecutable here. Nevertheless, I shall seek to provide as detailed an answer as I can.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although it is good of him to put what he can in writing in response to my noble friend Lord Lamont and other noble Lords on the question of what "xenophobia" means, it is very important to have a clear definition before we come to primary legislation? The alternative is to leave the definition to the Luxembourg court in due course, which I believe all noble Lords would find unacceptable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would find it difficult to come to the House with the legislation next year if I did not have answers to the questions raised tonight, all of which are legitimate. We must have answers. Noble Lords may not like the answers, or disagree with them, but the points deserve a response. I shall not put myself in that uncomfortable position.
I promised my noble friend the Whip that I would sit down promptly in 16 or 17 minutes, to which he replied, "Thank you very much". I shall try to stick to that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister is doing extremely well in attempting to answer our questions. I do not believe that he should be borne on too heavily by his colleague the Lord in Waiting. I believe that the House would wish that he does his best to respond, albeit succinctly.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall try to keep up the pace.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that it would be helpful if the Minister kept going for at least another seven or eight minutes.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I made that mistake the other week but no one told me about it. I must complete the debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised very important issues. The European arrest warrant is not a terrorism measure. We agree. We are not proposing it necessarily as part of the anti-terrorism package. In some ways it is a good thing that most of it is divorced from the emergency Bill in any event because it relates to other offences.
However, it has to he realised that terrorists and their supporters are involved in other crimes to finance their terrorist activities. The European arrest warrant is about co-operating more effectively in bringing the criminals, including terrorists, to justice more rapidly.
As regards the lack of fairness, is it right that by escaping across a border someone should have greater protection than if they had not tried to evade justice? I know that we are not completely in a federal state, but we are trying to work together with our partners. One state will be played off against another by organised international criminals unless we take these steps. That is the basis of our approach.
It will be for the requesting country to determine whether its national offence comes within the description contained in the list, which is to be converted from the framework into national legislation. Only the requesting country can decide that. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, did not think that I misled him. I was half correct. I have given these answers before. The extradition legislation is nothing new. It was planned. There are three Bills following the emergency. They were not originally in the gracious Speech and I appreciate that. There is the current legislation in the other place, the extradition Bill, and in the spring there will be the asylum and immigration legislation, which all flow from having to rewrite the rule book following 11th September.
The Government plan to use the secondary legislation route to implement EU conventions on extradition from 1995 and 1996 where it has been agreed as part of the terrorism road map. They should be ratified by the end of this year. As everyone knows, we intend a comprehensive overhaul of extradition—hence the consultative paper last year. In looking at the European arrest warrant, it seems sensible to us for it to be part of the Bill so that we have a coherent package for extradition to put before both Houses of Parliament. I hope that we shall have that agreed by the end of this year with the legislation being introduced, I believe, in January.
The point of the Bill at a later stage does not override the EU commitment to adopt the measure in December, but it is essential that we have an agreed

991
EU text as the basis for developing our national legislation. We have to reach agreement at EU level before we can plan and prepare the detail. We are going to convert what was agreed at EU level into our national legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred to the question he asked me last week. The answer is still the same. The death penalty is not a bar to extradition to the United States; otherwise we would never have extradited people for major offences. I believe we have also done that since 11th September. The proviso is that we get an assurance that, whatever the outcome of the trial, the person concerned will not be executed. That is the central issue. The United States has been more than content to comply with that requirement. I suspect that it has been required by every EU member state and every signatory to the EU convention over the years. The death penalty is not widely available in the United States now. Several states still have it.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord and I thank him for giving way. I also apologise to the House. As regards a fair trial, I am anxious to clarify a point with the noble Lord before he sits down. In reply to my noble friend Lord Lester, the Minister said that he hoped there was a power to refuse to extradite if there was a belief that a person would not get a fair trial. However, I have searched in vain the text of the decision. Can the Minister confirm, first, where in the decision is the power to refuse to extradite on the ground that there would not be a fair trial?
Secondly, in his response to my noble friend Lord Lester, the Minister appeared to suggest that the UK Government would never apply intentionally the dual criminality provision. Would that extend to the offences listed under Article 2.4—abortion, euthanasia, morality, sexuality, freedom of expression and association—so that we would not apply the dual criminality test; namely, by taking advantage of the article? Have I understood that correctly?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness that, on her final point, I shall respond in writing. I am not going to answer that off the top of my head. My own interpretation of this is that it is too sensitive and too important for me to respond immediately.
On the noble Baroness's first point, I think I am right to say that this relies on ECHR case-law. I am told that the case of Soering—I would swear that all noble Lords in the Chamber are familiar with the case, but I learnt about it only at the weekend when reading through the Box—states that a decision to surrender a fugitive by Bow Street Magistrates Court may involve the magistrate taking a decision which breaches the ECHR. This is on the basis that a decision to extradite an individual to where he would receive ECHR non-compliant treatment is regarded in certain circumstances as a breach of the ECHR itself. We therefore cannot exclude the possibility that the magistrate might refuse a request for surrender on
992
ECHR grounds to avoid such a breach. It is implied in case-law that circumstances could arise where the judicial authority at Bow Street could say no. The magistrates themselves would not extradite because they would not feel that the action was ECHR-compliant
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I simply wished to point out to the Minister that I believe he is referring to the situation as it is at present under extradition law. I understand that that will no longer be the position if the new measure is reflected in a new Act. However, I accept that that is the position at present.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am reading only part of the briefing material and I am conscious that I have gone way over my time. I shall have to come back to the noble and learned Lord on the matter.
Given that we have signed the ECHR, and knowing that good evidence is in place, I cannot see how we could allow it, knowing that for various reasons a fair trial would not take place. I have to say that. It must be the case. In a sense it is like Article 3. We would not knowingly send someone back to another country in breach of Article 3. It is sacrosanct and there is no way around it. If we know that someone will not he given a fair trial in another member state, from our point of view that would be a serious state of affairs for the judicial process of another EU state. I do not say that it is inconceivable that that could happen; there must be circumstances where it could come about.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am so grateful to the noble Lord. All his decent instincts are coming out. He has said engagingly that he certainly hopes that some means are available by which we shall be able to avoid sending someone back in such circumstances.
In order genuinely to try to help the noble Lord, perhaps I may revert to the point that I tried to make some time ago; namely, that it would be far safer, far easier and far surer if there was written into the body of the decision—when it reaches its final form —an express prohibition that it shall be open to any person whose extradition is sought, to raise the issue and make the complaint that he will not be given a fair trial or will not receive any other fundamental right. How else shall we be certain that he will be given that protection?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has caught me bang to rights. Over the past four years as a Minister, it has been a problem when confronted with dodgy circumstances, to think only: "Head down, read brief". I do not do that.
It is clear, as a result of our serious debate, that fundamental issues have been raised as regards what is to be done with people who are charged and required for prosecution abroad. Those questions deserve an answer. I am not drafting the Bill which will come before this House, but I believe the suggestion of the

993
noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is eminently sensible. I cannot think of an argument against such a suggestion. With that, I shall now sit down.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble sits down, he has candidly and charmingly said that there were a large number of points he could not answer; that he might have to think about them and write. There are now 17 days until this matter apparently has to be decided. Is not this total state of uncertainty yet a further reason why the decision must be postponed?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept that. Although there are only 17 days, the UK Government will interpret the EU-wide agreement to our own national circumstances and bring a Bill to this House. That is when the real debate will take place.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. That is where the European Court of Justice comes in. The Minister said that we can interpret this legislation in the way that we want. However, as I understand it, the European Court of Justice will have overarching responsibility for the interpretation of the decision. It may well come up with a decision which we do not like. That is one of the reasons why I mentioned that issue in my speech. I am not suggesting that the Minister should answer me now; but I hope he will bear that matter in mind over the next 17 days.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, perhaps I may conclude the debate by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken. Their contributions have underlined the concerns that many people feel in regard to the European arrest warrant provisions. A number of new concerns have also been raised. I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has responded to them.
Speaking for myself, there are two particular concerns I wish the Minister to take away with him. The first—which, I confess, I had not previously been struck by but which I believe to be a valid point—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in regard to jurisdiction. The double criminality requirement under present arrangements—that an offence be criminal here as well as in the requesting country if extradition is to be ordered—applies also to jurisdiction. We would not extradite if the requesting country is claiming a jurisdiction which we in this country do not claim for ourselves.
994
All countries these days claim a certain amount of extra-territorial jurisdiction—we do and everyone else does—but an exorbitant claim to jurisdiction which no one else claims would not ordinarily be recognised here. I fear that under the measure as it stands, that would not be the case. An arrest warrant for a criminal offence which fell within one of the listed descriptions—even if we regarded it as a claim to exorbitant jurisdiction—would, if the legislation followed the lines of the proposed measure, have to be executed. An example was laughingly given of someone trying to prosecute the editor of the Sun. If that was in relation to an offence committed here, it would be a claim to exorbitant jurisdiction which we plainly should not permit.
The Government are going back to the Council of Europe in order finally to agree the terms of this measure. It has been rightly said—I cannot remember by whom—that the Government do not have to agree. This issue cannot be decided by qualified majority voting; it requires unanimity. There are a number of points that the Government can and, I believe it is the feeling of the House, should insist upon. For example, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, it would be easy to write into the measure a provision that a ground for refusing extradition would be that evidence had been produced that a fair trial would not be had in the requesting country.
The position at the moment under this measure—if the legislation follows this line—is that the magistrate would not allow that evidence to be given because it would be irrelevant. There has got to be a possibility of that evidence becoming relevant, and that requires an appropriate provision in the measure itself.
I am sure that the Government will take these important points to the next meeting of the Council at which the terms of these measures must be finalised. The Government will, of course, be accountable to Parliament and to the country for the agreement they reach on that occasion. These are very serious matters. I am sure that the Government will take them into account and insist on the measure being in a form that will correspond with our notions of human rights requirements and of requirements of fairness to individuals who are arrested under these warrants. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock

  Overseas Aid: Coercive Population Programmes
  Overseas Aid: Coercive Population Programmes
  Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Cultivation
  Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Cultivation
  UN World Conference Against Racism
  UN World Conference Against Racism
  Kainos Community Prison Wings
  Kainos Community Prison Wings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Broadband Technologies
  Broadband Technologies
  Nuclear Industry Policies
  Nuclear Industry Policies
  Fuel Poverty
  Fuel Poverty
  Northern Ireland Electricity Market
  Northern Ireland Electricity Market
  Northern Ireland: Renewable Energy
  Northern Ireland: Renewable Energy
  Euratom Treaty
  Euratom Treaty
  General Practitioner Lists
  General Practitioner Lists
  Long-term Care
  Long-term Care
  Tourism: Assistance
  Tourism: Assistance
  Tourism: Marketing
  Tourism: Marketing
  Landing Ships Contract
  Landing Ships Contract
  Foot and Mouth Inquiries
  Foot and Mouth Inquiries
  Parliamentary Website
  Parliamentary Website