Sitting of 21 November 2001

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

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When she last met non-governmental organisations to discuss the delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. [14146]
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What assessment she has made of the requirements for aid in Afghanistan in readiness for the winter. [14147]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [14148]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The United Nations estimates that there are 6 million people in need of food aid in Afghanistan. The House will recall that prior to 11 September the World Food Programme was supplying food aid to 5 million Afghans. After 11 September all international workers were withdrawn from Afghanistan and deliveries stopped for 13 days. Thereafter, deliveries steadily improved and were interrupted only briefly when bombing started on 7 October. Targets were met up to 13 November and delivery systems inside the country also held up.
    On 13 November, however, deliveries across the border from Pakistan, which is the major delivery route, were suspended because of uncertainty due to the military situation. Deliveries from other routes continued. On Monday, the WFP resumed operations between Peshawar and Kabul, and those continue. There are stocks sufficient for 10 days supply within the country. International workers are returning to parts of Afghanistan, but there are also reports of looting of many UN and NGO offices.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Lady for the nature of that reply and the help that she is giving the House. According to Oxfam, however, three quarters of all trucking routes into Afghanistan remain suspended. Despite her best efforts, targets are not being met. I was interested in what she said to the Select Committee on International Development yesterday about the Americans
    300
    not taking the humanitarian issue as seriously as this Administration do. If that is true, what can be done urgently to address that problem?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am afraid that Oxfam is simply wrong again if it is saying that three quarters of the routes are suspended. The report that I have just given the House is the accurate one.
    I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct the misreporting of what I told the Select Committee. I said, as I had previously said in the House, that we had less good civil/military liaison than we had in the case of Kosovo; that we could improve our performance on the humanitarian effort not if one group tried to do the other's work but if there was better liaison; and that urgent improvement was needed. The second thing that I said was about the general commitment of overseas development aid by the American Administration, which is the lowest in the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Burstow: Does the Secretary of State accept that, this winter, refugee camps will have a key part to play in distributing food aid? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was meant to have opened 15 camps by now, of which I understand only one has been opened. How many will be opened and how soon, how soon will they reach full capacity, and what is the Department doing to expedite the opening of the remaining camps?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman may recall that when the UN issued its appeal shortly after the crisis began, it predicted 1.5 million new refugees in addition to the nearly 4 million long-standing refugees that are in Iran and Pakistan. In fact the volume of movement has not been nearly so great. It is about 100,000, coming over in trickles, so there are some new camps, but the numbers are nothing like those that were predicted as needed. Obviously, the food and support need to follow the people. They have tended to stay inside Afghanistan but have often moved out of the cities. They are internally displaced, rather than crossing borders in big numbers. There are supplies for refugees; our biggest problem remains inside Afghanistan.
    Miss McIntosh: The Secretary of State has said that 10 days supplies are all that remain; that clearly is not enough. Will she regret, with me, the delay in sending in the troops, which is indeed very regrettable? Does she agree that they should have a peacekeeping as well as humanitarian role, to ensure that food aid is delivered according to her timetable?
    Clare Short: I agree that the figure of 10 days' supply is a bit worrying. Supplies from one of the major Pakistan routes have now resumed but we need to do better. If we continue to have difficulties in crossing that border, we really will get into serious problems. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need agreement on the new transitional Government for Afghanistan and then some international forces to stabilise the situation, so that Afghanistan may receive better humanitarian support and start the job of reconstruction.
    Tony Worthington: I am sure that the Secretary of State will welcome with me the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown, head of the United Nations Development Programme and the senior Briton in the UN family of organisations, to head the regeneration of Afghanistan, confirming that, in our view and that of the UN, this is not just about short-term aid but about the rebuilding of a failed state—probably over many years—in Afghanistan.
    Clare Short: I do of course welcome the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown. The job of UNDP is co-ordination and he will be doing that. Perhaps even more importantly, yesterday there was a conference in the US, attended by my permanent secretary among others, where Colin Powell and Paul O'Neill strongly committed the US to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and to sticking with Afghanistan until it had the chance of a better future. That we must all do, and learn the lesson of the previous error, when, after the Russian withdrawal, everyone turned their backs on Afghanistan. That was how the tragedy of today came about.
    Mr. John Battle: Will the Secretary of State insist that international organisations work with Afghan aid and development workers? The International Development Committee heard evidence from representatives of the World Food Programme that there is food and medicine in its warehouses and that it has, magnificently, managed to keep the polio immunisation programme going, but as the routes into Afghanistan open up, it is important that international agencies do not swamp the country and neglect the good work done by the locals throughout these difficult times.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In East Timor, international organisations brought in too many international workers and did not use enough East Timorese—the people who had to take over and run their own country. Afghans have performed superbly since 11 September, when all international workers were withdrawn, and they very bravely kept the delivery systems going in the face of great attacks. That work needs to be honoured, and as we get back into the country, the Afghans who have done so well need to be kept in senior positions both to continue the humanitarian effort and to start the reconstruction of their country.
    John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of media reports of houses collapsing because humanitarian aid was dropped on them. There are also reports of aid packages being sold in marketplaces rather than being given out. What does she intend to do to prevent that happening?
    Clare Short: The only aid dropped by air up to now has been the United States "hearts and minds" parcels, if I can call them that. They contained jam, crackers and peanut butter, and I do not think that they were heavy enough to cause houses to collapse. I am happy to say that the UN World Food Programme has done a splendid job, continuing to supply massive quantities of food—enough to feed 6 million people—to a mountainous
    302
    country with poor roads. It has done so without using airdrops, although they may be necessary in areas that will become inaccessible because of the winter.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The right hon. Lady is rightly concerned that the civil/military liaison in Afghanistan is not working well. We have continually been told that the bombing in Afghanistan will bring a quick end to this campaign and open up humanitarian corridors before the winter. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has not admitted that, despite the apparent collapse of the Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan, the delivery of humanitarian aid remains extremely difficult in many areas. [Interruption.] Does she agree that we need a substantial deployment of troops, backed by an explicit UN resolution to secure aid to Afghanistan?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber, particularly from hon. Members at the back. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is nodding, but he is one of the noisiest. It is extremely unfair to the hon. Member asking the question and the Minister answering for her Department.
    Clare Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I do not accept the hon. Lady's suggestion that I should have admitted anything. I have done my best, as I have promised since the beginning of the crisis, to keep the House fully informed of the facts. I have not made admissions; I have made accurate reports, whereas some of the wild claims made by NGOs, which may be well intentioned, are not accurate.
    I agree with the hon. Lady that, with the welcome collapse of the Taliban, our potential enemy now is disorder. We need Ambassador Brahimi to be successful as soon as possible in agreeing a transitional Afghan Government who are fully recognised by the UN, so that it can return to the country. We need troops on the ground to keep order so that the new Government can take over and assemble Afghanistan's own security forces. The humanitarian effort can then go towards opening clinics and health centres, getting schools working again and getting food-for-work programmes going.
    Mr. Derek Foster: May I say what an enormous pleasure it is for Labour Members that my right hon. Friend, a doughty fighter for humanitarian aid throughout her career, is in her post at this crucial point in history? She will recall campaigning with me to raise the proportion of GDP that we spend on aid to the 0.7 per cent. that was urged on us for many years. I have not seen a great shortage of money in the Chancellor's pockets of late. Indeed, one of the problems has been underspending of the money that we have agreed. She would have enormous support if she were to make a strong bid to up that percentage of GDP.
    Clare Short: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As he probably knows, we have just started the process of the next comprehensive spending review. I should like

    303
    to tell my hon. Friends that, if any Department is having any trouble spending its budget, mine is certainly not having such trouble and I could help out.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the Secretary of State regret accusing America yesterday of turning its back on the world, when in fact it was the largest donor of aid to Afghanistan even before 11 September? Does she accept that, at this stage, nothing would give the Taliban greater comfort than to hear of a rift between the US and the UK?
    Clare Short: I heard the hon. Lady on the radio this morning and I think it laughable to suggest that inaccurate reporting in our media of an accurate report that I gave the Select Committee will help the Taliban to avoid collapse in Afghanistan. That really is a bit silly. In response to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Committee and a member of her party, who asked whether it is a worry that the US is the smallest contributor of aid among the OECD countries, I told the Select Committee that I thought that that was regrettable, that there was a chance that the whole world, post-11 September, would be more committed to development, and that there did seem to be a problem with the US, a country made up of diverse nationalities, in that it turned inwards and was rather insular. I stand by all those remarks.

    Angola
    Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Angola, with particular reference to children. [14149]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Children and other vulnerable people are bearing the brunt of the continuing conflict in Angola. Some 42 per cent. of Angolan children are underweight for their age, fewer than half of them go to school and under-five infant mortality there is the second highest in the world. The UK has contributed £56 million in development and humanitarian aid since 1993 and we continue to work through UN agencies, NGOs and our contribution to EC assistance. The urgent need, however, is to bring the war to an end.
    Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The statistics that he gave show how awful the situation is for children in Angola. Unfortunately, there are no television cameras to record the misery that can be seen there. Having recently visited Angola on a trip with UNICEF, I ask my hon. Friend to consider what we can do to support projects in the southern half of the country, where there is less conflict and they can have the maximum effect. We can then show the children and people of Angola what can be done with good governance.
    Hilary Benn: I say to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who was also a part of that UNICEF-supported visit to Angola, that I very much agree with his point about the need to demonstrate in that country the benefits of peace and stability. We are this year
    304
    contributing almost £3 million in humanitarian aid through a range of NGOs, which will, in particular, benefit refugee children and their families. As my hon. Friend will be aware, in Luanda, we have the urban poverty programme, which is helping with water supply, micro-finance and child care. However, the fact remains that peace is the necessary precondition for progress in this relatively wealthy country, which has oil. If the Government could direct those resources more towards poverty reduction, the country would have a better prospect for the future.
    Tony Baldry: Does the Minister agree that we now need an international coalition against poverty, whether it is Angola or Afghanistan? We would have far greater clout in such a coalition if we could reach the 0.7 per cent. target. It is in all our interests to engage with colleagues in Congress in the United States to ensure that it is outward looking and that it seeks to improve on the rather poor 0.1 per cent. of gross national income that it devotes to development aid. If there is to be a coalition against poverty, it must engage all the richest nations in the world.
    Hilary Benn: I endorse all the points made by the hon. Gentleman, Indeed, it seems that a coalition on precisely those points is developing between him as Chairman of Select Committee on International Development and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The events of the past two months have given all of us—particularly America—pause for thought on the importance of international development in the new world order. There is now a better opportunity in that country to advance the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman than there has been for many years.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend is aware of the shocking conditions in 13 transit camps in Angola; even by the appallingly low standards of that country, conditions are particularly bad for thousands of people and their children. The Angolan Government have promised to close the camps by the end of the year and move those people to better conditions. The ambassador in Luanda is trying hard to pursue the matter with the Government. Will my hon. Friend bring every pressure that he can muster to bear on the Angolan Government on that vital issue?
    Hilary Benn: We certainly shall. As my hon. Friend is aware, a team from the Department for International Development was recently in Angola as part of a review mission. On that occasion, it pressed the precise point made by my hon. Friend—the need to ensure that the Government of Angola honour their commitment to close the camps, which are clearly in an appalling condition.

    Ministerial Meeting
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on her recent meeting with the Presidents of Uganda and Rwanda. [14150]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My recent meeting with the Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda was fruitful in reducing tension between the two countries. The two Presidents talked

    305
    through the causes of the rising tension, then signed an understanding committing them to discourage dissidents from organising in each other's country and to undertake not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. They agreed to set up mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the agreement, with the UK acting as a third party. The Prime Minister joined the talks for a time. The agreement has begun to be implemented and tensions are already reducing.
    Mr. O'Brien: As the Secretary of State will be aware, peace in the Congo is vital to the stability of Rwanda and Uganda; indeed, the refugee crisis in north-western Tanzania would be exacerbated if the conflict took root. Can she assure the House that she is looking carefully at discussions on aid to Rwanda and Uganda to help encourage their Presidents not to allow their tensions over the Congo to get out of hand?
    Clare Short: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. If we are to get better development in Africa, we need to resolve a lot of conflicts. The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country as big as western Europe, is sucking in six neighbouring countries. A mineral-rich country, if properly governed, could be an engine of growth and development in Africa; it is essential to implement the Lusaka peace accords.
    Rwanda is currently in the DRC because people responsible for the Rwandan genocide are still trying to get back to Rwanda and complete it. It is essential that we encourage the Kabila Government to pursue disarmament of those negative forces so that we get peace and development for the whole region. However, I agree that we must prevent tension between Uganda and Rwanda from rising, as that could drive the whole process backwards.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: In considering the great problems in Rwanda, will my right hon. Friend explain what other help is being given to east African countries like Tanzania, which has a huge refugee problem arising from the disturbances in Rwanda and, of course, in Burundi?
    Clare Short: As my hon. Friend said, Tanzania has many refugees—300,000, I think, or something similar. A desperately poor country is playing host to lots of refugees because of the conflict in Burundi in particular and instability in the great lakes region in general. Tanzania has recently being doing well on reform; its completion date for debt relief is due to go to the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank today and is likely to be approved. Despite its refugees burden, Tanzania, I am glad to say, is moving forward; the United Kingdom is supporting it in its big reform efforts.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Secretary of State not share our concern about the recent United Nations report which said that the increase by the Government in aid to countries like Rwanda and Uganda was being used to ensure that those countries did not spend money on the services that the Government should properly be funding, and asked whether those savings were being mis-spent on funding warlike approaches?
    306
    Is there not a genuine concern that UK taxpayers' money is being misused for war? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?
    Clare Short: I am glad to inform the House that there is no such concern. The House should be proud that after—[Interruption.] It is difficult to hear what is being said in the Chamber. After the terrible genocide in Rwanda, during which nearly 1 million people were killed in the course of a few months by machete, under orders, and the UN was withdrawn rather than acting to protect the country, there was a massive refugee exodus and the country was left with nothing.
    The UK has been engaged in helping Rwanda to rebuild its national institutions and to drive forward reconciliation. Rwanda needs an end to the war in the Congo. It therefore needs the disarmament and demobilisation of the forces of the genocide, which are trying to get back into Rwanda to complete the genocide. We all need to put pressure on all the parties to implement the Lusaka peace accords—including the Kabila Government in Kinshasa, who are arming and supporting the forces that are invading Rwanda and Burundi and holding back the peace process.

    Afghanistan
    Paul Farrelly: What plans are being considered to rebuild the infrastructure of Afghanistan following the present conflict. [14151]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): We are closely involved in planning for the future of Afghanistan. As well as supporting Ambassador Brahimi's efforts to establish a broadly based transitional government, we are working with the international community on reconstruction. Repair of the country's infrastructure will be an important part of this process. A document setting out the UK's contribution to an emergency recovery plan for the first 100 days has been placed in the Library.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench were as shocked as the rest of the House to learn that, in the conflict, Afghanistan did not have one functioning hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community should now commit itself early on, through the UN, to specific projects, including hospitals, to help rebuild Afghanistan, retain hearts and minds and shame all the warlords who reduced their own country to rubble?
    Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. The re-establishment of a health system within Afghanistan, where life expectancy is 44 years, is an urgent priority, as is the re-establishment of a system of education so that at least half the next generation can have the opportunity to

    307
    receive the education that they deserve. In the long term, that will make the greatest contribution to the re-building of the country. [Interruption.]
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy and it must come to order.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: About 50 per cent. of the people of Afghanistan are under 18, and about 60 per cent. of that age group die from preventable diseases. What steps are being taken, if there is a new infrastructure—this follows on from the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—to get to Afghanistan the medicines, supplies and vaccines that the population requires and which we take for granted?
    Hilary Benn: A great deal of effort is already under way to ensure that essential medical supplies get into the country. As we heard in answer to an earlier question, the polio vaccination programme—overseen by UNICEF—has continued during the current difficulties. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that continued effort must be made to ensure that we meet the health needs of the Afghanistan population, which has suffered enormously.
    Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend will be aware that many educated and skilled Afghan people have fled from the conflict over the past 20 years. They are living throughout the world, and many are in the UK. What steps is my hon. Friend's Department taking to assist the return of these people to help in the rebuilding of their country's infrastructure?
    Hilary Benn: The most important contribution that we can make to addressing my hon. Friend's question is to work to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. The sooner the reconstruction process can begin, and the sooner people who have fled the country—many of whom are educated, as my hon. Friend mentioned—see that there is a future and a prospect for their country, the greater will be the chance that they will commit themselves to returning to the country of their birth so that they can take part in helping to rebuild it.

    Ivory Coast
    7. Patrick Mercer: What actions her Department is taking to reduce the sex trade in young girls in the Ivory Coast. [14152]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): We are working with our European partners and the International Labour Organisation to try to address this serious problem, which affects several west African states, including the Ivory Coast. It was also discussed at the recent EU-Africa summit, which has set up a taskforce to take action.
    Patrick Mercer: In view of the Victoria Climbie case, what further action is being taken at United Kingdom airports to prevent sex slave children from being brought into the country?
    Hilary Benn: The Victoria Climbie case, dreadful though it was, did not directly involve sexual exploitation. We have signed up to all the relevant conventions and we are working with the Home Office to ensure that action is taken against people who engage in this appalling trade. The European Union is negotiating a new framework agreement that will oblige all member states to make trafficking for sexual exploitation a specific criminal offence. The sooner we can get that into law, the more we can do to prevent that appalling trade.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [14176] Mr. James Paice: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Paice: I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows of the case of a single mother in my constituency who needed a hysterectomy—[Interruption.] I do not know what Labour Members find so funny about a lady needing a hysterectomy. She had to move her young children from a village school to London schools while she was in hospital, but the operation was cancelled only a day before it was due to take place. Does the Prime Minister have any idea of the distress and trauma that she and her children suffered? That is only one out of 1,000 operations that are cancelled each week under his national health service.
    The Prime Minister: The NHS performs 5.5 million operations every year, but of course I understand the immense pain and suffering caused to anyone whose operation is cancelled. For precisely that reason, we are introducing measures to provide that if an operation is cancelled for non-clinical reasons—for example, because there are not enough surgeons or beds—it will be performed within a specified period elsewhere. That is a change from the previous Government's policy.
    Judy Mallaber: In a week when the Government's target of half of all pupils achieving five A to C grade GCSEs has been met a year early, will my right hon. Friend congratulate Aldercar community school in my constituency and its staff and pupils? The percentage of pupils who achieve such grades there has increased by 36 points in the past four years. That makes it one of the schools that has improved most in the country. Will he encourage other schools to follow its example to try to persuade every pupil, even their large

    309
    numbers of statemented pupils, to enter for qualifications? Even in such difficult days abroad, does he agree that there is some good news at home?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that the target of 50 per cent. of pupils achieving five good GCSEs has been met. I believe that Tony Cooper, the head teacher at the school that my hon. Friend mentioned, was secondary head of the year in 2000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is amazing how well informed I can be. He is one of a growing number of head teachers throughout the country whose results have improved significantly. Results in some of the new specialist schools have improved by 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. Taken with the primary school results, that represents a significant step change, which we must maintain and develop further.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: One of great successes in the war against terrorism has been this country's role in holding together the coalition with the United States. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that Britain and the United States remain as one in pursuing our objectives, namely, the removal of the Taliban, bringing bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and delivering humanitarian aid? Will he confirm that there is full agreement on how to pursue those objectives?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am happy to confirm that. There is complete agreement on the military objectives of removing the Taliban regime, which I am pleased to say is largely now achieved, and making sure that we pursue and hunt down the terrorist network of al-Qaeda, on which we have made considerable progress. There is complete agreement on making sure that we get the humanitarian aid into Afghanistan, which is absolutely vital; and on the political and diplomatic front, because there will be a meeting next Monday of all the various ethnic groupings in Afghanistan. That is a huge step forward. People would not have thought it remotely possible a short while ago. I also commend the attitude of the Northern Alliance in that regard. Many people feared that it would not join such a broad-based grouping, but clearly it is doing so.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Families of troops up and down the country are obviously concerned about husbands and wives who may be on deployment. Will the Prime Minister, making it clear that some are already on deployment and possibly in action, confirm that the number of troops on stand-by remains the same as last week, that no decision has yet been taken on whether or when they will deploy and that any such decision will also be made in full consultation with the United States?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it will be made in full consultation with the United States. The troops were put on 48-hour stand-by for a purpose. Perhaps it is just as well that I say this, because it may be the reason for some of those incorrect stories arising. The situation in Afghanistan is obviously developing day by day. Two weeks ago, people would have been surprised at where we are today. In fact, they would have been astounded at the progress that has been made. A lot of people did not believe that the military strategy would succeed as fast as it did. They then worried that the Northern Alliance,
    310
    having secured its victory, may, for example, run amok in Kabul or commit atrocities in different parts of the country. That has not happened.
    We have to keep the troops on stand-by to use as and when appropriate, but a degree of flexibility, far from being a hinderance, is the only sensible position to take. Both we and the United States—indeed, other coalition partners—have troops on stand-by. How and when and where we deploy them is a matter we can decide day by day. We should retain the flexibility to do so as we wish.
    Laura Moffatt: Will the Prime Minister join me in recognising the considerable efforts being made by airline staff and those in associated industries to deal with the aftermath of 11 September? Does he recognise that much needs to happen to alleviate the pain of that industry? Will he give us assurances that all is being done to assist? Will he take the time to visit those hard-working staff at Gatwick, who would be pleased to see him?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents at this time. Our airline and aviation industry, in common with industries round the world in that sector, has obviously experienced difficult times. We believe, however, that the European Commission is right to say that there should be no general bail-out of companies and it is important that all countries stick to those rules.
    The Commission has also set out guidelines that allow us to compensate for the four days after 11 September. We are considering how we can help companies within those guidelines, but it is important to keep to them. Of course, we shall work with my hon. Friend, her constituents and the companies concerned to do all that we can to help them through this time, recognising that the problem obviously affects aviation and airline industries everywhere in the world.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: When there are so many acute shortages in so many specialist staff areas of the health service, does the Prime Minister not think it ridiculous that many doctors who have served the health service with distinction for years, if not decades, are unable to apply for specialist consultant posts because they qualified in a non-European Union country?
    The Prime Minister: There is an issue here, and, as a result of examining it over time, the Government are already considering changing the rules that allow registrars then to train for a further period that allows them to become consultants. It arises because of the way that the rules have been applied rather than racism in the national health service, as has been suggested in certain quarters. That is an unfair charge to make. It is important, however, that we ensure that the rules are changed so that there can be obvious transparency about how people can qualify fully as consultants.
    Mr. Kennedy: The review is certainly welcome, but the Prime Minister rules out racism. Did he not hear the remarks on that very issue made on radio only this morning by the Secretary of State for Health? As the figures show, a vastly greater proportion of white doctors than non-white doctors achieve consultant status in the

    311
    health service. Many of those non-white doctors qualified in the EU. There is an issue to address with urgency. The Health Secretary thinks so; surely the Prime Minister should give the House an undertaking that he will investigate and legislate.
    The Prime Minister: I think that what the Secretary of State for Health said was that we must look at any charges that were made very carefully.
    The right hon. Gentleman's first point related to the distinction between EU and non-EU people. That distinction is based on our membership of the European Union and the rules within the European Union, not on any rule that is discriminatory vis-á-vis race. Of course we will investigate any charges that are made, but it is important to realise that the particular issue raised this morning arose from rules that we are reviewing rather than from any attempt to discriminate between people of different races.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: After his no doubt healthy breakfast, did the Prime Minister have a chance to read the leader in The Guardian? Does he agree that affordable designer casualwear should be available in supermarkets throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: I probably study Guardian editorials less than my hon. Friend does. As for designer wear, I am afraid we must abide by the rules set out in the court proceedings. That is regrettable, but obviously we study these matters very carefully.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: In 1997 there was a surplus of nursing home places in Gloucestershire; now there is a severe shortage. Whom does the Prime Minister blame for the crisis? [HON. MEMBERS: "You."] Does he blame his own Government's regulations, or does he blame the Lib-Lab pact that runs Gloucestershire?
    The Prime Minister: That is a bit of an open goal, given that the last Government massively cut the number of beds in the national health service and elsewhere. In respect of nursing homes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have provided a great deal of extra money for the NHS to deal with social services. [Interruption.]
    I must point out to Opposition Members that there is a clear difference between us and them. I entirely agree with them that nursing homes have complained about the level of fees and also about the lack of sufficient resources—which is precisely why we are increasing investment—but the difference between the hon. Gentleman and us is that we believe that the additional money should go in, while he wants to take it out.
    Colin Burgon: In the light of unfortunate remarks made by a certain gentleman called Mr. Nigel de Gruchy, what message has the Prime Minister for the thousands of committed classroom assistants in my constituency and around the country—and for other staff who give valuable support to teachers, enabling them to deliver the results of which we have spoken today?
    The Prime Minister: As well as the increase in the number of teachers, there has been an increase of, I think, about 44,000 in the number of classroom assistants in the past few years. They do invaluable work in our classrooms. They are part of the changing pattern of teaching provision in our schools which will allow us to secure more teachers but also more classroom assistants and more information technology assistance. That in turn is part of the creation of a modern environment in which schooling can best take place. Classroom assistants play a vital role in the process.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: May we now have an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)? Nursing homes are closing all over the country because of new Government regulations, and as a result patients are blocking hospital beds when they could be cared for better elsewhere. Chase hospital in Bordon, in my constituency, is consequently in danger of losing beds. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is unacceptable, and will he look into it?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will, but let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that some private nursing homes are closing; as they will tell the right hon. Gentleman, that is largely because of their worry about the level of fees. [Interruption.] Regulation has been mentioned, and it is true that some of them raise issues relating to the minimum wage; but I thought the Conservative party had changed its position on that. As for other regulations, they concern standards of care in nursing homes, and were supported by both parties in the House.
    In respect of the other point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, again, it is absolutely true that unless we have proper provision out in the community, there is greater pressure on hospital beds. Again, it is precisely for that reason that just a short time ago we announced still more money for social services, nursing homes and the national health service. That is money to which the Labour Government are committed and which he and his colleagues are committed to opposing.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which was introduced by the Government, can make a significant difference to the lives of Britain's 6 million carers, but that many carers are not aware of their rights under that Act? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that local authorities undertake the assessments, which they are required to conduct, and do what they can do to help Britain's 6 million carers?
    The Prime Minister: We are engaged at the moment in putting together an information campaign that allows carers to know exactly what they are entitled to. Incidentally, all the provisions of the Act will come into force in Wales as well, or they did do on 1 July. We totally understand that it is one thing to provide those rights for carers, but that unless they are aware that they

    313
    have them and of how to exercise them, it will be a futile exercise. It is for that reason that we are making sure that they have the information that they need.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority said of investors' confidence in the Government:
    "tremendous damage has been done by Stephen Byers' actions".
    Does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not, for the reasons that I gave the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. I believe that it was absolutely essential that we stopped pouring billions and billions of pounds of public money into a company that was effectively bust and that was not being managed adequately. For that reason, we believe—this is the difference between us—that whereas he would pay the shareholders an additional £1 billion from taxpayers' money—
    Mrs. Theresa May indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Oh yes, that is the position of the Conservative party. We believe that that money is better spent on the railways.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: But it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who appointed Sir Alastair and who described him at that time as a "highly respected figure". Sir Alastair is also supported by investors on both sides of the Atlantic, one of whom, a head of an American investment fund, said:
    "We would now be unwilling to invest in any enterprise"—
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Rubbish.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Oh yes. He has said they would be unwilling to invest in
    "any enterprise regulated by the Government, because we couldn't be sure they would live up to their commitments".
    Why does the Prime Minister not admit that investors cannot trust this Government and that people who travel on the railways will have to put up with more delays and more taxes?
    The Prime Minister: If we followed the path that the right hon. Gentleman has set out, I assume that he would have carried on simply putting public money into Railtrack; alternatively, he would have us pay the £1 billion to the shareholders. I am afraid that in the end there has to be a simple choice: do we carry on putting that money in or do we say, "Enough is enough—we cannot put in any more money"? We have to restructure that industry in order to ensure that the money that goes in actually gets to improve the railway system.
    As I say, the difference between us is that we believe that every single penny piece of that money has to go to improving the rail network, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's position is that he would take literally £1 billion or more of that money from the taxpayer and give it to the shareholders. If he denies that perhaps he would say so when he gets to his feet. His shadow Chancellor and his shadow spokesman on the railways have both said that they agree with the shareholders'
    314
    campaign for a minimum handout of £3.60 a share. If that is the case, it amounts to more than a £1 billion subsidy. So, the difference between us is that I say that the money goes to the railways, while he says that it should go to the investors.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: We are now clear about the Prime Minister: he would rather stand by a Minister than those thousands of investors who have lost money. Those investors are not fat cats, they are pensioners and people who work on the railways. What does he say to Mrs. Lloyd—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not care. Mrs. Lloyd lost all the money that she invested in Railtrack, money which was meant to be used to help a sick relative. She has written to the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told Mr. Donohoe before that he should not shout across the Chamber. I have told him before, and he will not do it again. It is out of order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister must tell the House what he will say to Mrs. Lloyd, who has written to him five times about her lost investments and who has not received an answer. She is a lifelong Labour supporter, but she will not vote Labour again because of what this Government have done to her. In her letter, she writes:
    "Stephen Byers is a real con man who will say anything and do anything and hopes to get away with it."
    Is she not absolutely right? Is it not time that the Prime Minister told the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to go?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just made it clear in his answer that he would indeed back the claim of the investors. He has asked about an investor, so let us discuss the matter, because he has just accepted that he would back the claims of the investors that the Government should reimburse them at the level of the original share price at the time of privatisation. That would amount to a sum of money of more than £1 billion.
    I accept entirely that small investors will be affected by what has happened to Railtrack. However, the only choice that the Government can make is whether to bail out people in that situation, or say that we cannot go on putting billions and billions of pounds of public money into a failed company.
    In the end, no matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition gets to his feet, he must accept that, when it comes to a choice between putting the money into the railways and bailing out investors, he would bail out the investors. I am afraid that that is the difference between the Government, who believe in rail transport as a public service, and the Opposition, who do not.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news this week that the courts are increasingly making use of antisocial behaviour orders? What about people in my constituency of Hall Green—and, I dare say, in many other places—who are denied the relief from persistent harassment, intimidation and distress that these orders

    315
    provide? What should they do when their local authority, and/or the police, persistently fail to use the powers that Parliament has given them?
    The Prime Minister: Antisocial behaviour orders have a very important role to play, and almost 500 have been granted up and down the country. Any resistance to their use by police and local authorities would be unfortunate, as there is nothing worse for people than to live on estates or difficult streets with those who engage in petty theft or drug dealing. The antisocial behaviour order can play a real role in reducing tensions and disorder in local communities. I urge them to be used, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Prime Minister please tell me why the latest Department of Health figures show that the number of people in this country waiting more than 18 months for treatment has increased from two to 208?
    The Prime Minister: The increase, as I understand it, is limited almost entirely to a certain number of trusts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"l Each of those trusts is being given a dedicated team to reduce the 18-month waiting list. However, the hon. Gentleman did not point out that the latest figures show that the number of patients waiting three months has fallen. Overall, waiting lists have fallen, which means that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting a shorter time for treatment. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but waiting lists since the Labour party came to power are down, not up, as are waiting times. Down too, for example, are cardiac waiting times and the time it takes to refer patients for cancer treatment.
    The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that 208 people are waiting more than 18 months. That is unacceptable, but I shall simply point out that 70 per cent. of people get their operations within three months, and that more than half a million operations are now being performed every year. The 208 figure is wrong, and we should change it, but we should not forget that the vast bulk of people are getting the treatment that they need.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the collapse of Atlantic Telecom, which has caused severe difficulty for thousands of telephone subscribers, particularly businesses which are heavily dependent on the telephone? Will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that the lines, and specifically the existing telephone numbers, of the businesses concerned are protected before the service is withdrawn in four days time?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend is meeting the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness at the Department of Trade and Industry later today to discuss the concerns of Atlantic Telecom's customers. I also know that Oftel is having discussions with Atlantic's administrators. This is a serious problem, because it can affect many business customers and other people. My hon. Friend the Minister also met the Director General of Oftel yesterday. I hope very much that we can have a smooth transition to a new company, responsible
    316
    for the new business, but it has to be sorted out with the administrators and Oftel as well as with my hon. Friend the Minister.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious damage done by the repeated press reports, which are obviously officially inspired, about the differences between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is one detailed report that the Chancellor used bad language—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and stamped his feet after a private meeting. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to say where these reports come from, can he at least give us an assurance that he is not picking on the Chancellor for not being as enthusiastic about the euro as the Prime Minister himself?
    The Prime Minister: One thing is for sure—I knew that we would get to Europe one way or another. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because it gives me the opportunity to say that according to the OECD, we are predicted to grow at the fastest rate of any G7 country. We have the lowest inflation in Europe and the highest employment rate of any of our major competitors. We have the largest share of foreign direct investment in the European Union and we have halved youth unemployment. That is down to the work of the Chancellor, and he has done that work better than any Conservative Chancellor anyone can remember.
    Martin Linton: In view of the very high rate of asthma in my constituency, will the Prime Minister look at yesterday's report on lung diseases from the British Thoracic Society, showing that they kill even more people than heart diseases or cancer, and occur at nearly twice the European average? Will he ensure that we tackle those diseases with as much determination as we tackle heart disease and cancer by offering medical treatment and preventive measures such as action on air pollution and smoking?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to make one point about the British Thoracic Society's report, which compared Britain with other European countries. One would not realise it from the coverage this morning, but the report was based on data from 1970 to 1998. The number of people dying from lung cancer has actually fallen by 1,500 in the past few years. Some 60,000 people were helped last year to stop smoking, and access to cancer specialists is faster than before. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a great deal more to do. In particular, far more research needs to be done, which is why the Government are funding a multi-million pound research programme specifically into the issues he raised.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that many Conservative Members greatly admire his handling of the current world crisis? However, is he also aware that if we had in place a common foreign policy, it would not be the Prime Minister travelling the world but probably Romano Prodi? If we had in place a Euro-army, the Prime Minister would almost certainly have much less control over his

    317
    British forces, currently on stand-by. Will he confirm that he will abandon completely all further moves towards European integration?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question, but his intervention sums up the problems of Conservative Eurosceptics. First, the hon. Gentleman said that we should not have a common foreign and security policy, but we have someone in the European Union who is already in charge of the common foreign and security policy—Mr. Solana.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the European Commission should not be involved in European defence. Under the European defence proposals, the European Commission is not involved in European defence. Thirdly, he seemed to think that we are setting up some sort of Euro-army. We are not. We are agreeing to have the capability in Europe should we wish, individually as countries, to decide to commit ourselves to peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. We can see why that is necessary from what is happening in Macedonia and in the Balkans today. We have the capability to form a proper defence force so that we can provide for keeping the parties apart in Macedonia and elsewhere, and provide the opportunity to build a peace
    318
    process there. A European defence capability is simply an additional weapon in our armoury for defence purposes, alongside NATO. It is entirely sensible. What is happening in the Balkans shows why it is necessary and it would not make the slightest difference to anything that we are doing in Afghanistan at the moment.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a report in the Daily Record claimed that service men and women on stand-by for Afghanistan have no suitable clothing for the winter that they would endure there? Will he investigate that claim and, if it is true, do all he can to alleviate the problem?
    The Prime Minister: I will examine the claim, but many such claims are made and when they are investigated are found to be absolutely baseless. I assure my hon. Friend that the British troops, who are among the best trained and equipped of any in the world, will be properly equipped for any mission that they may undertake in Afghanistan.
    I wish to take the opportunity to say that if we look at what British troops are doing in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone, it is clear that they are making a huge contribution to world security and peace. Of course they must have the proper equipment and we will ensure that they do so.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. It concerns 11 straightforward, factual questions tabled by me on 12 November and which related to Treasury involvement in decisions on Railtrack, to which the spectacularly unilluminating reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was:
"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."—[Official Report, 19 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 144W.]
Given the code of practice on access to Government information, the resolution of this House of 19 March 1997 that Ministers should comply with it, and the fact that most of my questions do not concern the detail of internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation or deliberation, but simply the dates of discussion and attendance at meetings, is not the Treasury's refusal to answer those questions an insult to Parliament, a breach of the code and a justification for a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for ministerial answers. That is a problem for the Minister, not for the Speaker.
Chris Grayling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hear what you say, but Members regard you as a key guardian of the interests of the House. On behalf of a constituent who has experienced rising insurance premiums, I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about insurance premiums since 11 September. I asked the Chancellor what representations he had received from other bodies on that matter, to which I received the reply:
"We receive representations on a wide range of subjects from a variety of organisations and individuals."
What expectations can hon. Members have that Ministers will answer their questions?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be persistent with Ministers. That is the best advice I can give him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to hon. Members who want to speak further on that point of order that I have made my views clear.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I intrude a little further? Although I understand precisely when you say that you cannot control ministerial answers, surely the Chair is right to issue guidance to Ministers that questions should be properly and fully answered.
Mr. Speaker: The Government issue guidance to Ministers, not the Speaker.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I raised with you the report of the parliamentary ombudsman, which stated that
"this is the first occasion on which a Government department has refused to accept the conclusions of the Ombudsman on a question of disclosure of information".
Following my point of order, I went to the Table Office and tabled a series of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, who, according to the Government, is responsible for the central secretariat which is
"the Government's central link with the parliamentary ombudsman".
Every question I table is transferred. How can I get the Minister to answer the questions, Mr. Speaker? Could you please advise?
Mr. Speaker: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but in the end it is not a matter for the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that these matters are not going to be pursued. I have made my case and I certainly cannot keep pursuing the matter.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I accept everything that you have just said, but could you perhaps give us some advice? I ask for your guidance on holding the Executive to account. If we cannot rely on rulings from the Chair, could you please tell us where we should go and how we can hold them to account? It is a simple question.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady must keep at Ministers. That is the best advice I can give her.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that there is a resolution of the House, which was passed in 1997, with regard to the duty of Ministers to make full and candid answers. Would you please advise the House what it can do when there is a manifest breach of the resolution of the House—as there frequently now is?
Mr. Speaker: Knowing that the resolution is there, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must persist. Other Members must persist. That is the best advice I can give in the circumstances.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we welcome your guidance and indeed respect it, as ever. You have told us, quite rightly, that the Government are responsible for the answers—or lack of answers—that Ministers give. But, Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of the relationship that must exist between the Government and this House of Commons. I am not asking for an answer now, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to reflect on how you believe you can guide the House further to make effective both the ministerial code and the relationship that should exist between the House and the Government. It would appear to have broken down completely, given the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We should welcome your further guidance,

321
Mr. Speaker, perhaps after further reflection, on what we can do other than repeatedly putting questions and repeatedly failing to receive answers from Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with what hon. Members have said. The right hon. Gentleman is right—let me reflect on the matter and I shall come back to the House.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not further to the previous point of order, because I think that I did not make a bad reply to the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) should quit while he is ahead.
Mr. Jack: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the status of the contents of "Erskine May". In your process of reflection, may I ask you to consider the advice therein, particularly as it reflects on the contents of questions?
Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter.

Litter and Fouling of Land By Dogs
3.38 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement.
The last time I led a debate on this subject in the House was at 5 o'clock one morning—an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) when he was a Minister. I am pleased that today he is a supporter of the Bill.
Litter is pollution, and I include dog fouling under the heading of litter. It is pollution in its most basic, common and widespread form. It has a very simple cause: people drop it, or permit their dogs to drop it, as a result of laziness, thoughtlessness, carelessness, plain disregard or sometimes even loutishness. It is very visible and it spoils the built and the natural environments. It is also a health risk.
Litter includes rotting material, broken glass, jagged metal, dangerous objects and cigarette ends, all of which can be picked up by young children. Worst of all, dog dirt can transmit toxocariasis to children, which can damage their eyesight, liver and lungs. About 100 children a year contract the disease in that way.
Litter pollution has a much simpler solution than most other forms of pollution. It does not take catalytic converters, international protocols, European directives, an integrated transport policy or a climate change levy to tackle it. The answer is simple—do not drop litter. Unfortunately, the long—standing culture in our country is one in which we live and walk about in litter. We try not to put our feet in dog dirt. We pay others to clear the whole lot up, and then moan that it is not all picked up.
We pay a total of £400 million a year in council tax for litter to be picked up. My council has to spend more than £500,000 a year and nebbish still accumulates in certain corners. What a sad way to have to spend money, and we must surely be mad if we carry on like this.
We have laws against dropping litter and dog fouling, both of which are offences, with maximum fines of £1,000, or even £2,500 in certain circumstances. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 placed statutory duties on councils and introduced fixed penalty fines of £25. The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 put dog fouling on the same basis as litter, but the law is not being enforced.
In 1996, in England and Wales, there were only 626 prosecutions in magistrates courts for littering, resulting in 468 convictions. By 1999, the figure had fallen to 501 prosecutions, with just 390 convictions. In 1999–2000, only 2,970 fixed penalty notices for littering and 1,538 for dog fouling were issued—this in a country of 56 million people. That low figure is not because not much litter is being dropped.
In my county of Suffolk, there seem to be only about five or six convictions a year, and in my district of Waveney, there have been no recent prosecutions and no fixed penalties for litter at all, with just one recorded fixed penalty for dog fouling since the 1996 Act came into force. Why is the law not being enforced? The answer is obvious: councils simply do not have the means to do so.

323
At the moment, councils have to return all the revenue from fixed penalty fines to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, although it amounts only to about £70,000 a year in total across the country—a measure of how little enforcement goes on. The average court fine is only £90, and, of course, those fines go to the Home Office.
Although 98 per cent. of councils have appointed dog wardens, that amounts to only one or two people in most cases. Only 47 out of 474 councils employ litter wardens—again, usually only two or three people. That is hardly an army, armed with fixed penalty notices, that can realistically tackle the millions of litter droppers and the 5.4 million dog—owning households that produce 1,000 tonnes of faeces daily. In addition, it costs councils £500 to take a prosecution to court.
People are concerned about the problem. As many hon. Members will know, such local quality of life and clean street issues are those most frequently mentioned when we knock on people's doors. A Tidy Britain Group survey two or three years ago on people's attitudes to local environmental quality issues found that dog fouling, at 80 per cent., and littered streets, at 60 per cent., were right at the top of the list. Those same concerns regularly fill the letters page of my local paper, the Lowestoft Journal.
Down the years, we have had campaigns—many led by the Tidy Britain Group—and we now have more litter bins in the country than ever before. We also have bins for doggy bags. However, the sad conclusion is that, when it comes to litter, education does not appear to work—and I say that as an ex—teacher. In fact, some of the most littered places I have seen are school playgrounds.
Certainly, people such as the driver of the Renault Clio, with the registration S627 WOR, whom I saw on 8 October at a roundabout near Beckton in east London, are beyond educating. Sitting in a traffic jam, I watched him lob a huge bag of McDonald's debris out of his car window. As we were stuck in traffic, I stepped out of my car, picked up the rubbish and asked him whether he would take it home or to a bin. I thought for a moment that I might have succeeded as he accepted it from me, but he just threw it out the other side of his car as I walked back to mine. The only answer for such people is to apply the well-established principle of making the polluter pay, thereby handing out a deterrent to other litterers.
324
The Bill would require councils to retain the revenue from fixed penalty fines for the specific purpose of enforcing the litter laws. Councils would then be able to—and, indeed, would have to—employ the wardens necessary to tackle the problem. We would change the culture relating to litter. Fixed penalties can work; a high proportion of those actually issued are paid.
The Bill involves that old friend of the Treasury—hypothecation. There are precedents. Councils finance the enforcement of residents parking schemes from the fines dished out. It is the same with off-street parking, and we are now using the fixed penalty fines for speeding detected by cameras to set up more cameras. We spent years trying to educate people to wear seat belts and crash helmets, but it was only when we introduced laws that were enforced did people change their ways. It could be the same with litter.
The Bill would make the polluter pay. It would cost the Government virtually nothing, and we could spend much of the £400 million a year litter clear-up bill on more constructive things. In April, the Prime Minister said the Government were minded to go down that route. I offer this Bill as a suitable vehicle.
The Bill would be popular. Last night, Meridian television carried out a telephone poll. It received the biggest response ever with almost 6,700 calls, 97 per cent. of them in favour of my proposals.
Litter will continue to blight our environment only for as long as we permit it. Let us get serious and enforce the law of the land, so that we can have cleaner streets, cleaner communities and a cleaner country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Blizzard, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Alan Meale, Lawrie Quinn, Joan Ryan and Mr. Jonathan Shaw.

Litter and Fouling of Land By Dogs
  LITTER AND FOULING OF LAND BY DOGS
  Mr. Bob Blizzard accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 20th November and pursuant to the Programme Order of 19th November (Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill)—

(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on the second allotted day;

(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses relating to the duration of the Act and reports to Parliament, Clause 123, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 20

6.00 p.m.

Clauses 21 to 35

8.30 p.m.

Clauses 106 to 119

10.00 p.m.

Second day

Clauses 36 to 42

6.30 p.m.

Clauses 43 to 58, Schedule 5, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 6, Clauses 71 to 87

8.00 p.m.

Clauses 88 to 100, Schedule 7, Clauses 101 to 105, Clauses 120 and 121, Schedule 8, Clause 122, Clauses 124 and 125, Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules—[Beverley Hughes.]

11.00 p.m.

3.49 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I do not want to trouble the House for long because we want to move on to the substantive matters, which are of huge importance. However, I have a question and want to register some concerns.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has explained to me that the programme motion as replicated in today's Order Paper is slightly different in a signal respect, from the Government's point of view, from the allocation of time as agreed. It does not refer to proceedings after 11 pm on the second day, which as I understand it are meant to include Report and Third Reading. Will the Minister illuminate the House on that troublesome point?
On a more serious note, I want to put on record our belief, which I am sure that Liberal Democrat Members and, I suspect, many Labour Members share, that it is wrong for the Lords to be allotted several days to consider the Bill when this House has one day for Second Reading and the greater part of two days exclusively for the purpose of scrutinising the Bill.
We have agreed a sensible division of the two days with the Government. I do not quibble about that. They have been generous in allocating the time as the Opposition thought fit, but it is not possible to allocate
326
two days in a way that enables the House to have sufficient time to scrutinise and pursue matters that are of the utmost importance in both our opinion and that of the Government. That is why, despite the agreement on the allocation of time, I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the motion. I also urge them to express their views, but to be brief so that we can move on as quickly as possible to the substance of the debate.
3.52 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to echo a couple of the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). Although it is of course true that we are operating within strict limits, and we object strongly to the overall limits, there has been agreement on how to divide up the time, which is better for our business. In particular, I hope that when there is general agreement on amendments, we will deal with them speedily.
It is surely ridiculous, however, that the Home Secretary told us earlier this week that it had taken no fewer than 10 weeks to produce the Bill, yet if we are lucky we will be able to spend 10 minutes on some of its most important aspects, some of which will have a great effect on the civil liberties and human rights of our fellow citizens and other nationals. It is extraordinary that, once again, we have to rely on the other place, at the other end of the building, to give vigilant scrutiny to legislation. As the country's elected representatives, we should be responsible for the vigilant scrutiny of matters that affect the nation's civil rights.
The Bill contains many diffuse issues. They cannot be easily bound up and dealt with together. Although it is important to cover the wider issues within the limited time available, we, too, believe that the motion puts the House in a difficult position.
3.54 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I, too, want briefly to add my support to what has been said and to register my grave concern about the motion. I interpret the fact that the Minister moved it formally as enthusiasm for getting on to the meat of the debate. That is the most charitable view, although it is strange that the Government do not want to say anything in their defence given the importance of the motion and the time that we have to debate it. They do not seem to want to explain why we have only two days. I hope that the Minister will speak at the conclusion of the debate and give us a glimpse of the Government's thinking. I am sure that she did not mean to be discourteous to House, and that she wished to hurry on to the important matters to be discussed, but I think that we are owed an explanation from the Government, however brief.
I entirely concur with the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that two days is not only ridiculously short, but is a dangerously short time in which to consider things that change some of the fundamental principles of our legal system, albeit, if there are changes to the sunset clauses, for a finite amount of time. Nevertheless, for the next five years at least, our legal system will have a very different tone and implication.
It is not just the two days to which I object, but the fact that today, in the two and a half hours between 6 o'clock and 8.30, we shall have to consider the very serious

327
question whether we want to go down the road to internment. We have had experience of internment in this country—let alone in Northern Ireland—twice in the last century, and we should have a chance to talk about it. Two and a half hours to consider the whole of part 4 is wholly inadequate given the grave seriousness of deciding to go for internment.
David Winnick: I understand the concern about programming, which I share to some extent, if not entirely, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to see The Times today, because it gives a great deal of coverage to a fundamentalist Muslim cleric in Britain who has been sentenced to death in Jordan and is involved, it is alleged, with a terrorist network. The Spanish judicial authorities who have been investigating the case find it very difficult to understand why no action is being taken in Britain. There is some urgency, therefore, in connection with several people in this country. The public are, no doubt, wondering how on earth those people were ever allowed in. The Muslim cleric was apparently allowed in about seven years ago. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand the concern among the British public, even though I understand his concern, and that of others, over the programme motion.
Mr. Fisher: Of course I understand those concerns, although I have not seen the reference in The Times to which my hon. Friend referred.
I stress that hon. Members' wish to consider these things is absolutely not, in this instance, a desire to reiterate or delay. Indeed, I believe that the fear shared by all who have grave worries about the Bill is that we shall not even reach some clauses. The idea of this, of all pieces of legislation, not having each of its clauses fully discussed and each of its implications considered is frightening.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why not arrest and try the individual to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) referred?
Mr. Fisher: I believe that when the House goes into Committee we shall discuss whether adequate powers to deal with some of these cases are already on the statute book.
David Winnick: There is, of course, an argument that the Home Secretary should explain why, if these allegations are true, the cleric has not been charged. However, if we work on the basis that it is not possible to bring charges—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would know, as we all do, that in such cases it is not always possible—should there not nevertheless be concern, which I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has already admitted, over cases of the type that I have mentioned, and which The Times publicises today?
Mr. Fisher: No one doubts the concern in the country and in all parts of the House, but the question that will be put to Ministers, with great force, and to which they must respond during the debate, is, in what regard does the present state of the law not allow us to deal with these
328
things? Many of us were lucky enough to be in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), with her considerable experience of these matters as a Queen's Counsel, spoke at the end of the Second Reading debate. She made what appeared to me, as a layman, a very plausible case to the effect that there was plenty of elasticity in the existing statutes to do exactly what the Government want.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to make the point that although the hon. Member for Walsall, North may be right to say that there is a degree of urgency regarding some individuals who cannot now be prosecuted, he should remember that the Bill contains many measures that, on any view, are not urgent; for example, on incitement to religious hatred. Why should we be conducting our scrutiny on such a fundamental issue in only two hours or so?
Mr. Fisher: I have great sympathy with the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have no doubt that he will express them when we come to those clauses.
We should proceed more slowly not only to achieve the quality of scrutiny that comes from debate, but to give us time to listen to expert voices from outside the House. There is a purpose behind the slow, measured and sometimes frustrating pace at which we pass legislation, which is to give us time to mull things over, sift out what is essential and listen to those who will be affected.
Last week, hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this subject would have received the first batch of submissions from the organisations with the most immediate and pressing interest in the Bill, such as Liberty and Amnesty International. I was interested to find that today's post brought a submission from the Confederation of British Industry. It would never have occurred to me that the interests of its members would be affected by this legislation, but its submission concerned the data implications of the Bill. Inevitably, other organisations and groups will want to make representations once they have had a chance to read the Bill, think about it and consult their members. After next Monday night, or within a very few days of it, it will effectively be too late to do so.
Norman Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members have spent more time in Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill than has been allotted for the entire Committee stage of this Bill, and we have only reached clause 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill? That is important legislation, but it is not as important as this.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
It is important that there should be more time to consider the Bill, not only for Members and those outside, but for Ministers. They need to consider what they want to achieve, although of course they have been thinking about that for the past 10 weeks, and to think how their intentions should be phrased. Moreover, that consideration must be tested in the House and against the opinion of outside experts and those who will be affected. I am sure that Ministers have paid attention to the Second Reading debate, to this debate and to the submissions from outside bodies, but I suspect that they have not given

329
themselves enough time to take account of all that. The Government have already tabled amendments, and I am glad because some of them are sympathetic and constructive, but they have not given themselves enough time for the wider considerations.
One has only to look, as I did this morning, at the debates in the House in 1940, when internment was introduced, to see that there was a huge gap between the Government's intentions about how internment would work, as expressed in the good, sincere thinking of the then Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, and the implementation of the policy by chief constables throughout the country. It escalated beyond the control of Parliament and the Government, despite their modest intentions.
The liberal protestations of regret that characterised the introduction of the policy were soon swept away by the flood of opinion about its implementation, which put a very different spin on the matter. That led to one of the most extraordinary and regrettable instances in our legal system, in which opponents of Nazism and Italian fascism were bundled together with Nazis and fascists in categories A, B and C and transported to the dominions or incarcerated here in appalling circumstances. Parliament was given assurances by the Government, which I am sure were well intentioned, but events worked out very differently.
We need to learn from history. There is a terrifying mood abroad in our society—a lack of interest in the past and a lack of understanding that the past is with us. The past is what we are; it is a live thing. I fear that the Government too often think that the past is out of date and irrelevant. It is not. We have very recent examples of internment in 1940 and 1914 and we should be learning from them.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers have not given themselves enough time. Will not he go further and recognise—anybody who has had the privilege of being a Minister will do so—that if very short timetables are set, the whole structure is geared to defending what is there, because changing it takes longer than not doing so. There is not only not enough time, but a psychological pressure on Ministers not to listen.
Mr. Fisher: All hon. Members will pay particular attention to that contribution, not only because of the right hon. Gentleman's experience in government, but because of his understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. He has given us wise words.
I make a late protest: we have not given ourselves time either for the particular, in relation to some clauses, or for the general, in relation to the whole Bill. I do not want to delay the House a moment further, but I express my hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least tell us briefly why the Bill is so pressing that we could not allow slightly more measured time for consideration and why the Government could not allow themselves more time to think about their response to the concerns expressed in the House and by people outside.
4.6 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what my old friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has said, which is of great importance to this House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not misunderstand me when I say that it is very regrettable that she did not introduce this short debate by giving us some indication as to why we are proceeding in this manner. She will forgive me if I remind her of what I told the Home Secretary on Monday. As I said then, some parts of the Bill may be urgent—I am not persuaded, but I recognise that such parts may exist—but it is clear from any viewpoint that there are large parts that are not urgent. The proper thing to do was to identify the provisions that were truly urgent, incorporate them into a short Bill and, if necessary, clear the parliamentary timetable—for example, last night's business could have been rescheduled—in order to give enough time to the business that we are now considering.
I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—it may have been my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—spoke about the time that is being given in the other place, where I believe that six days have been allotted. When this House does not properly consider legislation, it does two things. First, we destroy the implied bargain that exists between the citizen and the state in a democracy. When the House imposes obligations, which are always backed by penal sanctions, there is an implied bargain that we, the citizens' representatives, have properly considered the legislation and expressed an opinion about it. The truth is, however, that we will not do so tonight or on Monday. The bargain is being destroyed. When the electorate see that important measures are being introduced without discussion in this place, they will lose their understanding and respect for democracy.
Secondly, I say to the Government that, from time to time, people complain about the way in which the judges are extending the convention and becoming interventionist in their use of judicial review. Indeed, that point has been made by the Home Secretary and others on a number of occasions. One of the reasons why the judiciary is much more interventionist than it was, say, 20 or 30 years ago, is that it understands that this House is not properly discharging its functions. If this House fails properly to safeguard the liberty of the subject, it is not in the least surprising that other people try other methods of enshrining that liberty. That is why we see the interventionism of judges. Indeed, it also explains why I gave broad support to the incorporation in domestic law of the European convention on human rights. I recognise that that gives the judges a legislative function, but we ourselves are not performing our function.
I shall conclude shortly, but I want to make one more point. On any view, the clauses that deal with internment without trial are of fundamental importance; many amendments to them have been tabled. Theoretically, however, those clauses are to be discussed between 6 pm and 8.30 pm. If we have a division at 6 pm, as is likely, we will have two and a quarter hours at the very most in which we will be asked to destroy a fundamental principle of British law—that a person cannot be sent into detention without proper trial. We have two and a quarter hours to destroy a principle that has underpinned British law for 500 years.

331
Who, in all conscience, believes that that is right? It cannot be right; we are sending people to prison on the suspicion or belief of the Home Secretary, without allowing them a proper appeal of any kind. We are going to approve that in two and a quarter hours, so the majority of the amendments will not be discussed. That cannot be right and is deeply offensive.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I support entirely the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, is it not a little strange coming from his lips? He was a Member of the Government who did away with the right to silence and sought to gag the BBC without any vote at all, just statements in the House.
Mr. Hogg: Ever since I came to the House in 1979, I have defended the cause of liberty and the law; I stand for freedom, liberty and the law. Because of departmental responsibilities, I have not always been in a position to push that cause forward, but I have always believed in that principle. When I first came to the House in 1979, I was keen to bring about an elected second Chamber, and argued for that within my party as hard as I could. I recognise that the House is becoming an instrument of oppression; what we are doing tonight is part of that process.
4.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes)rose—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In no way do I wish to offend my hon. Friend the Minister. However, I was brought up in a world in which business motions, particularly contentious ones, were answered, not by the Minister who had responsibility for the legislation, but by a senior Government business manager. It may be out of fashion, but a Cabinet Minister should have been present to hear what was said on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] Well, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Richard Crossman when he was Leader of the House. On several occasions when he heard what was said in the House, he got on to the Prime Minister and business was altered; that is a matter of fact. It may be unfashionable to say so, but that is how it should be. The Leader of the House should respond to our debate.
Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I just add a matter for consideration by you and Mr. Speaker? On Monday night, we debated the order on derogation from the Human Rights Act 1998. The Home Secretary may have had a personal reason for his behaviour, but I am making political and constitutional point, not a personal one. He left early in our debate and was not present for any of it. For the first time in many years, we decided to put the matter to Parliament which, with Government support, voted to take us out of part of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. It would be helpful to have an assurance from the Government that Secretaries of State should be present for matters of major constitutional importance, however good their junior Ministers, and that they are present both for the debate and the vote at the end.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is not in the interests of the House to develop this point during a debate on what is already a timetabled motion. I am sure that what has been said has been heard. It may be re-attended to on another occasion. For the moment, the Chair is dealing with the Minister who is available.
Beverley Hughes: For those Members who have not noticed, there is a Secretary of State on the Government Front Bench who will have heard what has been said. My right hon. Friend will take part in the debate later this afternoon.
In the interests of trying to move to the substance of the Bill and in the interests of those Members who wish to speak in Committee, I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), asked why the motion does not refer to events after 11 pm on the second day. That is because we are not debating now the programme motion that allocated time. The programme motion before us is not the motion that is relevant to the points that most Members have made. That motion was put to the House on Monday. If the hon. Gentleman refers to that motion, he will see that it refers to Report and Third Reading taking place from 11 pm to 12 pm. That was the motion that allocated the overall time provision.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to tell us whether we are right in thinking that the motion to which the Minister is referring—namely, Monday's motion—was not even debatable?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter not for the Chair but for debate.
Beverley Hughes: I was pointing out in response to the shadow Home Secretary—
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand now the point that she is making.
Beverley Hughes: As for the general point that a number of Members have raised, the overall time allocated to the Bill in the House is the product of a difficult balance. As Members, we must balance what is required in relation to the urgency of the situation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) for pointing that out. We are in a state of public emergency. We are responding to urgent events, and it is important that we get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible. We must balance that with what is required in terms of public expectations.
How will the public expect us to behave when dealing with a Bill whose contents are a response to the events of 11 September? I think that the public will expect us to suspend our normal expectations and deal with these matters in an appropriate way, but in a way that responds to the urgency of the situation and to their expectations. We must balance these two points with what is required in terms of scrutiny. I accept, and so does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that many of the matters that

333
we are talking about in considering the Bill are of the grave seriousness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred.
We have the difficult job of balancing competing imperatives when we decide the amount of time that we need to allocate and the speed with which we need to get the Bill on to the statute book.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Minister explain, as she is speaking for the business managers, how it is that a third day of consideration, tomorrow or on Friday, which would not have extended the overall time during which the Bill is to be considered in the Chamber, proved to be impossible for the Government?
Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience as well as I that those matters were discussed between the usual channels well in advance of the time scale being agreed. The time that we have allocated is a product of that process, with which he is well familiar.
Mr. Eric Forth: I wondered when the Under-Secretary would get around to that point. Discussions took place between the usual channels, of which I regrettably find myself part. It was made clear at the time—before we knew the Bill's detailed contents—that although we recognised the urgency of key parts of the measure, the addition of many other elements would change the picture. It is inaccurate of the Government to portray the whole Bill as having been agreed.
Beverley Hughes: As far as I can recall, the only addition to the Bill since the Home Secretary's statement on 15 October—the provisions on bribery and corruption—was included with the consent of all parties. The Home Secretary made a detailed statement about the extent of the Bill, and that formed the basis of our discussions. As soon as we had a draft Bill, we shared it with Opposition spokespeople.
In the interests of hon. Members who want to speak about the substance of the Bill—that is why we are here—I shall conclude. I regret that the Opposition will extend the debate on the programme motion by voting. That will take away more time from discussion of the substance of the measure.
4.21 pm
Mr. Edward Garner: That was the most disappointing ministerial performance that I have witnessed for many years. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary attending the debate late and chuntering. We are debating the purpose of Parliament. If the Labour party, in the guise of that frightful Government, believes that it can ram stuff through, it is even worse than we thought.
The programme motion is unjustifiable, unnecessary, unbalanced and unwise. It will bring the Bill into disrepute. It is unjustifiable because the Home Secretary has boxed himself into a timetable. He and his ministerial colleagues said that the measure must be on the statute book by Christmas. No one else holds that view on the current Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members support
334
measures to combat terrorism and we understand the urgency of enacting them. However, we await a decent explanation from the Under-secretary or her more senior colleagues of why all the other material will be rushed through.
The Bill is unjustifiable not only on that basis. There are 30 pages of amendments and new clauses. Even the edited version—the marshalled list—contains plenty of dense and interesting issues for discussion.
David Winnick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify that point?
Mr. Garnier: I shall not bother with the hon. Gentleman.
David Winnick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garnier: No. Sit down.
The programme motion is unnecessary because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out today and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said on Second Reading, a great deal of material in the Bill could be tackled later in a different measure.
The motion is unwise because the Bill that we are supposed to be debating in a spirit of co-operation and urgency is embroiled in a controversy of the Government's making about the rushed way in which a measure that is important for its legal as well as constitutional implications will be placed on the statute book. There is no reason for the Government's behaviour and I deeply regret their actions.
The motion is unbalanced because, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the elected representatives of the public receive two days for debate in Committee and the House of Lords have six days to discuss the Bill. We had an interesting debate on Second Reading. It is regrettable that those who were unable to contribute to it will be confined to two days of consideration—today and next Monday. It is extraordinary that the Government believe that it is appropriate for the unelected House to spend more time than the House of Commons on the measure. That brings the legislation into disrepute.
We in this Parliament, whether Opposition or Government Members, seek to pass legislation that has public consent. Not everyone will agree with it or acknowledge the good sense behind the policy, but those who are the subject of the law know that it has been through a process that they understand and with which they agree. This important Bill is to be rammed through the House at short order. When brought into effect, I fear that it will not have the wholehearted consent of the public who send us here to discuss these matters.
In addition to the arguments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the hon. Member for North Cornwall and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I have heard only one good thing today. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, made the point that we shall at least express our distaste for the measure in a Division. That is all we can do, which is regrettable. I wish that I

335
could argue further on the timetable motion and the substance of the Bill, but this Government do not want to listen. Frankly, I do not think they care.
4.26 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: It is easy to lose sight of what these technical motions mean. On Monday, I sat on this Bench from 2.30 until the vote at 10 o'clock and each time I rose to catch the eye of the Chair I was unsuccessful. I remained in the House until business ended just after midnight. These motions deny a Member who is willing to take that much trouble to contribute the capacity to do so.
I accept that the electors of Hemel Hempstead may have been wrong to send me here in the first place, but the effect of a greatly restrictive timetable is to produce a situation in which those who want to contribute and make considerable efforts to do so are denied that contribution.
Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McWalter: I shall not take interventions, as I have about a minute left.
This Bench is a long way back from the Front Bench. Nevertheless, the concept behind the House is that Members who sit here as well as Members who sit there should be heard. The arrangements made for debate should give us the capacity to contribute, but I was not alone in being unable to take part. Many Members who contributed to the debate on this 114-page Bill were given only 10 minutes, so they had to focus and restrict their remarks considerably.
I strongly agree with the representations made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Restricting the timetable for a large Bill is different from restricting the timetable for a small, tight Bill. Had I been given a chance, I would have said that, among other things. Effectively, this is a very restrictive timetable motion—a gagging order on people who have been sent here to speak. That is an important element of the debate.
My next point relates to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who was not here at midnight on Monday. With almost no time left, one of my colleagues was finally called, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an important speech about whether our system has the capacity to confine people who constitute a threat to our country.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that decisions as to who is called in a Second Reading debate are a matter not for the Government, but for the Chair?
Mr. Deputy speaker: That is probably self-evident to the House.
Mr. McWalter: The order makes it impossible for whoever is in the Chair to accommodate all who want to express their views. It means that matters that the House should discuss, such as the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, can be given only very restricted consideration. I hope that the Government will take
336
seriously the impassioned pleas of Labour as well as Opposition Members, and give us a little more time to try and secure a Bill that is appropriate to the purpose and addresses the current legal deficiencies, while ensuring that those who want a say in its fashioning have an opportunity to speak.
4.30 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I support all that was said by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). I do so as one who broadly supports the Bill, voted for its Second Reading, and has only the same reservations as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—reservations that he expressed very clearly on Second Reading.
This has been a quiet week in the House. The business has been relatively unimportant. There was no reason why yesterday's Second Reading of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill could not have been delayed for a week. Tomorrow we are to debate Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill, hardly the most exciting legislation of the current Session. The idea that such matters should have priority over proper consideration of this Bill is outrageous. As for Friday's business, we could surely have passed a motion enabling private Members' Bills to be taken on another Friday. No harm would have been done if the business had been delayed by a week or two.
Beverley Hughes rose—
Mr. MacKay: I should be very happy to hear from the Minister why that has not happened.
Beverley Hughes: When the Conservative Government presided over the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996—I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was a Whip then, possibly deputy Chief Whip—did he object to the timetable governing those proceedings? I gather that it involved a statement on one day, all stages in the House of Commons on the following day, and all stages in the House of Lords, along with Royal Assent, on the day after that.
Mr. MacKay: If the Minister had been in the House at that time she would know that the Bill was very short and very precise, and that both sides of the House agreed that it could proceed through its stages quickly. This is a long and very complex Bill.
I would be quite happy for the Bill to go through in a week; I disagree with one or two other critics on that. I am saying that we should have had more time in which to debate it, because everyone would then have had the chance to express a view. This week's other business, which is at worst trivial and at best not very important, could have been delayed for a week. I hoped that the Minister would explain why the British Overseas Territories Bill is so important that its Second Reading must be debated tomorrow, rather than our having at least one extra day to debate this Bill in Committee. I now invite her to explain just why it is so important—but she shakes her head. [Interruption.] Let the Minister tell us just why the British Overseas Territories Bill is so important.
Mr. Hogg: Come on!
Mr. MacKay: If we had had Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday on which to debate this bill in Committee and on Report, most of us who are critical of the timetable motion—the hon. member for Stoke-On-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) nods—would have withdrawn our criticism. Nothing would have been lost, and the Minister and the Home Secretary would have gained a little credit.
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [28 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
The house divided: Ayes 334, noes 213.

Division No. 71]

[4.34 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

(Norwich S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Alexander, Douglas

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Allen, Graham

Clelland, David

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Clwyd, Ann

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Coaker, Vernon

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Atkins, Charlotte

Cohen, Harry

Austin, John

Bailey, Adrian

Coleman, Iain

Baird, Vera

Colman, Tony

Banks, Tony

Connarty, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Barron, Kevin

Corston, Jean

Battle, John

Cousins, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Cranston, Ross

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Crausby, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Cruddas, Jon

Benn, Hilary

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Berry, Roger

Best Harold

Cummings, John

Betts, Clive

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Blackman, Liz

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Blizzard, Bob

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Daisley, Paul

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

David, Wayne

Bradshaw, Ben

Davidson, Ian

Brennan, Kevin

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Dawson, Hilton

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Browne, Desmond

Denham, Rt Hon John

Bryant, Chris

Dhanda, Parmjit

Buck, Ms Karen

Dobbin, Jim

Burden, Richard

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Burgon, Colin

Donohoe, Brian H

Burnham, Andy

Doran, Frank

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Drew, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Drown, Ms Julia

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle Maria (L'pool Garston)

Caplin, Ivor

Caton, Martin

Edwards, Huw

Cawsey, Ian

Efford, Clive

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Chaytor, David

Ennis, Jeff

Clark, Mrs Helen (Petetborough)

Etherington, Bill

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Flint, Caroline

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

338

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Linton, Martin

Foulkes, George

Lloyd, Tony

Galloway, George

Love, Andrew

Gapes, Mike

Lucas, Ian

Gardiner, Barry

Luke, Iain

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Lyons, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Gilroy, Linda

McCabe, Stephen

Goggins, Paul

McCafferty, Chris

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McDonnell, John

Grogan, John

MacDougall, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McFall, John

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McIsaac, Shona

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)

Mandeteon, Rt Hon Peter

Hepburn, Stephen

Mann, John

Hesford, Stephen

Marris, Rob

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hill, Keith

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hodge, Margaret

Martlew, Eric

Hood, Jimmy

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Merron, Gillian

Hope, Phil

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hopkins, Kelvin

Miliband, David

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Miller, Andrew

Howarth, George (Knowsby N)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Howells, Dr Kim

Moffatt. Laura

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Moran, Margaret

Humble, Mrs Joan

Mortey, Elliot

Hurst, Alan

Mullin, Chris

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Munn, Ms Meg

Iddon, Dr Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Illsley, Eric

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jamieson, David

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jenkins, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Organ, Diana

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Owen, Albert

Joyce, Eric

Palmer, Dr Nick

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Perham, Linda

Keeble. Ms Sally

Picking, Anne

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pickthall, Colin

Kemp, Fraser

Pike, Peter

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Plaskitt, James

Khabra, Piara S

Pollard, Kerry

Kidney, David

Pond, Chris

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pope, Greg

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Pound, Stephen

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lammy, David

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Primarolo, Dawn

Laxton, Bob

Prosser, Gwyn

Lazarowicz, Mark

Purchase, Ken

Lepper, David

Purnell, James

Leslie, Christopher

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Levitt, Tom

Quinn, Lawrie

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rammell, Bill

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rapson, Syd

339

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Tami, Mark

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Rooney, Terry

Timms, Stephen

Ross, Ernie

Tipping, Paddy

Roy, Frank

Todd, Mark

Ruane, Chris

Touhig, Don

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Trickett, Jon

Ryan, Joan

Truswell, Paul

Salter, Martin

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Savidge, Malcolm

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sawford, Phil

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Shaw, Jonathan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sheerman, Barry

Tynan, Bill

Sheridan, Jim

Walley, Ms Joan

Shipley, Ms Debra

Ward, Ms Claire

Simon, Siôn

Watson, Tom

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Watts, David

Skinner, Dennis

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Wills Michael

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wilson, Brian

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Winnick, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Soley, Clive

Wood, Mike

Southworth, Helen

Woodward, Shaun

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Woolas, Phil

Squire, Rachel

Worthington, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wray, James

Steinberg, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stevenson, George

Wright, David (Telford)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wyatt, Derek

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mr. Ian Pearson and

Stringer, Graham

Mr. John Heppell.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Allan, Richard

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Carmichael, Alistair

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Cash, William

Bacon, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Baker, Norman

Baldry, Tony

Chidgey, David

Barker, Gregory

Chope, Christopher

Baron, John

Clappison, James

Beggs, Roy

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Bellingham, Henry

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bennett, Andrew

Collins, Tim

Bercow, John

Conway, Derek

Boswell, Tim

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Cran, James

Brady, Graham

Curry, Rt Hon David

Brake, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Brazier, Julian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Breed, Colin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brooke, Annette

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Djanogly, Jonathan

Bruce, Malcolm

Dodds, Nigel

Burnett, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Burns, Simon

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Burstow, Paul

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Butterfill, John

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Cable, Dr Vincent

Evans, Nigel

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Ewing, Annabelle

Cameron, David

Fabricant, Michael

340

Fallon, Michael

Mawhmney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

May, Mrs Theresa

Fisher, Mark

Mercer, Patrick

Flight, Howard

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Flook, Adrian

Moore, Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Moss, Malcolm

Francois, Mark

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Gale, Roger

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Garnier, Edward

Ôpik, Lembit

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Gerrard, Neil

Ottaway, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Page, Richard

Gidley, Sandra

Paice, James

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Paisiey, Rev Ian

Paterson, Owen

Goodman, Paul

Pickles, Eric

Gray, James

Price, Adam

Grayling, Chris

Prisk, Mark

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Pugh, Dr John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Randall, John

Greenway, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Grieve, Dominic

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Rendel, David

Hammond, Philip

Robathan, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Harvey, Nick

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Hawkins, Nick

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hayes, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Heath, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Rosindell, Andrew

Hermon, Lady

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Salmond, Alex

Holmes, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Horam, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Shepherd, Richard

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Simmonds, Mark

Hunter, Anderw

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

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

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Soames, Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Spink, Bob

Keetch, Paul

Spring, Richard

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Key, Robert

Stunell, Andrew

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Swayne, Desmond

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Swire, Hugo

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Syms, Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lamb, Norman

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Laws, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Leigh, Edward

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Letwin, Oliver

Thurso, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Trend, Michael

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Lidington, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyler, Paul

Loughton, Tim

Tyrie, Andrew

Luff, Peter

Walter, Robert

McIntosh Miss Anne

Waterson, Nigel

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Webb, Steve

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Weir, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

McNamara, Kevin

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

McWalter, Tony

Wiggin, Bill

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wilkinson, John

Malins, Humfrey

Willetts, David

Maples, John

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mates, Michael

Wishart, Pete

341

Wright, Tony (Connock)

Tellers for the Noes:

Yeo, Tim

Yound, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. David Wilshire and

Younger-Ross, Richard

Mr. Charles Hendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 20th November and pursuant to the Programme Order of 19th November (Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill)—

(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on the second allotted day;

(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses relating to the duration of the Act and reports to Parliament, Clause 123, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 20

6.00 p.m.

Clauses 21 to 35

8.30 p.m.

Clauses 106 to 119

10.00 p.m.

Second day

Clauses 36 to 42

6.30 p.m.

Clauses 43 to 58, Schedule 5, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 6, Clauses 71 to 87

8.00 p.m.

Clauses 88 to 100, Schedule 7, Clauses 101 to 105, Clauses 120 and 121, Schedule 8, Clause 122, Clauses 124 and 125, Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules

11.00 p.m.

Order of the day

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
  4.47 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I believe that you may, in another guise, have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was inadvertently unfair to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in asking her to explain why the Bill had not been given enough time in the House. He would have done better to ask the Leader of the House to give that answer but was unable to do so because the right hon. Gentleman, although in the House, was not in the Chamber. Is it possible for him to be in the Chamber so that this question may be asked of him?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, which Ministers are on the Bench to answer questions is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that his point has been noted; a similar point was made somewhat earlier.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
    New Clause 6

      DURATION
      (1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.

      (2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide—

      (a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;

      (b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

      (c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

      (3) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

      (4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

      (5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Letwin.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Report to Parliament No. 1—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of this Act as they relate to terrorism.'.

      343
      New clause 8—Report to Parliament No. 2—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of the Parts of this Act which relate to terrorism.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 72, 42, 66 and 73 to 75, and clause 123 stand part.
      Mr. Letwin: I am not privy to the discussions that may have gone on between the Government and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but from listening to the interchange during the debate on the programme motion I sensed—perhaps mistakenly—that the Government might be offering to concede on the version of new clause 6 that has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. We shall undoubtedly discover whether that is the case as we proceed.
      I want specifically to point out the respects in which new clause 6, tabled jointly by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, differs from that which has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. The Committee's proposition is a huge advance on the position in the Bill. We would welcome a concession, but our view—for reasons that I shall explain—is that the Home Affairs Committee version is not tough enough to enable the House and the Government to inquire sufficiently, over succeeding years, into the effects and implications of the most controversial parts of the Bill.
      Ministers will already fully understand new clause 6, but I apologise to the Committee because the drafting is inelegant and it may be opaque on first reading. The intent, however, is simple. New clause 6 is best read from back to front. The underlying intent of new clause 6(5) does not differ greatly from that of the Home Secretary. It would provide that part 4—the most controversial part—would cease to have effect after a year. The Bill would give that provision a 15-month renewal clause, so although there is a significant difference between a complete lapse and a renewal and a minor difference between 15 months and a year, our underlying thoughts are similar to those of Ministers.
      New clause 6(4) would apply a two-year lapse period to the second most controversial class of parts of the Bill—parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13. Part 5, which covers incitement to religious hatred, might have been better included in new clause 6(5) and given only a year before it lapses, but we opted—in the spirit of attempting to reach eventual consensus with the Government—to give it and the other parts I mentioned two years before they lapse. New clause 6(3) relates to the remaining parts of the Bill except part 12. They are less controversial and we opted for a period equal to that suggested by the Home Affairs Committee—five years.
      Having moved from the end of the new clause towards the front, I beg the Committee to move from the front towards the middle. New clause 6(1) and (2) describe the flexibility that we wish to give the Home Secretary, within the constraints that I have just described—one-year, two-year and five-year lapses for parts of descending order of controversy—to renew parts or to let them lapse and bring them back. The only other effect of new clause 6(1) would be on part 12—the implementation of the OECD convention on bribery and corruption—which would be left intact with no lapse period, because it is a matter of cross-party agreement and I am reasonably confident that such minor amendment as we have proposed will eventually be the subject of agreement, if merited. It is a purely technical amendment.
      344
      The sum result is that we wish the Committee to recognize—and if it does not, that the other place will do so—that the necessary constraints under which Ministers have laboured in producing a Bill at high speed and under which the House and the other place labour in scrutinising it at even higher speed, as we have already heard, should be matched by an exceptional rigour in forcing the Executive to bring back sections of the Act, as it will be, for fundamental renewal. The renewals would be more frequent the more controversial the provisions. I hope that we can reach consensus on that point. Many issues will be debated in the next few hours, next Monday and in the other place.
      We ought to be able to agree that it is as much in the interests of the Government as it is in the interests of Parliament and of the people that there should be the opportunity to discover whether the intent of the Bill—I have always admitted throughout these proceedings and in all public pronouncements that the Home Secretary's intent is noble and justified—is reflected in the outcomes it provides.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: As always, my hon. Friend explains his case with exemplary clarity. May I ask him a question about new clause 6(2)(c)? It states:
      "The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide … that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months."
      I understand that a provision that the Secretary of State wishes to lapse should be dealt with by order. That broadly covers subsection (2)(b). I can also understand that the continuance of an existing provision should be made by order of the Secretary of State, but when a provision has lapsed—for one, two or three years—is my hon. Friend able to convince me that it should be revived by order rather than by some more fully debated system?
      Mr. Letwin: I certainly do not know whether I shall be able to convince my hon. and learned Friend. If I can, it will be a good test of whether I am right. He is one of those Members whose legal knowledge and attention to these matters is of the greatest. Let me try to convince him.
      We believe that the constraints established by subsections (3), (4) and (5), which will force primary legislation de novo for part 4 within a year, for parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 within two years and so forth, already create a sufficient lever for Parliament against the Executive. Subsection (3) would allow part 1, a relatively uncontroversial part of the Bill, to stand for five years. Under subsection (2)(c), to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, the Home Secretary would have the option to implement the provision, to let it lapse because it was no longer deemed necessary or to bring it back again within five years. Given that at the end of five years primary legislation would be required to re-enact the provision, it seemed to us reasonable that he should have that flexibility within the five-year period.
      I certainly do not regard that as a cardinal point. If my hon. and learned Friend were able to persuade me or the Committee that new clause 6 was appropriate, bar subsection (2)(c), I should not dream of going to the stake about it. However, the flexibility that we are providing is appropriate, given the strict rigour that we are applying to the Government's actions under the sunset clause.

      345
      Furthermore, if the provision stretches the patience and tolerance of my hon. and learned Friend, that is a good indication of the lengths to which we have gone to try to ensure that we achieve consensus with the Government. We have tried to ensure that the new clause provides sufficient flexibility that reasonable Ministers, acting in their own self-interest as well as that of the House and of the country, could accept the new clause.
      Finally—I certainly do not want, in these proceedings or elsewhere, to go beyond the requirements of the subject matter—I merely observe that if Parliament passes large sections of the Bill intact, without a serious sunset clause, questions will be raised about the legitimacy of parliamentary proceedings in this country. It is perfectly right that the Home Secretary of the day, attending to a major national crisis, should introduce emergency legislation to deal with it. It is perfectly right that he should entertain the possibility of engaging in legislation of a kind that I suspect for him, and certainly for us, has a rather difficult feel to it. However, it cannot be right to do so at speed, and without the provision—right from the beginning—to enable Parliament to reconsider these controversial issues. The effect of not including such a sunset clause will be to cast into disrepute measures that are in principle acceptable and necessary. So I hope that the Home Secretary will, on mature reflection, support and welcome new clause 6, and I offer to describe it as "the Blunkett amendment" if that helps.
      5 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): In speaking to the Government amendments and suggesting that clause 123 stand part, I want first to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the substantive issue—the sunset clause.
      I said on Monday that we were—in my view, rightly—prepared to listen and respond to proposals, made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by other hon. Members, that would reassure the two Houses and were material to ensuring that the Bill would be in a good state when it gained Royal Assent. I meant what I said, and we will do so during the Bill's passage through Parliament. The speed with which it proceeds does not affect our willingness to be prepared to listen and respond.
      The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has suggested, having deliberated such issues in that Committee, that it would be appropriate to draft a clause that did not simply reinforce the return to the detention powers in clauses 21 to 23 annually, for which provision is already made in the Bill, so that Parliament can debate such issues under the affirmative procedure, but for longer than an hour and a half, as we said on Monday. He suggested that the content of those clauses should be put to the House afresh, so that it could show whether it was willing to reaffirm them.
      I am prepared to agree on behalf of the Government that, on Report, we shall move a Government amendment providing a sunset clause after five years. That would allow us to determine whether we as a Parliament felt that the detention provisions were justified and acceptable any longer.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I thank the Home Secretary for what he says. His willingness to listen
      346
      to what the Select Committee and others have said will make it very much easier for those hon. Members who have some discomfort about the Bill to support it in the Lobby later on.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. I am genuinely prepared to continue to listen and to refute those who have the unfounded belief that we have malice aforethought in assuming that we can have questions and debates that are more like those of the court room than of Parliament.
      I only quote The Guardian to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), but, on 13 November, Hugo Young asked:
      "how long will the emergency last? When will circumstances permit it to be lifted? If the minister is left to decide this alone, does anyone seriously expect this ever to happen?"
      The answer is yes—people do seriously expect it to happen, and it will happen not only in the annual reaffirmation but in the sunset clause.
      I am also prepared to respond to a further proposal, which appears on the amendment paper, from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the sensible suggestion that, as with the Terrorism Act 2000, we should allow the reviewer of the Terrorism Act to review the operation of the detention clauses in time to report before the first review by Parliament—that is, when they return to Parliament for reaffirmation.
      David Winnick: I hope that, when the occasion arises, the Home Secretary will make another important concession, which I mentioned on Monday. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I very much welcome what he says, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Does it not destroy the argument used by some Opposition Members that the Government and Labour Back Benchers are indifferent to civil liberties—that we could not care less about them and that we simply vote without any concern for the civil liberties of people in the country, including those who are not nationals? The Home Secretary shows how deeply concerned we are, and I am very pleased that he has listened to the Committee's recommendation.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Throughout my time in politics—a very long time—there have been many occasions, not least the terrible traumas in the Labour party in the 1980s, when abuse rather than persuasion was the order of the day. I have never relented in the face of abuse and I have always said that if people try to persuade they are more likely to receive a hearing. As long as I am in this job, I shall be prepared to listen to persuasion from Members on both sides. I am pleased that Lord Carlile accepted my invitation to undertake the duty of reviewing the clauses and of reporting back in time for the House to hold its deliberations.
      I do not intend to speak for long as there is very little time available, but I need to refer to new clauses 6, 7 and 8, which were tabled jointly by the two opposition parties. We really cannot accept sunset clauses that deal with issues that—by anyone's standard and irrespective of how long they have been debated—would be accepted by us all.
      Do we want to retain the power to remove unauthorised intruders from aircraft and airfields? Of course we do. Who wants to reject after two, four or five years the

      347
      updating of the Aviation Security Act 1982? What is the point of tabling sunset clauses for issues on which we are all agreed? Do we seriously want a sunset clause to ensure that we can no longer protect civil nuclear sites in the way they will be secured and, as Members said on Monday, should have been secured a long time ago under previous legislation? Do we really oppose measures that retain on the statute book powers against the aiding and abetting of people transporting nuclear weapons?
      Mr. Letwin: Does the Home Secretary accept that, although we certainly agree with the intent behind such provisions, there is a difference between agreeing with the intent and being sure now that the drafting will have the effect that he and I jointly desire?
      Mr. Blunkett: The limited but genuine exercise to try to engage everyone in the past few weeks and the genuine commitment to respond to sensible suggestions, including drafting suggestions made here or in the House of Lords, are designed to meet that point. For example, if we have got wrong the provisions to protect us against the ebola virus, we will be very happy to respond to suggestions about how we get them right. However, the idea that we shall run out of time and that, in the next few years, we shall change our view on how we should protect ourselves does not do the House justice. The proposals would allow opposition for its own sake and not for the sake of getting the measures right. I want to be brief, but that is why we oppose the new clauses.
      By all means let Members suggest changes that are appropriate to improving the legislation, but let us not for political or parliamentary procedural reasons suggest that sensible provisions that should have been sorted out a long time ago should be held up in years to come and brought back to the House. If they are, that will be at the expense of the other legislation for which Members on both sides will be pressing. They will ask why a Bill has been left out or why the Government have not managed to achieve what they wanted to do. They will ask why their constituents are demanding that we should have done this, that or the other—whether on the national health service or foxhunting—when we are bringing back large parts of a Bill that people agree with but wish to make a point about.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary not understand the consequences of the argument that he is adducing? Precisely because, on every future occasion, there will be pressures for other legislation, Ministers will say that it appears, on reflection, that such legislation should be put through very quickly and perhaps not in the form that we would like. The many other competing claims might mean that we do not return to a certain Bill, and that might be one reason why we have had defective Official Secrets Acts for so long.
      Mr. Blunkett: That argument does not damage my point. The Leader of the House is endeavouring to allow sufficient time for us to debate the issues that hon. Members wish to address while using parliamentary procedures and timetables that bear some relation to what people outside expect. As I have said several times, I am in favour of timetabling every Bill because that benefits constituents. There is an interesting anomaly, and the
      348
      shadow Home Secretary was good enough to mention the clause on bribery and corruption. We agreed to it because we and the Opposition parties wanted it and it was an international obligation.
      We should pause and reflect on the fact that the Bill may be long, but we have tried to get the wording right and to replicate the provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is on the intent of the Bill that we should be agreeing or disagreeing, not on whether bits of it, with the exception of one clause, should have to return to the House to be put through as a substantive parent measure just because people are irritated about the speed with which we are operating. It is on that basis that I ask the Committee to reject new clauses 6, 7 and 8.
      Simon Hughes: I begin by agreeing with the Home Secretary's decision to accept the proposal by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as contained in amendment No. 53, to give a sunset maximum life of five years to part 4, which contains the most controversial measure—detention without trial. Of course that is welcome.
      It is also welcome that the Home Secretary has said that there should be a reporting back procedure on those measures that relate to terrorism, which is in line with the recommendation of the Select Committee and new clauses 7 and 8. This is my first chance to say in public how glad we are that he has appointed our noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, a former Member of this House, to be the new reviewer of terrorist legislation. That job was created by the Terrorism Act 2000 and will be extended to this legislation.
      Although those measures are welcome, there are others on which the Home Secretary needs persuading. I intend to do that by persuading him on their merits, the tactic that he says works best. He does not understand the nature of the case put by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The issue is one of principle. Parliament is being asked to have unusual timetables and exceptional measures of procedure, and the House of Commons is to spend a total of three days on a Bill. The timetable has not been agreed with the parties. With the exception of the clause on bribery and corruption, which the Government asked the Opposition parties to accept, the proposals have not been agreed in detail; yet they are trying to use emergency procedures, as evidenced by Monday's vote on a guillotine motion that gave us today and next Monday to debate the Bill's substance. In such a case, legislation should always come back to Parliament. It is not a case of whether it is controversial. The principle is that Parliament must hold the Government to account.
      Mr. Blunkett: Why then does the hon. Gentleman not accord that principle to the clause that was agreed? We agreed to many clauses in our discussions, although they did form part of a bigger Bill. If I introduced them one by one and suggested that they were, as they are, emergency provisions, and if the parties agreed to them, would they add up to the same clause on bribery and corruption as he is prepared to accept?
      5.15 pm
      Simon Hughes: Not only is the answer no, but that is an unfair and unreasonable comment. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways. His Minister came,

      349
      no doubt with his blessing, specifically to obtain the agreement of the other parties to the inclusion of that particular proposal on bribery and corruption. No other proposal came to us. We were not consulted on whether other parts should be included. I expressly agreed with the Minister that the measure would be the only ring-fenced provision. I accepted that it could go through without the usual requirement for it to return to the House, because it was part of the policy supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Home Secretary must not pretend otherwise. He is wrong to do so, and he is misleading the House if he is suggesting that anything else happened. I am going to be tough with him because this is completely unreasonable.
      Mr. Blunkett: If you accuse me of misleading the House, I have the right to make the clear point that over the past three weeks we did not bring clauses singly to the parties—except for the bribery and corruption clause, which was drafted after the substantive clauses had been presented to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party in substantial form. You might not like the form in which they were presented, but they were presented. I object strongly to the suggestion that I misled the House—
      The Chairman: Order. I have not suggested anything about the Secretary of State. I let the matter go because the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke in the conditional tense. I do not think that he was aiming a direct slur at the Home Secretary.
      Simon Hughes: I was careful to do that, as the Home Secretary will realise if he refers to the transcript of the debate.
      We have not agreed to the detail of the rest of the Bill; therefore it must come back to Parliament if we are to have an emergency procedure. That applies generally and in particular to the more controversial provisions, especially the powers of the state. The Government have introduced the Bill to give the state more power. In that respect, it is important that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. We propose that there should be a five-year period for the uncontroversial matters to return to us, a two-year period for the relatively controversial matters of police powers and European legislation, and a one-year period for detention without trial, which is four years earlier than the Select Committee wanted. That is a considered proposal to ensure that everything that has not been agreed returns.
      Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when there is such full-hearted agreement in the immediate aftermath of a disaster or terrorist outrage, experience teaches us that that is when we may well make mistakes? When the Home Secretary suggests that everyone agrees to this legislation so there is no need to return to it, the experience of everything from the Dangerous Dogs Bill to any other emergency legislation teaches us that when we all agree we soon find out that we should have disagreed.
      Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member is a former Minister and former chairman of his party and he is
      350
      absolutely right. The Bill is a mixture of general agreement on matters that are not fundamentally important to our constitution, and huge disagreement on some matters that are very important. I pray in aid the fact that the Select Committee noted at paragraph 10 of its report:
      "Since 1974, at least eight Acts have been passed by Parliament, dealing with terrorism. Those in 1974, 1996 and 1998 were passed by the House with great speed. The other five were taken at the normal pace … The three Bills which passed quickly were relatively short—between seven and 13 clauses or 12 to 14 pages—and passed all stages on a single day at sittings of up to 17 hours … It is proposed"
      —these are the Select Committee's words, not mine—
      "that this Bill (which is ten times longer) should be considered at three sittings—one day for second reading and two days for Committee".
      The Committee concludes:
      "We question whether it is appropriate for this Bill to be passed through the House of Commons in exactly two weeks with only three days of debate on the floor of the House. A Bill of this length … with major implications for civil liberties should not be passed by the House in such a short period and with so little time for detailed examination in committee."
      Those are the words of an all-party Committee, considering the Bill and forming a clear view.
      I shall quote just two sentences from paragraph 79 of the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2001–02:
      "Careful consideration is not, however, aided by the decision to push a Bill of this size and complexity through Parliament at such breakneck speed. Too many ill-conceived measures litter the statute book as a result of such rushed legislation in the past."
      Matthew Taylor rose—
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Simon Hughes: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
      Mr. Garnier: Is not the very good point that the hon. Gentleman is making reinforced by the selection list? In the first allotted day, before 6 o'clock, there are 15 underlined subheadings to be dealt with, many of them subdivided. The Home Secretary very fairly said that he was prepared to listen, but if we do not have time to talk to him, he will find it quite difficult to listen.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): You are taking up time now.
      Simon Hughes: Ministers cannot say that we are taking up time now. Members of Parliament are sent to this place to debate issues; I am sorry about that. We are sent to Parliament to ask Government questions. We are sent to Parliament to question whether the Government have got things right. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough is absolutely right, as are my hon. Friends, to point out that it is impossible to do so if there is no time allocated to do it.
      It is a constitutional matter. We—ordinary people, the people whom the Home Secretary commends: the trade union movement, women, students—have fought over the years for Parliament, not the Executive, to be supreme: for Parliament to have the chance to decide, not the

      351
      Executive. The Home Secretary must understand, and I am sure that he does if he is straightforward with the House on this matter, that Parliament must be here to hold each and every Government to account, including his; and on matters emanating from the Home Office, to do with the powers of the state and liberty, Parliament must do its duty above all, for us, and for future generations as much as anyone else.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Simon Hughes: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).
      Matthew Taylor: I want to catch my hon. Friend before he goes too much further. A moment ago, the Home Secretary intervened to argue that the bribery and corruption clauses had been presented to the Opposition parties because they were drafted subsequent to the main items of the Bill. I was grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the time to discuss that issue with me, because it was something that I had pressed on him, and we welcome the introduction of those clauses. However, my understanding was that the discussion took place on the basis that there was some question as to whether they were appropriate for inclusion in the Bill, because although they might have indirect links with terrorism they were not directly linked with it, and whether we would support them in view of that issue, not because they were drafted late.
      Simon Hughes: That is exactly the point, and that was the subject of the debate. The debate was about whether—without prejudice to the question of whether there was a terrorism link—because there was perceived by Government to be a relevance, and it was a reasonable case that there might be, and because everyone else had said that they supported these proposals, and they were part of an international obligation, we would accept the Bill as a home for them. Without prejudice to the rest of the Bill, we said yes to that.
      The whole debate about the Bill, however, and about the justification for it—I hope that we shall have that debate shortly—is about whether the Bill should be a general Bill about terrorism, crime, security and other things, or whether it should be a terrorism-related Bill only. Those of us on the Opposition Benches who are trying to do our constitutional job are saying that if the Government want Parliament to pass a Bill quickly to deal with an emergency, it must be limited to matters that are to deal with that emergency.
      Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
      Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
      The Chairman: Order—I now wish to intervene. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the duration clause. I know that there are various interconnected issues but we must, for the sake of good order, keep within the confines of the new clause.
      Simon Hughes: Of course, Sir Alan. I wish to take two interventions. Let me deal with the last substantive points before I let my colleagues intervene and then allow others to speak.
      352
      The reason Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Front-Bench team have sought to work together on the new clause and others is to try to achieve the maximum agreement to save time as far as possible, so as to create a basis for reasonable agreement in both Houses. That is why, conscious of the timetable, we have separated out the most controversial aspect of the measure and given it a specific one-year duration proposal—we believe that detention without trial should not be authorised by rushed legislation, given all the controversial issues that were raised on Monday night, without its returning properly to the House after being considered in the other place—and why we have suggested, in relation to a limited number of proposals, that some of them, but only some of them, should have a two-year life.
      I remind the House of what those proposals are. They are: the parts of the Bill dealing with exchange of information among Government Departments—controversial; the part of the Bill dealing with race and religion—extremely controversial, if it were to reach the statute book; the part of the Bill dealing with police powers and their extension—extremely controversial; the part of the Bill dealing with communication data and the control by authorities of data—also controversial; and lastly, and not accidentally, the power that the Bill gives Ministers to introduce, by secondary legislation and by order, legislation that has only ever seen scrutiny by Ministers in Brussels and has not even been to the European Parliament. It is not unreasonable to argue that that sort of legislation, when we do not have time to scrutinise it and we may not in the House have time to debate much of it either, should have to return to this place, definitely, certainly and not conditionally on the whim of the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Tyler: I am grateful that my hon. Friend continued his speech somewhat before taking my intervention, because it makes my point even more formidable. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary is taking a huge risk by resisting these sensibly, carefully crafted amendments, because by resisting them in the House, where the Government have a majority, he is simply inviting the other House to spend more time examining these issues and perhaps reaching a more rational and carefully crafted conclusion than we are able to in the House. He is taking that absurd risk by pushing the Bill through without these central amendments, because he will come a cropper at the other end of the building.
      Simon Hughes: I not only accept that, but I hope that the Home Secretary accepts that if he does not want his Bill bouncing around between both Houses of Parliament in the days leading up to Christmas—
      Mr. Blunkett: That is a threat.
      Simon Hughes: No, it is not a threat. It is a constitutional process, not a threat. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it has happened in every Parliament he and I have been in this place. The House of Lords has a job to do. When it overturns the Government or amendments are made, the legislation returns to this place, and the more the Government resist in this place, the more will have to be overturned in the other place, and the more it will have to come back to this

      353
      place. I am seeking to do what the Home Secretary said he wanted to do, which was to make proposals with widespread support, which will be supported in this and the other place.
      Mr. Hogg: Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his arguments are further reinforced by this consideration? We are now debating a group of new clauses and amendments, and the debate must end by 6 o'clock. There are actually 20 clauses in the schedule on which discussion must end by 6 o'clock. Some of them relate to the Treasury's powers to freeze money or to seize what is described as terrorist cash. The truth is that we shall never reach any of those clauses because we must terminate this part of the debate by 6 o'clock. Very important things—
      The Chairman: Order. I must say to the—
      Mr. Hogg: I am so sorry.
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that that is taking us outside the scope of the new clause before us. He is trying to make a more general point than is permissible in the debate that we are having.
      Mr. Hogg: What I am seeking to do, if I may just explain—
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot, on an intervention, argue with the Chair. Mr. Simon Hughes.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I was not seeking to argue with the Chair. What I was merely trying to do—and I am not seeking to argue with the Chair—was to reinforce the case for the sunset clauses, on the basis that we would not be able to discuss many things because of the timetable.
      The Chairman: What I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say seemed to me to fall outside the terms of the new clause to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is addressing his remarks. For the sake of time, we have to concentrate very determinedly on the terms of the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary asked a rhetorical question about how long the emergency will last. None of us knows that. Liberal Democrat Members have accepted that there is a case for special legislation, but we do not know for how long it will be necessary. That is'why the new clause provides for flexibility. It will allow the Government to terminate elements of the legislation or even re-enact certain elements within five years, if that is required. However, Parliament has a duty to say to the Government that we will not allow emergency powers or legislation that we have not considered to continue indefinitely. We are the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There are separate issues for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. If ever there were a test of whether the constitution will be upheld, it is whether Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation.
      354
      The sadness for some Opposition Members is that those are exactly the arguments that the Labour party, in opposition, used to deploy against the Government of the day. It is sad to record that the longer it remains in office, the more new Labour forgets that it has to be properly accountable to Parliament—and Parliament to the people—rather than arrogating more and more power to the Executive. The Government need lessons because they are ignoring what they used to say in opposition and what the country expects from a democratically accountable Government. This is a usurpation of power too far.
      Ms Diane Abbott: In speaking to the new clauses on duration, the Home Secretary said that the important thing is that we all agree on the Bill's intent, implying that we should not get too hung up on procedure or detail. With the greatest respect to him, I beg to differ. We are passing a law on which will turn the liberty of the subject, so despite the fact that many of those interned under the legislation will be people whom most hon. Members find unsavoury, and who have no popularity with the wider public, it is important not only that we agree on the Bill's intent but that we be satisfied that the letter of the Bill is robust and will achieve the desired effect.
      In the debate on the programme motion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), said that we needed to suspend our normal expectations because of the emergency situation. I am not sure what she meant by that, but no emergency justifies the suspension of our normal expectation that the House should pass legislation that is robust, defensible and fair.
      I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its excellent report, and in particular its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), on his hard work on winning from the Home Secretary the concession of a five-year sunset clause. Of course it is an improvement on the status quo, but I ask my hon. Friend to cast his mind back to the last Parliament, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was Home Secretary. He was a past master at the art of the carefully calibrated concession—just enough to get people voting with the Government but not enough to alter the substance of the legislation. I hope that in this Parliament we will not get caught up with such concessions because, a few years on, no one can remember what the concessions were but we know that we are lumbered with thoroughly bad legislation. The Chairman of the Select Committee is to be congratulated on his body fight for the concession—
      Mr. Mullin: The Select Committee considered the proposals in detail and concluded that it agreed with the Government that there is a small category of people who cannot be deported or extradited and who constitute a danger to the state. The Committee is not disputing the Home Secretary's reason for bringing the core part of the Bill to Parliament. We wanted a sunset clause because we hope that in five years the emergency will be over.
      Ms Abbott: I do not think that anybody in the House disputes the Bill's intent; it is the letter of the Bill that we are attempting to debate under the onerous restrictions of the programme motion.

      355
      I give the House a general warning to beware, as we scrutinise the Bill, of the carefully calibrated concession and always to return to the substance of the Bill and ask whether it is acceptable. The new clauses that would introduce more detailed sunset provisions would be preferable even to my hon. Friend's hard-won concession, but as we go through the Bill, we will find many substantive points to which many of us wish to speak.
      Mr. David Cameron: I sit on the Home Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I thank the Home Secretary and his colleagues for giving way on an amendment in our names.
      I have listened to the debate and to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the carefully calibrated concession. When the Select Committee suggested a sunset clause on part 4, the most difficult part of the Bill, we also said that we profoundly believed, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, that it was not appropriate to give the Bill's passage so little time and we called on the Home Secretary to do some major surgery to the Bill.
      We know from what we have heard that the House will get no more time to examine the Bill, and having listened to the debate on Second Reading, some of us are doubtful that we will get major surgery. The Select Committee asked for most of part 5 and all of part 13 to be cut out of the Bill. Do Ministers still have an open mind on those other points? New clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is, I admit, complicated, but it does at least deal with the problem that the Bill is simply too long.
      A sunset clause alone is not enough. A more general sunset clause along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, which would not apply to the bribery clauses in part 12, would allow the Government to re-enact parts of the Bill for 12 months. It would include a fallback position of a full sunset clause: five years for the least controversial aspects; two years for quite controversial matters, and one year for part 4. If the Government accepted that, it would give them the defence that they will need when the Bill goes to another place, where Members will know, because it is simply too long, that we have not had time to scrutinise it properly. I hope that Ministers will address that point.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: Like others who have spoken, I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's acceptance of the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation of a sunset clause for part 4. I especially welcome what he said about extending the remit of Lord Carlile, which would give many people considerable confidence.
      The debate about sunset clauses has focused on the principle, intent and duration of the Bill, but there is a separate problem that new clause 6 might address, albeit slightly inadvertently: implementation. We need to retain not only the power to bring the measure to an end after a five-year term, desirable though that is, but the ability to consider and express a view on how it is being implemented.
      Mr. Letwin: That effect is not inadvertent; it was central to the view that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I took when we tabled the new clause.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, which I accept.
      I should like to return to an issue that I raised in the debate on the programme motion, and mention what happened when we introduced internment in 1939 and 1940. On 4 September 1939, the then Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, of Shelter fame, gave in answer to a question from Mr. Arthur Greenwood an admirable reply about how aliens would be treated under internment. He said that there would be
      "no unnecessary interference with other foreigners".— [Official Report, 4 September 1939; Vol. 351, c. 366.]
      I am sure that that was his intention and that he wanted the measure to be liberally interpreted and carefully considered and constrained, but as quickly as the following July, different results were shown by a statistical survey that was conducted in an internment camp containing 1,500 people. It dealt with the circumstances of all of those people and was conducted to see how internment was operating.
      Mr. Blunkett: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. All that he has said is entirely true. Policies were undertaken here and in other democratic countries during the second world war that caused great regret. However, first, there is, surely, no comparison; and secondly, no one envisaged in 1939 or 1949 the special immigration advisory committee procedure, which I spelled out in great detail on Monday and which we will, of course, implement to the letter.
      Mr. Fisher: I accept what my right hon. Friend says. There is no intention that the measure should be applied on a wider basis than is appropriate. In 1939, however, the then Home Secretary initially thought that he was giving himself powers to intern about 2,000 people, but within nine months, 20,000 of the 30,000 Austrian and German male residents in this country had been interned because of the pressure of events. I suspect that that is not what Sir John Anderson intended, but it is what happened. The speed of events and the implementation of the measures by those with that responsibility—in this case, the chief constables—meant that although the sweep was originally targeted at enemy aliens, it was much wider in practice. Nazi sympathisers and opponents, Jews and Aryans, and a whole range of people who were not originally intended to be caught by the measures were affected. [Interruption.] I must say, Sir Michael, that it is terribly difficult to address the Committee when the junior Minister is talking on the Front Bench. As I was saying, the intention was one thing, but the effect was another. There were no additional powers, but the impetus of events meant that the circumstances were very different as soon as nine months later.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend Home Secretary intends the Bill to cover a very small number of people, as he told the House the other day. However, we must have the right to ensure that we can consider how it is proceeding in one or two years' time. At the very least, we must have a chance to debate, comment and, if necessary, vote on Lord Carlile's report every year,

      357
      so that we can ensure that circumstances do not drive the intentions of legislation that is passed this year in a very different direction.
      Mr. Hogg: I rise briefly to express my support for the thought behind the sunset clause approach, largely because of the procedure that we are going to adopt. The new clause at least enables all the parts of the Bill to which it refers to fall away within specified times. That inevitably means that this House will have to consider those provisions further if the Government of the day want to give statutory force to them.
      5.45 pm
      The plain truth is that, because of time constraints, we are not going to discuss the substance of any of the clauses in the group whose consideration terminates at 6 o'clock. We have reached only the first line in the marshalled list. At least new clause 6 would apply a sunset provision to all the other measures that feature in the marshalled list, but which will not be discussed at all. Some of them, such as the power of the Treasury to freeze people's cash, the power of Customs to go to the magistrates to get a seizure order in respect of "terrorist cash" and the extension of disclosure obligations are of great importance.
      I shall not seek to debate the merits of those issues as you, Sir Michael, would call me to order if I did so. I point out only that, from any viewpoint, they are extremely important obligations and powers that are backed by penal sanctions. Furthermore, they apply to people's property and may also affect the property of innocent third parties. However, we are not going to discuss them at all. That is one of the arguments in favour of sunset clauses, which are a very imperfect way of dealing with the problem that we face. We should not be in this position, but as we are, we must do something to provide a remedy. A sunset clause is one way of at least expressing our dismay about the position.
      Mr. John Burnett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned penal sanctions. Does he agree that there is a compelling debate to be had about whether more senior judges should deal with those matters, rather than more junior judges and magistrates, as the Bill proposes?
      Mr. Hogg: I am sure that that is correct, although I am being a bit careful because I do not want to stray into the merits of clauses that are not currently before the Committee. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's point is valid, as the sunset clause gives us the opportunity, at least in theory, to address matters that the House will not address at all. Its failure to do so cannot be right.
      Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, as the professor of human rights law at King's college pointed out in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, since the mid-1970s, regular review has been a feature not only of parts of anti-terrorism legislation, but of that legislation as a whole? That is the case not least so that Parliament and
      358
      Government have to keep thinking about whether the legislation is justified and so that the public continually have it in the front of their minds.
      Mr. Hogg: I was not aware of that specific evidence, but I am sure that the professor is entirely right. Sunset clauses at least focus the attention of the Executive and Parliament on whether the existing situation at a given time is serious enough to justify a derogation from civil rights. That is important, but in this case it is much more urgent: some 12 minutes of debate remain, in which we must consider 20 clauses—and we have not discussed one of them.
      Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given in his response to the suggestion of the Select Committee on Home Affairs regarding sunset clauses. It is entirely appropriate that a five-year limit has been set. In normal circumstances, the House is rightly very suspicious of measures such as that which is before the Committee, but they should not necessarily be ruled out in all circumstances. Clearly, we are currently in a situation that nobody sought and nobody wants. We all wish that this had not happened, but the fact is that there are significant threats not only to this country and the security of its people, but to our way of life.
      I want to take up a couple of points, but I do not want to detain the Committee long. In his two speeches this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made great play of comparisons with legislation passed during the second world war. I shall reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an intervention—the two sets of circumstances are not comparable. In the second world war, we were dealing with a defined enemy and a known set of circumstances and massive intelligence was not required to know where people were or what support they had, although espionage was certainly going on in this country. We are now dealing with a terrorist organisation with tentacles all over the place. It can use sophisticated technologies that simply did not exist during the second world war. In those circumstances, it is crucial that we protect ourselves against that threat.
      Mr. Fisher: The Home Secretary said that his difficulty is that he can identify the people who put this country at risk, but cannot take action against them. We are not dealing with the problem of an unknown and undefinable enemy in the community; the Home Secretary, or the security forces, can identify the people who are likely to cause terrorist outrages in this country, but cannot act against them.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend would be right if the intelligence available to the Home Secretary and Ministers was a single static body of knowledge. I am sure that the Committee agrees that intelligence gathering is a dynamic process. As time goes on, other people, although relatively small in number, may well be identified who will fall under the provisions proposed by my right hon. Friend. I hope that that will be the case. I suspect that, in such circumstances, he will want to use the power that is available to him. So, in direct response to my hon. Friend

      359
      the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and others, in times like these they must accept that an element of trust is involved.
      Mr. Letwin: No one is denying for half a second that an element of trust is involved. We are entrusting to the Government the power, with relatively little parliamentary scrutiny, to implement measures of great concern. The question is whether that trust should prevail for years or whether we should have the opportunity to review the issue of whether our initial trust was well placed.
      Mr. Howarth: I accept that entirely. If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened to make that point, I was going to go into that territory.
      If the House and, by extension, those whom we represent are to give that trust, it follows that the House should have regard to the period for which the legislation should sensibly last and at what time a sunset clause should come into effect. I have given that trust to Labour Ministers and would happily give it to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) if he were in government. I do not think that that is an immediate prospect but, nevertheless, I would do so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has listened and he has earned our trust. He decided that suggestions by the Select Committee on Home Affairs were sensible and signalled that he wished to take them on board.
      Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we would all be more willing to trust the Home Secretary completely if the Bill was narrowly focused, concentrated on anti-terrorist measures and not packed full of stuff that has been lying in a Home Office cupboard for months?
      Mr. Howarth: If I strayed from the immediate point, you would pull me up, Sir Michael. However, the argument that the Bill has somehow managed to attract unconnected clauses for the Government's convenience is, frankly, a naive reading of the situation. The truth is that the Bill's provisions are connected. Having spent two years as a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I am well aware of the connections between all the clauses; there is an overarching theme, and the Bill is not just a loose connection of good ideas that somebody has decided to throw together. The point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) does not stand up.
      Lynne Jones rose—
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) first and then the hon. Member for West Dorset, but after that I really must try to conclude my remarks.
      Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend said that the Government listened to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but that is not completely true. The Home Secretary accepted its recommendation on the five-year sunset clause, but not its concerns about the time needed to debate the Bill in the House. He did not accept those
      360
      reservations when they were made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, either. Surely, the two things go hand in hand.
      Mr. Howarth: I am in some difficulty, as I do not know whether the Front Bench wants time to respond before 6 o'clock. I am sure that somebody will signal if that is the case.
      I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that he was persuaded by the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee on the sunset clause. He went on to say that there were other areas on which he was prepared to continue listening to advice. I am prepared to give him more than the benefit of the doubt, as he has already demonstrated his willingness to listen.
      I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for West Dorset— [Interruption.] He has declined the opportunity.
      Annabelle Ewing: In the light of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) not taking up that offer, I thought that I would quickly get in. I have listened to the debate with interest, and must ask a fundamental question. In what way is the Government's position, especially on part 4, fundamentally impinged if they have to return to the House to renew their legislation?
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Lady had been listening to my speech, she would be aware that I made the point that, in the circumstances, the Government must return to the House to renew the legislation. The only contentious thing is with what frequency they should do that.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman argued that the entire Bill was, in a core sense, central to anti-terrorism. If that is the case, why does he not argue, as he did all the years that he was in opposition, that the whole Bill should be subjected to annual review?
      Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly explained that that is exactly his intention. I do not fully understand the hon. Gentleman's position.
      Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman sought to intervene earlier; I tried to give way to him, but he withdrew his request. There are two minutes left, and I have been generous in giving way throughout my speech. I shall now try to bring my remarks to close.
      My right hon. Friend made it clear that he has listened to concerns that have been put to him and has acted on some of them. He also made it clear that he will listen to further reasonable concerns; I accept in good faith that that is his intention. In those circumstances, I hope that Conservative Members will withdraw new clause 6, and I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not press their two new clauses to a vote.
      Mr. Letwin: For the avoidance of doubt, we shall not withdraw the new clause. The position is not as

      361
      represented inadvertently by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The Home Secretary's concession means that one part of the Bill will lapse after five years and, in the interim, will be subject to annual review. The remainder of the Bill, in its entirety, will not be subject to review and will last for ever. Conservative Members cannot accept that position.
      6 pm
      It being Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 351.

      Division No. 72]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cran, James

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Allan, Richard

      Dalyell, Tam

      Arness, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bacon, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Baker, Norman

      Dodds, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Barker, Gregory

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Baron, John

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Beggs, Roy

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Evans, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Bennett, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Flook, Adrian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brady, Graham

      Francois, Mark

      Brake, Tom

      Gale, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      Galloway, George

      Breed, Colin

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Annette

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burnett, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burns, Simon

      Goodman, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Gray, James

      Burt, Alistair

      Grayling, Chris

      Butterfill, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Greenway, John

      Cameron, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hancock, Mike

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Cash, William

      Harvey, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John

      Chidgey, David

      Heath, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Holmes, Paul

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Collins, Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hunter, Andrew

      362

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Keetch, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sanders, Adrian

      Key, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Shepherd, Richard

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Lamb, Norman

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Laws, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Spink, Bob

      Letwin, Oliver

      Spring, Richard

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Steen, Anthony

      Lidington, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Swire, Hugo

      Loughton, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McDonnell, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thurso, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Maples, John

      Trend, Michael

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mates, Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Walter, Robert

      Mercer, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Moore, Michael

      Webb, Steve

      Moss, Malcolm

      Weir, Michael

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Norman, Archie

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wilkinson, John

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Page, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paisley, Rev lan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Paterson, Owen

      Wishart, Pete

      Pickles, Eric

      Yeo, Tim

      Price, Adam

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Prisk, Mark

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Pugh, Dr John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. Charles Hendry.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Berry, Roger

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Best, Harold

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Betts, Clive

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blackman, Liz

      Austin, John

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Baird, Vera

      Blizzard, Bob

      Banks, Tony

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Borrow, David

      363

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fisher, Mark

      Brennan, Kevin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foulkes, George

      Burden, Richard

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike

      Burnham, Andy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Havard, Dai

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hendrick, Mark

      Colman, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heyes, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hill, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Hood, Jimmy

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hurst, Alan

      Daisley, Paul

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      David, Wayne

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Doran, Frank

      Joyce, Eric

      Dowd, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Drew, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Edwards, Huw

      Khabra, Piara S

      Efford, Clive

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      364

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pond, Chris

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Lammy, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Lloyd, Tony

      Raynstbrd, Rt Hon Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lucas, Ian

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Luke, Iain

      Lyons, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ross, Ernie

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Roy, Frank

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruane, Chris

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDougall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McFall, John

      Ryan, Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Simon, Siôn

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mann, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Southworth, Helen

      Miliband, David

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stevenson, George

      Moran, Margaret

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mullin, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tami, Mark

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tipping, Paddy

      Olner, Bill

      Todd, Mark

      O'Neill, Martin

      Touhig, Don

      Organ, Diana

      Trickett, Jon

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Truswell, Paul

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Picking, Anne

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pike, Peter

      Tynan, Bill

      Plaskitt, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      365

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wood, Mike

      Wareing, Robert N

      Woodward, Shaun

      Watson, Tom

      Woolas, Phil

      Watts, David

      Worthington, Tony

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wray, James

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wills, Michael

      Wilson, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Mr. Ian Pearson

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 123

      COMMENCEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 72, in page 72, line 34, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (3A)".
      No. 42, in page 72, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 66, in page 73, line 2, leave out from "to" to end of line 3 and insert "96;".
      No. 73, in page 73, line 3, at end insert—

      '( ) sections 97 to 99. except so far as they extend to Scotland,

      ( ) section 100 and Schedule 7, except so far as they relate to the entries in respect of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967,'.

      No. 74, in page 73, line 10, at end insert—
      '(iia) in Part 6 of Schedule 8, in respect of the British Transport Commission Act 1962 and the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, so far as those entries extend to Scotland,'.
      No. 75, in page 73, line 16, after subsection (3) insert—
      '(3A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, acting jointly, may appoint by order—

      (a) sections 97 to 99, so far as they extend to Scotland,

      (b) section 100 and Schedule 7, so far as they relate to the entries in respect of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and

      (c) section 121 and Schedule 8, so far as they relate to the entries in Part 6 of Schedule 8 in respect of the British Transport Commission Act 1962 and the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, so far as those entries extend to Scotland.'.— [Beverley Hughes.]

      Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 1

      FORFEITURE OF TERRORIST CASH
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): With clause 1, we are also considering whether schedule 1—Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash—should be the First schedule to the Bill.
      Motion made, and Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 362, Noes 5.

      Division No. 73]

      [6.14 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ainger, Nick

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Allen, Graham

      Austin, John

      366

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Baird, Vera

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Barnes, Harry

      Dawson, Hilton

      Barron, Kevin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Battle, John

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dobbin, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Benn, Hilary

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bennett, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Berry, Roger

      Doran, Frank

      Best, Harold

      Dowd, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Drew, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Edwards, Huw

      Borrow, David

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Etherington, Bill

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bryant, Chris

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burnham, Andy

      Foulkes, George

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond"y)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chapman, Ben (Winal S)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chaytor, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clelland, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Cohen, Harry

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coleman, Iain

      Havard, Dai

      Colman, Tony

      Healey, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hendrick, Mark

      Corston, Jean

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Heppell, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Hermon, Lady

      Crausby, David

      Hesfotd, Stephen

      Cruddas, Jon

      Heyes, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hill, Keith

      Cummings, John

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Daisley, Paul

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      David, Wayne

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      367

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Miller, Andrew

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Illbley, Eric

      Moftatt, Laura

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jamieson, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jenkins, Brian

      Mudie, George

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Joyce, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      O'Hara, Edward

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Olner Bill

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Organ, Diana

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Owen, Albert

      Kidney, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pearson, Ian

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Perham, Linda

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Picking, Anne

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pike, Peter

      Lammy, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Pollard, Kerry

      Laxton, Bob

      Pope, Greg

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lepper, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Levitt, Tom

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Purchase, Ken

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Purnell, James

      Linton, Martin

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lloyd, Tony

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Love, Andrew

      Rammell, Bill

      Lucas, Ian

      Rapson, Syd

      Luke, Iain

      Raynsfotd, Rt Hon Nick

      Lyons, John

      Reed Andy (Loughborough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCafferty, Chris

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      MacDougall, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McFall, John

      Ross, Ernie

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Roy, Frank

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ruane, Chris

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Ruddock Joan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ryan, Joan

      McNulty, Tony

      Salmond, Alex

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Salter, Martin

      McWalter, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      McWilliam, John

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sawford, Phil

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mann, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marris, Rob

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Simon, Siôn

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      368

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Southworth, Helen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Watson, Tom

      Squire, Rachel

      Watts, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Weir, Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wills, Michael

      Tami, Mark

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wishart, Pete

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wood, Mike

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Timms, Stephen

      Wodas, Phil

      Tipping, Paddy

      Worthington, Tony

      Todd, Mark

      Wray, James

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Graham Stringer and

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin.

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hermon, Lady

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. Richard Shepherd.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 1 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTION 1
      Amendments made: No. 60, in page 2, line 14, leave out " or 9" and insert "9 or 10".
      No. 61, in page 2, line 32, leave out "and 9" and insert "9 and 10".—[Beverley Hughes.]
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 2

      TERRORIST PROPERTY: AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 87, leave out line 28 and insert—
      '(5) For paragraph 19(3) substitute—
      "(3) A restraint order made under paragraph 18(1) shall in particular be recalled on an application under sub-paragraph (2) if the proceedings for the offence have been concluded.
      (3A) A restraint order made under paragraph 18(2) shall in particular be discharged on an application under sub-paragraph (2)—

      (a) if no proceedings in respect of offences under any of sections 15 to 18 are instituted within such time as the Court of Session considers reasonable, and

      (b) if all proceedings in respect of offences under any of sections 15 to 18 have been concluded.".'.

      No. 47, in page 87, line 28, at end insert—
      '(6) In paragraph 23(1) for "19(3)(a)" substitute "19(3A)(a)".'.
      No. 62, in page 92, line 43, at end insert—
      '(ca) the acceptance of deposits from the public within the limit set by section 7(3) of that Act by such a society;'—.[Beverley Hughes.]
      Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 3 agreed to.
      Clauses 7 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 4 agreed to.
      Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21

      SUSPECTED INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST: CERTIFICATION
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 10, line 35, after "State", insert "reasonably".
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 96, in page 10, line 36, leave out "believes" and insert—
      'has substantial grounds to believe'.
      Amendment No. 97, in page 10, line 38, leave out "suspects" and insert—
      'has substantial grounds to suspect'.
      Amendment No. 110, in page 10, line 42, leave out from "group" to end of line 2 on page 11.
      Amendment No. 98, in page 11, leave out lines 12 and 13.
      Amendment No. 99, in clause 22, page 12, line 9, at end insert—
      '(k) giving directions for a person's physical removal (to a country of which he is a national or citizen or to which there is reason to believe he will be admitted) pursuant to section 5(5) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to that Act.'.
      Clauses 22 to 24 stand part.
      Government amendment No. 70.
      Amendment No. 100, in clause 25, page 13, line 5, leave out "does not agree with" and insert—
      'is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for'.
      Clause 25 stand part.
      Amendment No. 111, in clause 26, page 13, line 18, leave out from "25" to end of line 19 and insert "within three months".
      Amendment No. 112, in page 13, line 21, leave out from "brought" to "months" in line 22 and insert "within three".
      Amendment No. 113, in page 13, line 24, leave out from "21" to "month" in line 25 and insert "within three".
      Government amendment No. 71.
      Clause 26 stand part.
      Amendment No. 114, in clause 27, page 14, line 37, leave out from "certificate" to end of line 38 and insert—

      '(a) on grounds of change of circumstances, or

      (b) where the initial certificate was cancelled because of a technical irregularity.'.

      Clause 27 stand part.
      370
      Amendment No. 53, in clause 28, page 15, line 10, at end insert—
      'but no order shall be made under this subsection after the expiry of the period of five years beginning with the date on which this Act was passed'.
      Amendment No. 48, in page 15, line 10, at end insert—
      '.( ) The power to revive or continue sections 21 to 23 by way of an order under subsection (2), may only be used once.'.
      Clause 28 stand part.
      Amendment No. 101, in clause 29, page 15, line 38, at end insert—
      'save to review compliance with any rules made under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997'.
      Amendment No. 115, in page 15, leave out lines 39 to 41.
      Amendment No. 118, in page 15, leave out lines 42 and 43.
      Clause 29 stand part.
      Amendment No. 49, in clause 30, page 16, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 117, in page 16, leave out lines 13 to 15.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 16, line 15, leave out from "question" to end of line 17.
      Clauses 30 to 32 stand part.
      New clause 2—Annual review—
      '28A.— (1) The appropriate Minister shall appoint an independent Commissioner for the purpose of this section.
      (2) The Commissioner must review the operation of sections 21 to 23 before the end of the period—

      (a) of 15 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;

      (b) specified by an order made under section 28(2)(b) and (c), beginning with the date on which that order first came into force; and

      (c) specified by an order made under section 28(4), but only if it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

      (3) The Commissioner conducting a review under this section must prepare a report on the result of the review and lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.
      (4) In this section "the Commissioner" means the Commissioner appointed under subsection (1).'.
      Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I was listening very carefully and waiting for clause 17 to be called. We are minded to vote against it standing part of the Bill, but it was not called either on its own or with other clauses.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I read out very clearly the measures on which the Committee must vote, and the clause was included. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. We must now proceed to debate the proposals grouped with Government amendment No. 69.
      Simon Hughes: Further to my point of order, Sir Michael. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but may I take you through what you said? Apparently, we were dealing with clauses 4 to 6, schedule 3, clauses 7

      371
      to 16 and schedule 4. My colleagues and I were listening carefully, and I understand that clause 17 was not included, although a schedule relating to it was included.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Let me repeat everything that I read out. I read out a proposal that clauses 4 to 6, schedule 3, clauses 7 to 17—[HON. MEMBERS: "No; 16"]—schedule 4 and clauses 18 to 20 stand part of the Bill. That is what I read out. That is what I put to the Committee, and the Committee agreed to it. We must now move on.
      6.30 pm
      Simon Hughes rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: No.
      Simon Hughes: What if I asked you to take advice, Sir Michael?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not need to take advice. I am sure that what I read out—[Interruption.] Order. I am quite clear about this, and there is no point in pursuing it further. I put clause 17 to the Committee, among other provisions, and the Committee agreed to it. We must now move on to the debate on amendment No. 69 and the proposals taken with it.
      Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Michael.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: If hope it is a separate point of order, because I have dealt fully with the earlier one, and we need to move on.
      Simon Hughes: It is a separate point of order, Sir Michael.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am on my feet, and I cannot deal with two points of order at once.
      Simon Hughes: May I ask you, Sir Michael, to consider either putting the last Question again or putting the Question relating to clause 17 separately, to allow the Committee—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have explained the position to the hon. Gentleman, who is merely repeating what he said earlier. I am clear about what I put to the Committee: I have it before me. The Committee has agreed to the clause in question, and we must now move to the next business.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We must move on, and that is what I intend to do.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Michael. If a genuine mistake has been made—and I believe that one has—ought there not to be a reconsideration?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Under the Sessional Order, Questions are put as I have put them. There is no way in which, having agreed to a Question, the House or Committee can return to it.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I wonder whether we can look to the future just for a moment.
      372
      As you will know, members of the Committee have followed the way in which you have put the Questions on the marshalled list, which makes plain that clause 17 gave rise to a free-standing debate. We all therefore expected to hear the Question on clause 17 put separately.
      May I make a suggestion, Sir Michael? If in future you put the Question on a clause out of the marshalled-list order, so that there is a risk of our being taken unawares, will you be good enough to make that plain? I think that there has been a mistake, and that there will be some surprise about what has happened.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is simply repeating a point that has already been made. I did not put the Question on clause 17 out of order. I explained clearly to the Committee what the vote would concern, and it was up to the Committee to listen. As I have said, we have already dealt with clause 17, and we must now move on.
      Mr. Blunkett: I hope that whatever disagreement has taken place will not sour the serious debate that we are about to have. [Interruption.] It has taken us until 6.35 pm to embark on a substantive discussion of the detail of the Bill, and I appeal to Members to be prepared to engage in that discussion rather than continuing to grumble from a sedentary position about the decision that has just been made.
      While evidence was being given to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a number of issues were raised with me. I promised that I would think about them, and return to them in due course. One, which I mentioned on Monday, is the issue of the "reasonableness" clause—the provision requiring that a belief and suspicion must be reasonably held by the Home Secretary of the day in respect of judgments made by SIAC on the correctness of the certificate issued by the Home Secretary. I can confirm that we will table such a clause.
      I am aware that a piece of paper circulating among some Members implies that the insertion of the "reasonableness" clause will be at the expense of what was already there, in terms of SIAC' s powers to overturn the certificate. That is not correct. The "reasonableness" clause is as well as, not instead of, the current position, as it were. I think it important for people not to be misled.
      Having heard the discussion in the Human Rights Committee and taken cognisance of approaches made by its chair, I think it only right to look again at some of the wording of the Bill, including clause 27(9). That subsection relates to links that someone may or may not have with a terrorist or a terrorist group. I think that the issue would be best addressed in the House of Lords, but I think we should make clear the connection someone would have to have with a particular group or groups. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), and for Redcar (Vera Baird), who made a point of drawing that to my attention. We are happy to examine—with our lawyers—how we can clarify the position.
      I must now apologise for referring to clause 27(9) in connection with links. I meant to refer to a different clause. Clause 27(9), in fact, gives rise to debate on the word "otherwise". I undertook to look at that wording too.
      Mr. Burnett: The Secretary of State mentioned the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Redcar

      373
      (Vera Baird). When he consults the lawyers, will he ask them whether, while proceedings are on their way to Strasbourg, the provision he has mentioned could be included in the "taking action" provision in the European convention on human rights?
      Mr. Blunkett: Having signed up to the convention, we are fully cognisant of it. I take the point, however, because there appears to have been some misunderstanding or at least misreporting of Lord Scott in relation to the interpretation of what is available to us and would be available to an appellant.
      With regard to the word "otherwise", the human rights Committee feared that a certificate might be altered in circumstances other than those in which a certificate might be found to be technically at fault without the substance of the proposition being at fault. The Committee felt that SIAC should have the right to draw attention to the fact, and that it should be possible for the certificate to be drawn up again. Our lawyers believe that the formulation of that particular provision is correct. I have agreed to examine it and to take advice. Should it not be the case that what we intended is achieved, we will be prepared to look at the matter in the other place.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry to take the Home Secretary back a little. I was rather taken by surprise by what he said in relation to Government amendment No. 70—that it does not increase the test for SIAC. The amendment would leave out
      "does not agree with the belief or suspicion",
      whereby SIAC could conclude that it did not agree with the belief and reverse it. The text now is
      "considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion"
      In those circumstances, SIAC could conclude that the Home Secretary was wrong, but none the less be constrained by the clause because there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the detention should continue.
      Mr. Blunkett: The provision does not take away the power of SIAC. It clarifies the terms on which it would make its judgment, again within the provisions and terms agreed in the Rehman judgment. We referred to that at considerable length on Monday in terms of the evidential threshold and the process to be followed. It is on that basis and in response to the requests made to us that we wish to clarify what is described as the reasonableness test. I will stick to that. Having gone through the matter at considerable length, I am satisfied that we are improving, not worsening, the rights that are available and the clarity with which certificates will be dealt with by SIAC.
      There has been much misunderstanding all round in relation to the operation of SIAC, including by those who have great experience in the court. A letter in The Daily Telegraph—I am a great reader of The Daily Telegraph at the moment, which always enlightens me and sometimes infuriates me—from Peter Carter-Ruck of Great Hallingbury, who I understand is a renowned libel lawyer, so I am very careful to say what I am saying in the House rather than outside, accuses me of seeking to set up a
      374
      Special Immigration Appeals Commission appointed by the Home Office. As I pointed out on Monday, it is already appointed through the Lord Chancellor.
      Mr. Burnett: Does the Home Secretary think that, without impugning the present Lord Chancellor, the system of appointment would be more objective if appointments to SIAC were made by the Lord Chief Justice?
      Mr. Blunkett: Appointments to a range of tribunals and appeals have been long established. On an emergency measure of this sort, to ask the Lord Chancellor to hand over to the Lord Chief Justice the appointments to the tribunals and commissions would be extraordinary, so I resist that.
      Mr. Letwin: I am sorry, but I do not want to leave the point that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) because I think that I am now in some confusion. On Government amendment No. 70, which changes the position from one in which SIAC could agree or disagree with the belief to one in which it must judge whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief, does the Home Secretary believe that he has made it more or less difficult for SIAC to reject the Home Secretary's decision?
      Mr. Blunkett: It is a mirror image of the change that we made in consequence—
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is wrong.
      Mr. Blunkett: I understand that it is a mirror image of what we are seeking to achieve under clause 21.
      Mr. Letwin: We may end up by agreeing about the matter on reflection. As I understand it, it is a double mirror image. The Home Secretary, or his lawyers, may think that, by changing to reasonable grounds—a move that we support and welcome—they have tightened the rule on what SIAC has to agree, but if all it is permitted to judge is whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief, the Home Secretary might make a decision—this was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—with which it profoundly disagrees, but for which it admits he had some reasonable grounds. That is to enlarge the capacity of the Home Secretary and to diminish the capacity of SIAC.
      Mr. Blunkett: Yes, but SIAC cancels the certificate if it believes that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a threat to the United Kingdom's national security, or suspecting that the person is an international terrorist. It is whether the grounds on which that certificate was issued are reasonable that is being inserted.
      6.45 pm
      If there is a genuine misunderstanding about this matter—we are desperately trying to ensure that we disagree on things—of course I will go back and look at it again, but my lawyers assure me that the measure provides the safeguards that were sought during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
      Ross Cranston: Even if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway

      375
      (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is right, and I do not accept that he is, clause 25(2)(b) says that SIAC can cancel the certificate if it
      "considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued",
      so SIAC is in charge. It can decide the matter in terms of both the facts and the law. I think that that is the absolute answer to my hon. and learned Friend's point.
      Mr. Blunkett: It is. I am grateful. As I was describing, that is the broader conclusion that is still built into the Bill. We have not taken that away. That was the point that I was seeking to make.
      Annabelle Ewing: Does not the debate over the wording of the basis on which SIAC can look at certification orders suggest that, instead of trying to re-invent rules of evidence to that ad hoc, unusual body, the simpler way to deal with the matter would be to involve the courts fully and properly in the function of the system?
      Mr. Blunkett: I desperately tried to deal with that debate on Monday. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here and took it in, but we dealt with the establishment of SIAC in 1997.
      Annabelle Ewing: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Unfortunately, I was not here on Monday because I was dealing with matters in my constituency.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is hardly a point of order.
      Mr. Blunkett: It is certainly a point of interest. I would like to put it on record that I wish I had been dealing with matters in my constituency as well.
      The serious point is that we dealt with the nature of the establishment of SIAC in 1997, which was universally agreed by the House. We dealt with the question of the type of evidence that was to be adduced, the fact that a High Court judge or someone who had been a High Court judge should have two other people sitting with him, that there was a right of appeal on a point of law to the Appeal Court and to the House of Lords if leave were given, and that the evidential base had been established.
      The issues around judicial review are being raised, particularly by the Liberal Democrats and others. When the certification process was established, and when eventually SIAC was put in place as an additional safeguard, it was seen as a review of the certification process for the Home Secretary. That is what it was established to do, with the appeal on the point of law clarifying whether the process had been properly carried through. Were judicial review to be reinstated between those processes, that could be done only on the basis of the provision of the evidence, admissibility and the rules that have been established and agreed not only by the House of Commons but by the House of Lords.
      Norman Baker: Does the Home Secretary accept that, when SIAC was established, it was for a very different purpose—it was to deal with deportation, not incarceration?
      Mr. Blunkett: It was to deal with the ability to remove people from the country who were a threat to national
      376
      security, or whose presence was adjudged not to be conducive to the public good. I do not intend to go on at length tonight because people have rightly said that they want to debate the issues and I need to allow them to do so, but that brings us back to the only central point that I want to remake. That point concerns precisely the choice addressed in part 4 of the Bill—whether to derogate, temporarily or otherwise, from the ECHR altogether.
      I do not accept the suggestion that, to do that, we could use article 58 of the convention, or pull out for a second or two under article 57. I do not believe for a moment that that would work or stand up to scrutiny. However, if, for the sake of argument, we were to come out of the ECHR, I would then have to sign a certificate declaring that I was prepared to send people back to regimes and judicial systems that we did not consider to be acceptable. Those regimes and systems would not stand up to scrutiny in court under the ECHR, in this country or in Strasbourg, because they do not provide for people properly or protect them from execution, torture or degrading treatment.
      That is the choice that we face. The official Opposition are at least clear that that choice exists. Members of the other main Opposition party, the Liberal Democrat party, believe that we should continue to let the people involved be free in this country if we did not have a workable extradition treaty with their home country, or if they were not able voluntarily to go to a third, safe, country. According to the Liberal Democrats, those people would go if they were able to but, if they were unable to go, they would remain free in our society, even though the judgment had been made that they put us at risk.
      In those very narrow circumstances, we are seeking to take the power of temporary detention, with the safeguards that we are now building in.
      Mr. Fisher: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of SIAC, will he clarify the definition of the word "terrorist" to which it will work? I welcome what he had to say about rethinking the use of the word "links" in clause 21(2)(c), but I find it difficult to understand what has changed since the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed. Clause 40 of that Act contains a completely different definition of the word "terrorist".
      Has that definition proved inadequate and, if so, in what way? Why are we being asked to adopt two separate definitions of terrorism, and will not there be problems in reconciling two pieces of legislation that presumably should work in harness and reinforce each other but which, in this regard, appear to contradict each other?
      Mr. Blunkett: The substantive issue of whether the definitions in the 2000 Act and in this Bill contradict each other is dealt with in schedule 2, which relates to the 2000 Act. As my hon. Friend knows, we are dealing in this Bill with the extension of the international terrorist threat. That is why we are here tonight. Therefore, the Bill and the 2000 Act are clearly compatible.
      I know that all hon. Members are right to scrutinise whether lawyers—in government or outside, in the House or outside it—have got it right. On this occasion, I honestly believe that they know what they are talking about.
      David Winnick: I do not belong to the usual suspects in this matter, as I believe that, given the circumstances,

      377
      the powers that my right hon. Friend is asking for are justified. If they were not, I would not hesitate to oppose the Bill, along with some of my hon. Friends. All hon. Members reach their own judgments: that is the purpose of the House of Commons.
      I spoke about a specific case when my right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber, and I believe that, if we are going to take these very special powers following the events of 11 September, legal safeguards are necessary. I have noted everything that my right hon. Friend has said about SIAC, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the Bill can be passed without provisions for judicial review. It is absolutely essential that legal safeguards should exist, and that they are seen to exist. That is why I must support some form of judicial review.
      Mr. Blunkett: I note what my hon. Friend said, but I am afraid that, when passing legislation and dealing with evidence provided by the security and intelligence service on suspected terrorists, it is not possible to have a vague view of what judicial review should achieve. Should judicial review come between certification by the Home Secretary and by SIAC? If so, it would be unable to hear the evidence that had been presented to SIAC, and I remind hon. Members that that process has been agreed by the House. The people involved would be misled and deluded into believing that they were going through a meaningful process.
      If the review were to be concerned with SIAC's decision, based on the evidence provided and the circumstances in which that evidence was provided, it would come between the SIAC stage and an appeal court hearing based on a point of law—that point being whether the process had been conducted properly.
      I appeal to all those hon. Members who think instinctively that we need a certain provision because it applies in other circumstances to ask, not whether that provision is a good idea, but how it might be implemented. It is precisely to achieve some accuracy in these matters that I responded as I did on the question of terrorist links, which relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
      We have been talking about terrorists—people who are
      "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism".
      The provisions in the Bill do not replace the powers that already exist, but add to them.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is right. As a Minister, I took through the House the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which established SIAC. It was created with the intention of dealing with some very serious issues—among them detention, as many of the people who were to come before SIAC would be detained. The provisions also covered their removal from this country, which might be something that the people involved would greatly fear. That is why it was considered necessary to have a High Court judge, an immigration judge and a specialist in security matters to review the Home Secretary's opinion. They could direct that that opinion should be changed.
      378
      If a judicial review procedure were inserted in this Bill, it would merely replace one High Court judge with the High Court judge that we have in SIAC. It would not provide the ability to keep confidential the intelligence information that SIAC can keep confidential. The divisional court does not have the appropriate procedures—short of introducing public interest immunity certificates, and I suspect that those who advocate judicial review would not want those certificates to be introduced in these circumstances anyway.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, on Monday, I read the Second Reading speech that he made in connection with the 1997 Act. It was very instructive and is why I know so much about SIAC. I appeal to the House: it is perfectly justifiable for hon. Members to want to do the right thing for the right reasons, but to want to do the right thing and then find out that one has done the wrong thing is neither justifiable nor wise.
      Fiona Mactaggart: My concern is less with the appeal mechanism than with those who might be caught by the provisions in the Bill. Specifically, clause 21(2)(b) adds to those
      "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism"
      any person who
      "is a member of or belongs to an international terrorist group".
      This afternoon, the International Sikh Youth Federation was involved in a lobby of Parliament. Members of that organisation are or have been terrorists, and the group has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that it also has members who are not terrorists. I am worried that we are planning to use the very serious measures contained in the Bill against people who are merely members of a group, and who are not suspected of being actively concerned in the commission of terrorism.
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to answer that question as delicately as I can, as that group, which was proscribed back in February, is appealing against the decision. I have a crucial role in the appeal, so my hon. Friend will forgive me for being circumspect. However, it must be understood that people who become members of groups that are banned in this country are subject to the law of the land. Obviously, people are free to join other organisations and democratically to make the point they wish to make. However, when the Prime Minister of India asks, as he did last week, whether we are serious about the organisations that are committing terrorists acts in terms of following up members of banned groups, the answer has to be yes.
      7 pm
      Fiona Mactaggart: I quite understand that. I am concerned about the Bill's incarceration provisions and whether it is considered appropriate to hold in detention people who are simply members of some of these organisations.
      Mr. Blunkett: Let me make this clear. In our democracy, people are free to be members of, or belong to, an international organisation, but not an international terrorist

      379
      group. They are not free to belong to a group that has been proscribed. There would have been no point in Parliament passing the legislation or in my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, having proscribed 21 groups if we were not going to implement it.
      Ms Abbott: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), one of the proscribed organisations is the PKK, a Kurdish nationalist organisation. In Stoke Newington, hundreds of people call themselves members of the PKK and go on marches. My local superintendent of police says that he cannot pick up hundreds of such people. Yet those people, who have joined what they perceive to be a legitimate nationalist group and have no intention of bombing or murdering anyone, will be at risk of incarceration if the Bill goes through unamended.
      Mr. Blunkett: This is a red herring; we will not pick up everyone who has been on a march or in a room with a particular group. We are talking about people who have connections with and are believed to be involved with such groups. I am clarifying the position about links precisely to avoid red herrings.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Blunkett: I will give way in a moment. I do not want us to get involved tonight in trying to determine who poses a risk to our national security or is engaging in international terrorism. The evidence must be adduced by the security and intelligence services and presented so that it convinces the Home Secretary of the day that a certificate should be issued. When a certificate is issued, the individual has a right to go to SIAC and to appeal. I have spelt that out—the judgment will depend not on whether people turn up to a PKK rally in Stoke Newington but on whether they pose a risk.
      Simon Hughes: The House is wrestling with the fact that although the Home Secretary says that the powers would be used only as a last resort—which I accept—that is not what the Bill provides. The second issue relates directly to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). People could be certificated by the Home Secretary arid detained because they had links with a person who was a member of or belonged to an international terrorist group, yet those links are not defined anywhere in the Bill. Someone who has represented them could be caught. All sorts of people might be caught. Surely the Home Secretary accepts that legislation cannot be drawn this widely. It is dangerous.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Secretary of State cannot possibly give way to interventions when he has not started dealing with the previous intervention.
      Mr. Blunkett: I will give way to one of my hon. Friends in just a second when I have answered the question. Taking into account the criteria that are laid down, I have accepted that "link" was not tight enough to ensure clarity about the nature of the connection with the group. That is precisely what I was responding to in saying that the members of the Joint Committee on
      380
      Human Rights have a point. Therefore, during the Bill's passage through the two Houses, we will bring back a tighter definition that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
      Mr. George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as I suspect, each case will be dealt with on its own terms, on the basis of the evidence and information that is available? Given that some of that information will be very sensitive, it is probably not appropriate to spell out too clearly the circumstances in which he will make those judgments.
      Mr. Blunkett: That is true. However, let me stress—to avoid another red herring—that judgments will be made within the terms that we are laying down, the process that SIAC has to follow and the evidential base that has to be provided. Now that that has been challenged through the courts and is established as accepted, we can move forward in a sensible but sensitive way.
      That comes back to my earlier point about choice. We have the choice to do nothing or to take draconian action and give the Home Secretary powers to certificate and to remove people from the country whatever the circumstances. We can also choose to take the middle route, whereby we cannot use temporary detention when extraditing people or removing them to a third safe country.
      Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Home Secretary agree that a number of the points raised recently are partially covered by the fact that my right hon. Friend will issue a certificate only if he suspects that someone is an international terrorist under the terms that we have defined and believes that person's presence in the United Kingdom to be a risk to national security? It would not sufficient for someone to be a member of the PKK, for instance. He would have to be a member of the PKK whom my right hon. Friend believed was a risk to national security.
      Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm that if a person is incarcerated under clause 23 and voluntarily chooses to leave, he will be free to do so.
      Mr. Blunkett: Yes, that is entirely correct. That is why talk of internment is inappropriate; that is not what we are proposing.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He said a few moments ago that the law must be upheld and obeyed when he defended his right to proscribe a number of organisations, including the PKK. Does he accept, therefore, that the police will have the powers of sweep and of arrest, even if those people are subsequently released, as many were, under the prevention of terrorism legislation. If the Bill is designed to catch international terrorists individually, why is it not drafted to do so? Why is it drafted to catch people who are merely members of organisations that the Home Secretary, on advice from many sources, including the United States, believes to be international terrorist groups?
      Mr. Blunkett: I have just dealt substantively with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made the point that it is not a question of a

      381
      single definition. I am slightly exasperated because I have said this, as have other hon. Friends, over and over again. It is a question not of a simple definition but of whether a person belongs to an organisation, as provided in the Bill. It is clear that with the exception of refining the term "links" we are specific about what is required, and SIAC would make a judgment on whether a case had been satisfactorily made when deciding whether a certificate was valid. The idea that those of us who carry that responsibility or those who sit on the appeals commission would agree to the detention of someone who did not seriously pose that risk is breathtaking and flies in the face of the process that has been undertaken in the past four and a half years, since SIAC was established, and our commitment to protecting civil and human rights. That is why we have agreed to a sunset clause and an annual review, as well as to a review by the reviewer, which lock in—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, and probably will say next Tuesday—the protections that people seek to achieve.
      Mr. McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government will re-examine the definition of "links", which deals with the point made by the Joint Committee about the possibility of arbitrariness in the operation of these provisions. He said that he would not send people back to another country if he felt that they would be subject to torture or the possibility of the death penalty. Will he confirm that it is not his intention therefore to deport anybody to the United States or to accept an extradition order from that country? If any person connected with bin Laden or any other terrorist is captured by British forces in Afghanistan, will he confirm that they will not be transferred to the American authorities there, because by virtue of the executive order of the President of the United States—to which, my right hon. Friend will recall, he particularly drew my attention—and the draconian powers it contains, that person would be immediately subject to a possible punishment of death?
      Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I will answer the part that is relevant to the Bill and to my powers. I would not sign a certificate for any country with extradition arrangements unless it was prepared to agree to retain and maintain the extradition agreement signed by us. In any revision of the extradition agreement with Attorney General Ashcroft, which we will undoubtedly undertake because it has been in force for 27 years now, I would insist that that existing parameter remain in force. I would not transfer someone to the United States or elsewhere if I believed that that outcome would result. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.
      The issue is one of genuine choice. Some Opposition Members believe that it would be reasonable to give the Home Secretary the power in question, by removing the restraint of the ECHR. I do not take that view, but it is a reasonable alternative, albeit an unacceptable one in terms of the powers of our Parliament.
      Mr. Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman overstates the position of those of us who are arguing that the Home Secretary should have greater flexibility in exercising the power to deport people from this country who may
      382
      pose a threat to national security. Has he seen the recommendation in the Home Affairs Committee's report, which states:
      "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."?
      That is the conclusion of a paragraph that says that
      "we do not, for a moment, suggest that the Government should send people back to countries where they would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment".
      Is not the problem that the jurisprudence under article 3 has made it so difficult to deport anybody in any circumstances, because the Home Secretary is not allowed to take into account, according to the Chahal judgment, the risk that they may pose to the United Kingdom?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: It is true that the jurisprudence on that case, to which I have referred publicly, constrained what was possible, but—and this is an interesting point for the immediate future and we will return with a substantive extradition Bill in the new year—if we cannot reach an extradition agreement, it is not right to ask the Home Secretary to certify the risk in those countries that do not have judicial systems that are acceptable according to our terms and with which we do not have an extradition agreement that locks in the safeguards that we would seek. Even if we have queries about some countries' judicial systems, we have extradition agreements that safeguard the process when someone arrives back in one of those countries.
      It is not right to ask the Home Secretary to take a risk in a grey area, where an extradited person may be summarily executed or tortured. We need to be open and clear, so that we do not say one moment that we do not want to detain people, but the next moment say that we are prepared to take the risk, on the certification of the Home Secretary, that someone will not be put to death. That is why the difficult but necessary compromise that we are putting to the Committee is the right one, and why the Government will seek to gain the assent and support of both Houses of Parliament in carrying it through.
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Blunkett: I had intended to finish, but to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman I shall find another sentence.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. He has given an accurate and compelling description of the disposition of the Conservatives, the Government and the Liberal Democrats, but one element needs to be refined. He describes his choice, which is to give himself the power that he calls indefinite detention, as not being internment. He rightly says that in some technical sense the people he is interning—as I would call it—have the right to leave voluntarily. However, he has made the argument powerfully—although I disagree with it—that the choice that falls to those people is to go to countries to which he says he would not deport them. I do not understand in what meaningful sense someone could be said voluntarily to be able to leave if the circumstances of their departure are such that he would not compel them to go to that place.
      Mr. Blunkett: That is an interesting debating point. I should warn the hon. Member that I have read chunks

      383
      of his 1999 book, which relates, interestingly, to definitions of freedom and the role of politics. I happen to believe that if people wish to leave this country after they have come here voluntarily, they should be free to do so. If they choose to do so, that is very different from a Home Secretary deporting them on a certificate in the belief that they are a risk, but in circumstances in which their lives would then be at risk.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Blunkett: We are about to enter the M25 on the issue, but because blood pressure should not be allowed to rise too high, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
      Mr. Fisher: The Home Secretary is willing to allow people voluntarily to leave the country whom he has good reason to suspect are associated with international terrorism. It cannot be good to let loose into the international community people whom he believes to be international terrorists; they should be detained and prosecuted here. We would do international security no favours by allowing those people to go voluntarily to another country.
      Mr. Blunkett: That is the dilemma we have struggled with. The obvious answer is for my hon. Friend to table an amendment on Report that the process, including the role of certification and the review by SIAC, should lead to the person being imprisoned, even though the evidence base differs from the one that would usually be used and would normally be available to commit them for a set period of time to prison.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall not give way. I want to finish the point.
      There is a good debating point as to whether someone should be ejected from the country, but let me make it clear: we are using immigration powers—we are relating them to the issue of someone who has voluntarily come into our country, was hosted by this country, but whom we wish to remove on the grounds that they are a risk to our national security or that their presence is not conducive to the public good. We are challenged on that, not in terms of the fact that, historically, we can do that, because under the Immigration Act 1971—in schedule 3, I think: just for Simon Carr of The Independent, I was not referring to braille to enable me to remember that point—[Interruption.] He would not be in the Gallery because he will be having a good dinner somewhere. The biggest choice that he will have made will not have been at Sainsbury's but on the quality of the wine that he is buying on the expense account of The Independent. He cannot say anything more vile about me than he said on Tuesday morning, so he can get his own back at length, and undoubtedly, often—[Interruption.] Muesli will not he on the menu.
      The serious point is that under those immigration powers, we had the ability to deport someone from this country. What has got in our way was the judgment that we were unable to ask a person to leave because their life was at risk. I rest my case.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion on Human Rights, the Ayes were 331, the Noes were 74, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Simon Hughes: It is an indication of the huge importance of this debate that the Committee is very full. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that we have listened to him with great attention, and that colleagues on both sides of the House are trying to deal with a set of complex matters that have greatly preoccupied many hon. Members and many people outside this place.
  Two parliamentary Committees, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, have attentively deliberated and given helpful advice. When we began the debate, I was conscious of the fact that we had about one-and-three-quarter hours to discuss 15 clauses, 22 amendments and one new clause to do with what the letter column of The Times—not The Guardian—in a headline above letters from Lord Donaldson, Lord Russell and Professor Brian Simpson described as
  "Inherent dangers in plan to intern terrorist suspects".
  The House accepts that the Home Secretary has a duty to try to think of ways of dealing with the issue. We all understand. There is no dissent about that. The Home Secretary has not only the opportunity but the duty to do that, and we do not criticise him at all.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that three different types of conclusion have been reached. The Government's conclusion is in the proposal that we are discussing. The Conservatives' conclusion relates to other articles of the human rights convention and would allow people to be sent back to countries to which the Home Secretary and I agree we would not want them sent. We believe that it is better to uphold our international obligations not to send people to such countries—and that view is confirmed by the all-party Home Affairs Committee.
  The third conclusion is that expressed by my colleagues and me. I shall summarise it in a moment, because it is important that the Home Secretary and I do not disagree about what the different positions are.
  This debate is hugely important for all us. I shall try to explain objectively why that is so, by reading one paragraph from the report of the Home Affairs Committee, published last Monday. Paragraph 32 states:
  "One ground for concern is the quality of the intelligence information on which detention was based. We note that in 1991, some 176 Iraqis and other Arabs were detained during the Gulf war. We understand that many of those, if not all, were eventually released without charge and some were subsequently awarded compensation."

  385
  We are debating proposed laws that risk doing injustice to people, so it is hugely important that the House, collectively, should try not to do that. Those people would not by definition be British but that does not reduce our obligations, as I am sure the Home Secretary agrees.
  From the two Select Committee reports, I have drawn seven suggestions that would make the legislation more specific and targeted. The first is that we should define more tightly the term "international terrorists". The Home Secretary has helpfully acknowledged that he is willing to consider that, so I shall not pursue the point. I remind him that the Human Rights Committee noted that no other legislation authorises detention on the basis of criteria so vague as the current measure.
  Secondly, the Select Committee makes the serious point that the legislation could be held to discriminate on grounds of nationality. We are proposing to detain people who are not British nationals and do not have the right to indefinite residence. We would not propose so to detain British nationals, so such provisions might be illegal under human rights and other international law. The Select Committee was not persuaded by the Home Secretary's evidence.
  The third suggestion relates to an important point in clause 27—it would be easy to become technical at this stage, but I shall try not to be. That point is addressed in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), as a result of the Select Committee's considerations, and in amendment No. 114, tabled by my hon. Friends and me. The provisions deal with circumstances in which, when a certificate has been cancelled, another certificate can be issued. They deal with the criticism that has been properly made of the clause. The clause states that a certificate can be reissued
  "on the grounds of a change of circumstance or otherwise".
  That is too wide. Will the Home Secretary consider amendment No. 114, which seeks to be even more specific than the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady?
  The Home Secretary has dealt in part with my fourth point. The initial issue of the certificate should he subject to a test of reasonableness. I shall return to that point. The Home Secretary has accepted that the measure should include such a proposal.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also minded to accept my fifth suggestion, which is also based on Select Committee advice: it is far better that the right to be represented—even in the unusual circumstances of an appeal hearing—should continue through each stage of the hearing, even if it goes to appeal at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The reason is obvious: there may be new evidence that the representative of the detained person might not otherwise see and about which they could not argue before the commission.
  The sixth point relates to the length of detention. To summarise one of the amendments, it would be much more acceptable if the length of detention without automatic review were shorter. We have proposed that the intervals should be no longer than three months. After that, detention should be reviewed.
  The seventh point is that the police should not, as proposed, hold the fingerprints of asylum seekers indefinitely, as though they were in the same category as
  386
  people who were being held in relation to other crimes, but that there should be a limitation. It is most unfair to group together people who have been suspected of a crime and those who are only in this country because they are seeking asylum.
  So there are seven specific proposals for improvement, and I hope that they will all find favour with the Government today or, at worst, next week when the Bill is considered in the House of Lords. They have all-party support, although they have been proposed in different ways.
  7.30 pm
  The Home Secretary rightly wants to know what alternative general argument my colleagues and I would put. Before I turn to the specifics, which I can do very briefly, I shall put two very simple principles to him. First, this is not a matter for lawyers and judges; it is an issue for ordinary individuals who may become swept up in a nationalist fervour or become involved with other people who are, or who may come here as students, or who may have family in this country and who find themselves suspected by the intelligence services or others of being involved in terrorism in some way.
  I hope that we can get away from thinking that the concerns about judicial review are the concerns of lawyers. They are absolutely not lawyers' concerns. This country's history is one of dealing with people—whether British born or immigrants—and ensuring that they are treated properly, but cases have often ended up in the courts because the Executive have failed those people. Tribunals have often been involved, and judges and lawyers have often had to help them to argue their cases. They may have had no English or poor English; they may have been elderly or infirm.
  Detention without trial is a citizens' issue; it is an issue of civil liberty for the ordinary, non-professional individual. I hope that the debate can continue on the assumption that this issue is not academic or esoteric; it goes to the core of whether everyone has equality before the law in this great country of ours.
  Mr. Letwin: I want to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's argument in relation to part 4. Is he arguing that there is no substantial difference between a United Kingdom citizen who poses a threat and a foreign national who poses a threat and that he would prefer part 4 to be eliminated altogether? Does he want to join us and others in wanting to limit those provisions as a second-best solution? Or is he arguing, as I would, that, in some circumstances, the Home Secretary has a moral right to take action against foreign nationals who pose a threat to our security that he would not necessarily be able to take in relation to our own citizens?
  Simon Hughes: Those are perfectly proper questions, as I would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly reasonable to deal differently, as far as is required, with people who are United Kingdom citizens, who by definition have a right to live here, and people who do not have that right. We must all be permitted to accept that discrimination. The answer to the question about what we would argue should therefore happen is to be found in the improvements to the process that we and others have proposed. I can list those proposals very simply.

  387
  First, we should look for international solutions, just as we have done in the context of the International Criminal Court. That point was picked up by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who serves on the Home Affairs Committee. The sooner we can find a Europe-wide solution for people who are not citizens of any given country the better. That is one route that we must pursue, but I accept that we cannot do it today.
  Secondly, as suggested to the Select Committees, there are a panoply of offences under current terrorism legislation, especially the Terrorism Act 2000, which do not appear to have been considered or used but which appear to fit the bill. I shall give two examples. I served on the Committee that considered the 2000 Act and remember the long debates. People can already be arrested, charged and prosecuted for directing activities and incitement to commit terrorism abroad under that Act, in which terrorism is broadly defined. We should consider those offences before we conclude that they do not work.
  The third option, which was proposed in evidence to the Select Committees, is that if the evidence is defective, we should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee—which reports to the Prime Minister—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider whether ways in which evidence is dealt with might be better adjusted in such circumstances, so that things that are currently precluded could be allowed in evidence, thus allowing trial and conviction. I do not pretend that that would necessarily allow the detention of everyone the Home Secretary has in mind, but we should try them first. We should never go down the road that ends in detention without trial—possibly for five years, as we agreed on Monday, although that is subject to review—without first considering every single other option.
  Mr. Hogg: I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to his second option—to consider the existing offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. We could reinforce that approach by changing the standard for proof, so that the offence could be established on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. In other 'words, the civil rather than the criminal standard could be applied.
  Simon Hughes: That proposal is controversial, but perfectly proper, and it leads us to the fact that we cannot properly get this law right unless we consider how to get to where we all agree we want to go without, by accident, getting to where many of us agree we should not go. However, we are precluded from doing so tonight. That is the problem with the process.
  I want to make another point before dealing with the other amendments in the group—I am conscious that this debate is ridiculously restricted. There is a real issue about asylum seekers, but we will not have a chance to consider it again. Again, Select Committees addressed that issue. I have asked the new representative in the United Kingdom of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and my advice is that under the convention on refugees we have to allow people to put their case. Then we can say, "They are precluded from qualifying because of the exception rule"—that is, because of their track record. But we cannot preclude people from having their asylum case considered by simply imposing a barrier. That is an important distinction, and international law is on the side of the UNHCR.
  388
  We welcome the Government's proposals in amendments to clause 21 to move from the test of believing to that of "reasonably" believing, but the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I believe that there should be a higher test than that, and both main Opposition parties have tabled an amendment to that effect. We believe that the phrase "substantial grounds to believe" should be used in that test before the certification process is triggered. We have tabled a series of amendments, such as amendments Nos. 96 and 97, to deal with that issue, as well as that involving substantial grounds for suspicion.
  We argue that we should at least limit the grounds for excluding judicial review, but Liberal Democrat Members and many others on both sides of the House would prefer it if clauses 21 and 29 were removed altogether.
  Mr. McNamara: And clause 23. That is the principal one.
  Simon Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that clauses 21 and 29 are the key ones.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Simon Hughes: Of course I accept that clause 23 is very important. There is a strong view in the House and in the Select Committees that those clauses should be deleted and that no qualification is appropriate because the other processes that I suggest should be tried first.
  I have said that the review period must be shorter. There is an important need to tighten the grounds for issuing new certificates. The Scottish National party and others have tabled amendments that deal with improving the SIAC process, inasmuch as that process will be appropriate. In addition to the recommendations of the Select Committees, the SNP has made welcome recommendations to have a two-year maximum period.
  It is crucial that we do not let things with which we are uncomfortable leave Committee. I say this carefully, but it is better to give the Executive too little power at the moment than to give them too much. Had we voted for an automatic sunset provision, we might be willing and able to err in the other direction. However, because we do not have that qualification to the extent that we would wish, I ask the Committee to be cautious.
  These are just about the most serious issues that this place can debate. We do not have enough time to do them justice, but I hope that the Home Secretary will respond to all positive suggestions for improving the Bill. I hope that the Committee will vote to keep the right of the courts always to be able to make sure that the Executive are doing their job properly.
  Jean Corston: I shall be as brief as I possibly can in view of the number of Members who wish to speak.
  I thank the Home Secretary for giving us assurances in respect of amendment No. 126, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). It contains what I describe as the "otherwise test." I also thank him for agreeing to reconsider the definition of "links with", because both issues were drawn to the attention of the House by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which my hon. Friend and I are members.

  389
  Amendment No. 127 deals with the appeal procedure. The Joint Committee was persuaded that the due process of rights and obligations was fulfilled under SIAC because it can offer a full hearing on the merits of a case, because a nominated representative can represent the interests of the applicant and because there is an opportunity to appeal on points of law. However, before the Court of Appeal or on appeal from that court to the House of Lords, there is a risk that the appeals procedure would be insufficient to meet the standards of articles 5(4) or article 6 of the European convention on human rights, because there is no provision under the legislation or under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 for the nominated representative to represent the applicant's interest in the appeal.
  Therefore, there might be a violation of the European convention on human rights if the nature of national security considerations in the case unduly inhibited an applicant or his or her representatives from formulating a point of law or if new evidence was presented on appeal on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am mindful of the interpretation that has been made. Within the terms that we discussed at the Human Rights Committee and in the debate on Monday, lawyers advise me that, when the advocate—the person nominated from the list provided—is appointed for the particular purposes of evidence that would not be admissible in other circumstances, nothing precludes the representative nominated by the person concerned from taking other aspects of the case, including appeal. That person may also decide to nominate themselves as the advocate and take the appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the Lords if leave is given.
  Jean Corston: I thank my right hon. Friend; that is very helpful. We tabled the amendment because, when we took evidence from him and his officials on 14 November, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) raised this particular point at question 39 of the minutes of evidence. In response, Mr. Carter, an assistant legal adviser to the Home Office, said:
  "The Court of Appeal, as I understand it, in the Rehman case allowed a special representative who acted before SIAC".
  My right hon. Friend added:
  "So they could if they wished."
  Bearing in mind the fact that amendment No. 127 refers to the "avoidance of doubt", it seems to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar that it would be entirely sensible for the Bill to make it clear that such representation is a matter of right.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain the House long. Much of what I want to say about this group of amendments and clauses was said on Second Reading. I certainly do not want to rehearse those arguments again.
  I shall briefly touch on amendment No. 98, which was tabled jointly with Liberal Democrat Members. If we understand the issue correctly, the amendment represents a position that I would have expected the Home Secretary to hold as well. I therefore wonder whether we have made an error or whether he has. We shall perhaps see which is the case during the debate.
  390
  The current articulation of part 4 is such that it quite rightly and very specifically excludes from the indefinite detention provisions anybody who is a UK citizen. Such a person would obviously not fall to be removed, so the triggers that are available in part 4 would not apply to a UK citizen.
  The provisions deal with foreign nationals. If a particular foreign national were to come to the UK with the ambition—in the Home Secretary's belief, reasonable belief or substantial grounds for belief—of aiming at the destruction of Baghdad or New York, the Home Secretary would be able, under part 4 and subject to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, to detain that individual indefinitely. However, the oddity of the situation is that the second definition in clause 21(4) would mean that, if that same individual coming from the same foreign place had it in mind—in the Home Secretary's belief, reasonable belief or whatever—to blow up Belfast as part of a joint operation with the Real IRA, the Home Secretary would not be able to detain that person indefinitely.
  I do not know whether the judgment of our compatriots over the ages will be that part 4 is right or wrong. However, like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and, I believe, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I am clear that if part 4, however it may be amended, is justified, it should apply equally to a foreign national who has in his sights Belfast as much as if he had in his sights Baghdad.
  Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the position of what I would term "hybrid cases", in which the Home Secretary can identify a group of people who are engaged in planning for a terrorist activity? Some of them will fall within the Bill's remit but the others may be English nationals and will not. How will the nationals be treated when the people with whom they are plotting will be covered by the Bill? Is not such a hybrid case a genuine problem? How would the hon. Gentleman's amendment tackle it?
  Mr. Letwin: I have wrestled with that very question and that is what gave rise to my intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I may be wrong, because I do not believe it will possible for some time to tell whether what any of us believes is right or wrong. However, I shall describe the conclusion that I have reached.
  I believe that there is a substantial difference between the protection of civil liberty that we should feel we have a duty to accord to those who are our fellow citizens, whatever they may be doing or plotting, and the protection of civil liberty that we feel we should have a duty to accord to foreign nationals. I accept that that is a very difficult distinction to make. Both groups are human beings and it is necessary to accord respect to both. However, when someone who is not a national enters our country, there is a special obligation on that person not to use us as a base for his activities and not to attack us. If someone is a citizen of this country, however, there is a special obligation on us to treat them in a certain way. I admit all the difficulties of that distinction, and I suspect that the Home Secretary does too, but I join him in making it.

  391
  To answer the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) straight, our amendment does not deal with what he identifies, although I do not, as the problem of hybridity. That is an anomaly, an inelegance and perhaps even a problem in the long term, but in the short term the bigger problem is with a person who is a foreign national. I am willing to join the Home Secretary in agreeing that such a person should be detained in some circumstances. If that foreign national has it in mind to blow up part of our country, the provisions for detention do not apply. That is strange and I cannot find it in me to support that distinction.
  Mr. Hunter: Is not the issue of hybridity more complex than that? According to media reports, seven men are held under the successor to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, two of whom are Irish citizens, five of whom are United Kingdom citizens. If the Bill becomes law, a different legal regime will apply to the two on the assumption that they are Irish citizens and the others are UK citizens. Where do we stand on dual citizenship? Tens of thousands of UK citizens who identify themselves with a nationalist background in Northern Ireland have dual citizenship. How does one define them? If they commit a terrorist offence, are they foreign terrorists or domestic terrorists?
  Mr. Letwin: The problem is that the difficulty to which my hon. Friend alludes does not arise from the Bill. In the case to which he refers, neither the Irish nationals nor the UK nationals would be caught by the provisions for indefinite detention. In that context, the Irish nationals would be concerned only with the affairs of a part of the UK, so they would be excluded from the provisions. That is the exclusion that the leader of the Ulster Unionists, my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot stomach. I hope that the Home Secretary makes the change recommended in amendment No. 98, although another method of achieving that would be acceptable.
  We tabled amendment No. 101 to provide for strictly limited judicial review. On Second Reading there was a fascinating exchange between the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), the Home Secretary, other hon. Members and me. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North is a former Solicitor-General and a distinguished jurist. He argued that there was no need for the limited scope of judicial review that the amendment would introduce because an appeal on a point of law could include an appeal on the question of whether SIAC had conformed to its procedures as laid down by the Lord Chancellor.
  Following that debate, we again consulted jurists—hopefully as distinguished as the hon. and learned Gentleman—who do not take such a clear view. I am genuinely in doubt about what the situation is, and I should like the Home Secretary to reassure us that if it turns out that the appeal on a point of law does not provide for appeals relating to the procedure of SIAC, he will amend the law immediately to ensure that such appeals are possible. If he gives that assurance, we will happily not push our amendment to a vote either here or in the House of Lords. I have no wish to saddle the Bill with an unnecessary amendment.
  Mr. Blunkett: I will not saddle myself with an immediate answer. Instead, in the spirit of the hon.
  392
  Gentleman's comments, I agree to examine that matter for the purpose of clarification between now and the Bill's entry into the House of Lords.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that. We await his considered view. I accept that we cannot expect him to give an immediate decision.
  It is difficult to be clear on such a complex chain of argument, but I hope to set out our position on detention and deportation, which we recommend as an alternative solution. I want to stress that there is no question of the Conservative party suggesting that a Home Secretary should be compelled to remove a person to what he regards as an unacceptable fate. We accept that he should judge whether a particular fate is unacceptable in the light of the character of that fate for that person and of the risk to our national security posed by that person. We want the Home Secretary to take powers that give him the flexibility to make that judgment case by case. In many instances—for example, in relation to India and the United States—it would be reasonable to use the power of removal rather than to detain the individuals. That would pose a lesser risk.
  It is on that basis and that basis alone that we would be reasonably comfortable with the detention powers, as modified by the amendments that we tabled with the Liberal Democrats and those tabled by the Home Secretary. We would be willing to subscribe with the gravest reservations to part 4 even if he does not accept our alternative flexible arrangements, because we accept the argument that he probably does not have sufficient powers to deal with the situation that he judges to be so serious.
  I cannot say, as the debate unfolds in the House and the other place, whether we would be willing to stomach these powers if clause 29 remains intact and there is no further judicial review of the merits. We are struggling inwardly with that. If we were to vote on clause 29 today, I would ask my hon. Friends to abstain while we wrestle further with that problem. I hope that the Home Secretary will also wrestle with it, so that when the Bill eventually emerges from the other place, which has so much more time to consider it, we will have found a solution that makes the detention clauses as unobnoxious to our civil liberties as possible. They must also do as little as possible to endanger our country's reputation and safety when we consider the possibility of the friends and relations of those detained using certain methods to get them out.
  With those provisos and reservations we give a highly qualified backing to the clauses that cause so many hon. Members on both sides of the House such concern.
  Denzil Davies: I shall briefly raise what may appear to be a somewhat technical point concerning clause 25.
  Amendments have been tabled to clause 25, but I do not wish to discuss them. The only question that I have for the Home Secretary relates to the primary legislation, if I may refer to it in that way—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. My right hon. Friend said that he had read the Hansard of the Second Reading debate of that legislation. I do not know whether he has had a chance to read the Act, but that Act sets out in section 2 the jurisdiction of the commission, and the jurisdiction relates to the various Acts—mainly immigration Acts—that are set out in subsection (2).

  393
  8 pm
  Of course subsection (2) does not refer to clause 25 of the Bill before us, because it was a 1997 Act. Clause 25 says:
  "A suspected … terrorist may appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against his certification under section 21."
  There may be something else in the legislation that I have missed—there may be an amendment of the 1997 Act somewhere in the legislation—but merely to state that fact does not confer on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission the power to hear appeals under clause 21. There may be a catch-all clause somewhere in the 1997 Act, but I have not found that either.
  It has been argued in previous debates on the Bill that SIAC, or whatever it is called, is not appropriate. The Home Secretary says that of course it is because it is about immigration and we are talking about immigration, but I believe that one has to look at the specific areas of jurisdiction in relation to legislation for which SIAC was established; and it is established under section 2 of the 1997 Act.
  My simple question, which does not go to the heart of the Bill but is necessary in the interests of clarity—after all, we are in Committee—is: is my right hon. Friend satisfied that merely stating that SIAC can hear appeals under clause 21 gives it a jurisdiction to do so? The parent Act, the 1997 Act, obviously cannot relate to this present legislation.
  Mr. Blunkett: I wish to be helpful. I believe that it does have jurisdiction, because it is dealing with the powers that were granted, long before SIAC was created, in terms of certification. The role of SIAC, agreed in 1997, was hence to deal with that certification process. I am happy to provide the necessary legal evidence to my right hon. Friend and to other Members if that will help—over the next two weeks—them to be fully satisfied that what we are saying is the case.
  Denzil Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am not criticising him when I say that I do not really understand. Apparently there were some powers that were there before SIAC was established, and we are now taking those from the air, or somewhere, and bringing them back. That may be the case, but I will avail myself of my right hon. Friend's kind offer, and if his lawyers, who I am sure are worthy gentlemen, and obviously better than some lawyers in private practice, are prepared to supply him with chapter and verse, which I am sure that he will sign, we shall all be very happy.
  Mr. George Osborne: I want to speak briefly on the clauses. I welcome the limited sunset clause that has been agreed to. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who is not in his place, put his name to that amendment. It was the first amendment that he had ever put his name to, and he is in deep shock because the Government have accepted it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): He is not here.
  Mr. Osborne: He is not here because, I believe, he has a dinner; we dealt with that earlier in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I am here, so I should like to say
  394
  that, in my view, the sunset clause only makes part 4 less bad than it was. We are undermining the basic, historical liberties that have been established over hundreds of years of common law—basic liberties such as the right to a writ of habeas corpus, the right to normal legal proceedings, the right to know what a person is accused of and the right to challenge that evidence in a court of law. I notice that, in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which it did extremely well to produce in such a short time, Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, is quoted as follows:
  "The right of an individual to apply to the courts by judicial review for a writ of habeas corpus … is one of the foundations of the rule of law and … previous attempts by Parliament and others to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts in various contexts … have"
  all
  "been held to be ineffective."
  We know where the Government are coming from on this, because in recent weeks the Home Secretary has made no secret of the disdain in which he holds lawyers. He expressed it in his speech to the Labour party conference. He expressed it in his article in The Times after his conference speech, in which he said that
  "British democracy was not created by lawyers and judges"—
  which I believe to be a misunderstanding of the history of this country, because we cannot point to a single—
  Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is not the only guilty party, because this confusion has been a feature of our discussions in Committee tonight. There are various legal systems in the United Kingdom and it is wholly inaccurate to refer to British law in the various circumstances covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Osborne: I am happy to confine myself to English law, which has a long history of liberty established by the rule of common law and by decisions of judges and jurists over many centuries, which are in many cases as important as acts of revolution or Acts passed in the House over the centuries.
  Today we find ourselves contorting our long tradition of domestic liberty. We are jumping through legal hoops. We are going through legal fictions, such as declaring ourselves to be in a state of public emergency, because we—by that I mean Governments who have acted in our name and that of the House—have signed themselves up to international agreements that have been interpreted far more widely than was expected when they were signed up to.
  We have already gone through the steps of derogating from article 5 of the European convention on human rights, and I have yet to hear a convincing explanation from a Minister of why we cannot go through the process suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), which is to withdraw from the European convention for a split second and rejoin with reservations, which are exactly what France has. By doing so, we would be dealing with the root cause of all the problems that we have been discussing today and on Monday—the conventions that we have signed up to and the way in which they are interpreted by lawyers—and we would have no need to twist our domestic laws and liberties.
  Ms Abbott: We are now, happily, moving from the choreography of carefully calibrated concessions on to the substance of the Bill, and the substance of the set of clauses before us is the notion of internment without trial. I have heard Ministers say that it is not internment because people can always leave the country, but I point out to colleagues that anyone who knows anything about the workings of the immigration system knows that it is highly unlikely that any other European Union or American state would accept someone whom we had just interned, so in reality the only place they could go would be the country in which they were at risk of torture or worse—so it will feel, and look, very much like internment without trial.
  Much has been made of the suddenness with which this issue has been blown up and the importance of moving speedily, but it has long been the wish of some of the most gruesome, most barbaric, most undemocratic regimes in the world to get the Government to act against people whom they deem to be terrorists. Finally, and fortuitously for them, they have got their wish in these clauses on internment.
  As other hon. Members have pointed out, these clauses potentially have a very wide ambit. It is no good Ministers briefing people privately that only half a dozen individuals will be affected. Thousands of people in this country are card-carrying members of organisations that we, perhaps rightly, have proscribed, but which they consider to be nationalist groups of a somewhat robust nature. I know that membership of the PKK or of certain Sikh organisations will not, on its own, bring people within the ambit of certification, but the Bill is potentially wide ranging, and that is why it is unfortunate that we have so little time to debate it.
  Let me remind the House that it has long been accepted, certainly by most Labour Members, that internment was one of the best recruitment sergeants that the IRA ever had. We are supposed to be acting against terrorism and reassuring young people, whether they are Muslim or Catholic, about the fairness of British society and the things that we stand for, but the notion of internment without trial runs clean contrary to the idea of an effective war against terrorism. Even if it were possible to persuade some of us that in certain limited circumstances—much more prescribed than those in the Bill—internment was the only practical option, the notion of internment without judicial review would be completely unacceptable.
  I know that I will see colleagues marching through the Lobby to vote for internment without trial whom, many years ago, I would never have dreamt of seeing voting for such a thing. The Government, with the size of their majority, can pass these clauses any which way they like, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House look to the Lords to make this legislation acceptable both to the course of an effective war on terrorism and to this country's traditions of liberty and justice.
  Annabelle Ewing: I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. It goes without saying that many of the Bill's provisions are welcome and do not cause concern, but I am afraid that part 4 does not fall into that category. I join the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who lament the extremely limited time that we have been given to examine these fundamental provisions.
  396
  As a lawyer—one of that popular breed—and a Scottish Member, I must point out that many of the provisions will have a significant impact on Scots criminal law. It is a great shame that we are debating them in a Committee of the whole House in proceedings that will last only three days. Only one Scottish Labour Member has seen fit to participate and, when one considers that the Scottish Executive happily proposed in a Sewel motion that the matter be passed to Westminster to be dealt with, that is a great shame for all those who have an interest in the integrity of Scots law.
  The SNP cannot support a measure to introduce detention without trial. We believe that the right to trial following detention is a fundamental tenet of the legal systems in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the Government are to depart from that, they will have to make a much better case. That is why my hon. Friends and I voted against the motion to invoke the derogation from the European convention on human rights. It is notable that no other contracting party to the convention has sought that derogation, and the UK Government have failed to make a case for their desire to do so.
  I find it staggering that the Government seek not only to invoke a derogation but, in clause 30, to preclude the jurisdiction of our supreme courts to test the validity of that derogation by way of judicial review. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to the clause.
  Many comments have been made about SIAC, and I made an intervention on the nature of that strange body. One hon. Gentleman made the point that if we involved the courts fully, it would be like substituting one High Court judge for another. With respect, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the legal systems in this country. To say that SIAC is a court could not be further from the truth. It bears no resemblance to a court, and if we want to bestow on that body significant powers on the right to appeal and to a trial following detention, we should come out and say so, instead of pretending that SIAC is a court of law.
  8.15 pm
  It is not helpful to say that there is an appeal on a point of law which may or may not involve certain procedural matters. We are talking about the right to appeal, on a point of fact or law, to the court of first instance about the decision of the court of first instance. Which court would then determine the merits of the initial decision? The answer is no court. Surely we cannot sign up to such a fundamental breach of our civil liberties without due cause being shown, which it has not been.
  My colleagues and I will be unable to support the clauses. The Home Secretary pointed out that choices had to be made, and he is correct. In any measure to be adopted, there is always a balance to be struck between the interests of security and respect for fundamental civil liberties. The Government have not struck that balance in part 4.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I rise to support the provisions that the Home Secretary has brought to the House, but also to say how pleased I am with his agreement to make concessions. Like many Members, I am uncomfortable with some of the provisions, particularly those on

  397
  detention and human rights legislation. I helped to get that legislation through the House, and I feel distinctly uncomfortable about circumstances in which it may be undermined. The sunset clause agreed by the Home Secretary is therefore very welcome, and I congratulate members of the Home Affairs Committee on their efforts to secure that.
  The circumstances facing this country after 11 September mean that there is a serious threat to the people of this country, which means that we should take the necessary steps to protect them. There are people in the United Kingdom who are wanted for terrorism in other countries; they may have committed no offence in this country for which we can arrest them, but we cannot return them to their country of origin. In the current international crisis, we must be able to deal with such situations.
  When the Human Rights Act 1998 was being discussed, we were well aware that this problem might present itself. At that stage, however, it did not look as if the threat from such individuals would be great. After 11 September, the situation changed. I hope that in due course we will be able to overturn our derogation from part of the European convention on human rights and fully comply with it. That may well be some time in the future, but the sooner the better. What is required now is a balanced response, and that is what the Government seek.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious that I have limited time, but I will give way.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am interested in the observation that we are going to imprison people who have committed no offence in this country. As I understand it, even the Home Secretary does not go that far, as he says that there are people who have committed offences, but who, for some reason or other, we cannot bring to trial.
  Mr. O'Brien: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is saying that we have good cause for believing that the people in question are involved in activities that might lead to terrorist offences or are supportive of such offences. That is a somewhat different prospect. Of course, if those involved had committed offences in this country, we would be able to deal with them in our courts. That is the way in which we should deal with them, but we are facing circumstances that are somewhat different. I am afraid, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend, who is usually very good on these matters, is not quite right on the point that he made.
  I want to deal briefly with a number of issues. First, the decision to be taken by any Home Secretary in these circumstances will be difficult. He will have to make a judgment based on the evidence, some of which will come from confidential and high-security sources. That is a difficult decision for him to make, but once it is made, it is right that it should be subject to a review. SIAC has been established for the purpose of reviewing very difficult decisions made by the Home Secretary. I have heard some nonsense from the Opposition about SIAC
  398
  being a mere immigration commission that is of little importance. It deals with fundamental issues about returning people to countries when they will not necessarily wish to return there.
  Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No, I shall not do so.
  Decisions may be made and referred to SIAC about returning people to their countries. Of course, they may be in some fear about doing so, so SIAC deals with serious situations. That is why it is a high-powered commission on which a High Court judge, an immigration judge and a specialist in security matters sit. This is indeed a very serious body. I believe that the question whether it qualifies as a court of record is immaterial. It is a serious and high-powered body that is presided over by a High Court judge and deals with serious issues. It has a special procedure that enables intelligence information to be dealt with by the special counsel procedure set up under the legislation.
  Ms Bridget Prentice: On the information from security services, will my hon. Friend make a quick comment about why it is important for the cases to be dealt with by SIAC and not judicial review, because of the potential effect on our intelligence services?
  Mr. O'Brien: That was the very point with which I was about to deal. Under SIAC procedures, the defendant does not get to know the source of the intelligence information that is provided to the Home Secretary. If we were to deal with these matters by judicial review, they would be referred to the divisional court. There is not currently a procedure that could enable the defendant to put his case properly before the divisional court by way of judicial review and in which he would have access to all the information about which the decision is made, other than by using certificates of public interest immunity. I suspect that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) will be seeking to intervene on that point. We know about the problems that have arisen in relation to certificates of public interest immunity in the past. There is a great reluctance to apply them, but that would seem to be the only way in which we could get these matters before the divisional court. We would be creating an entirely artificial situation that: would not enable the defendant properly to examine the case against him in any event and would not involve the sort of the protections that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been seeking to claim too much in respect of judicial review.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That point is simply wrong. The divisional court has the powers to receive whatever evidence it wants, in whichever form it wants. It does not have to reveal material from security sources to somebody who appeals to it. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is simply wrong.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. and learned Friend misses my point. If he is suggesting that judicial review would enable the Home Secretary's decision to be reviewed by the court in its fullest context, including the intelligence information that is supplied to him, I must point out that

  399
  that is not the case. In effect, he is agreeing with me that such a procedure would not provide the level of judicial review that most people—who are not lawyers in this House—would expect those who favour proper protection to want. The only protection that they expect is that provided by ensuring that the Home Secretary's decision is fully reviewed in a process that includes the intelligence information. The only context in which the intelligence information and all the other facts of the case can be properly reviewed is SIAC, which has proper procedures, a senior High Court judge and circumstances in which all the facts can be examined. The special counsel can examine the security matters and the defendant's own counsel can examine the other matters before SIAC, and a judgment can then be made. It is unnecessary to have first, a High Court judge, an immigration judge and others review the Home Secretary's decision, and then also to go off to the High Court for another few judges to review it once again, without even the benefit of the defendant putting the full case, as he is unable to have before him all the facts that will be before SIAC.
  Thus, judicial review would create a wholly unnecessary, virtually spurious and messy new procedure. The Home Secretary's decision can be properly reviewed and it is necessary for that review to take place, but once the decision has been made, there is sufficient protection in the sort of procedures that we are undertaking for a very small number of people. It seems to me that the Home Secretary has shown that he is prepared to listen and to consider the concerns of hon. Members. However, I do not think that he needs to listen to the arguments that have been advanced in relation to judicial review. He can do so, but I do not think that he should accede to them, as the result would be a situation that would not protect the defendant in the way in which some of those who advocate it suggest.
  The objective for the Home Secretary should be to protect the citizens of this country and to ensure that we also protect their liberties. He is seeking to create the right balance in doing that and I support him on the plans that he is proposing.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am conscious that we have very little time left and that we have not had an opportunity to hear back from the Government about the all-important matter of amendment No. 98. I remind the House that that amendment seeks to remove the lines in clause 21(4) that state:
  "'international terrorism' does not include terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom."
  The provision has caused the greatest consternation and anxiety in Northern Ireland. When others of our countrymen realise what the Government have in mind, they will share that concern.
  Two big issues are at stake: the practical issue and the issue of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) set out the practical issue very clearly. If someone who is a terrorist or is connected with a terrorist organisation and whose purposes are not at all friendly—indeed, they will be very hostile—comes to this country with the objective of getting involved in terrorism in a part of the United Kingdom, perhaps in Northern Ireland, the powers that the Home Secretary is rightly taking to deal with an emergency would not apply. In that respect, there is a major lacuna and a big practical problem that has been left unresolved.
  400
  The whole House will notice that the Home Secretary and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench did not take the opportunity that was open to them either to intervene on my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary or to seek to respond to the point. There is a fundamental matter of principle as to whether we should allow into the law of the land an invidious distinction that implies that different regimes can be applied to those involved in international terrorism and those involved in terrorism within our shores. There must be an absolute principle—and I would have thought that the House of Commons would accept it unanimously—that we must be at least as rigorous in pursuing threats to our own people as we are in defending other countries around the world against the threat of terrorism.
  We expect other countries to show the same solidarity when we face terrorist threats as we have shown when such threats have been directed against them. Equally, we must ensure that our laws are even-handed and do not distinguish between the two. The last thing that we must do is to leave gaps in our laws that can be exploited by terrorists who might be targeting the United Kingdom when we are trying to close those gaps as regards terrorists who operate elsewhere.
  It being half-past eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 98, in clause 21, page 11, leave out lines 12 and 13.— [Mr. Letwin.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 361.

  Division No. 74]

  [8.31 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Allan, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Collins, Tim

  Bacon, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Norman

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Barker, Gregory

  Cotter, Brian

  Baron, John

  Cran, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brake, Tom

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Breed, Colin

  Evans, Nigel

  Brooke, Annette

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fallen, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Burnett, John

  Flight, Howard

  Burns, Simon

  Flook, Adrian

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butterfill, John

  Francois, Mark

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gale, Roger

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cameron, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Goodman, Paul

  Gray, James

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Greenway, John

  Chidgey, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  401

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Price, Adam

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Prisk, Mark

  Hancock, Mike

  Pugh, Dr John

  Harvey, Nick

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Hayes, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hermon, Lady

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Holmes, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Horam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Spink, Bob

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Swire, Hugo

  Lamb, Norman

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laws, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Letwin, Oliver

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Thurso, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lidington, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Trend, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Luff, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Webb, Steve

  Maples, John

  Weir, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mercer, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Moore, Michael

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willis, Phil

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Norman, Archie

  Wishart, Pete

  Oaten, Mark

  Yeo, Tim

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Öpik, Lembit

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Page, Richard

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Paice, James

  Mr. Charles Hendry.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Battle, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benn, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Best, Harold

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Betts, Clive

  Austin, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Baird, Vera

  Blizzard, Bob

  Banks, Tony

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Barnes, Harry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Borrow, David

  402

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brennan, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Fitzpatriok, Jim

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Burnham, Andy

  Galloway, George

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Havard, Dai

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jererny

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cousins, Jim

  Heyes, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hill, Keith

  Crausby, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan

  David, Wayne

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drew, David

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Joyce, Eric

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  403

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Kemp, Fraser

  Olner, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Organ, Diana

  Kidney, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Owen, Albert

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Perham, Linda

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Picking, Anne

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pike, Peter

  Lammy, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laxton, Bob

  Pond, Chris

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Lepper, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Levitt, Tom

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Linton, Martin

  Purchase, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony

  Purnell, James

  Love, Andrew

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lucas, Ian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Luke, Iain

  Rammell, Bill

  Lyons, John

  Rapson, Syd

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  McCabe, Stephen

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  MacDougall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruane, Chris

  McKechin, Ann

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mann, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marris, Rob

  Simon, Siôn

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Miliband, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Squire, Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tami, Mark

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  404

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Touhig, Don

  Wills, Michael

  Trickett, Jon

  Wilson, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wray, James

  Tynan, Bill

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wyatt, Derek

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 341, Noes 77.

  Division No. 75]

  [8.45 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caton, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chaytor, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Austin, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Baird, Vera

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benn, Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blackman, Liz

  Connarty, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Jean

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Borrow, David

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cummings, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Browne, Desmond

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bryant, Chris

  David, Wayne

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burnham, Andy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  405

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lloyd, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Luke, Iain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lyons, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDougall, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Havard, Dai

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heyes, David

  Mann, John

  Hill, Keith

  Marris, Rob

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hope, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Moran, Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  406

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Olner, Bill

  Soley, Clive

  O'Neill, Martin

  Southworth, Helen

  Organ, Diana

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Squire, Rachel

  Owen, Albert

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Perham, Linda

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Picking, Anne

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter

  Stringer, Graham

  Plaskitt, James

  Tami, Mark

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Todd, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Touhig, Don

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Purnell, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ouinn Lawrie

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rammell Bill

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rapson, Syd

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Watson, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Roy, Frank

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ryan, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salter, Martin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wood, Mike

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright David (Telford)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Simon, Siôn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mr. Phil Woolas.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Baker, Norman

  Dodds, Nigel

  Beggs, Roy

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Brake, Tom

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Breed, Colin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brooke, Annette

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hancock, Mike

  Burnett, John

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Burstow, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Heath, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hermon, Lady

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Holmes, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keetch, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  407

  Lamb, Norman

  Skinner, Dennis

  Laws, David

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

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  McDonnell, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Thurso, John

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyler, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Webb, Steve

  Price, Adam

  Weir, Michael

  Pugh, Dr John

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Wishart, Pete

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Wray, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Richard Shepherd and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Question put, That clauses 22 to 24 stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 347, Noes 70.

  Division No. 76]

  [8.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Austin, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cawsey, Ian

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Benn, Hilary

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cohen, Harry

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Coleman, Iain

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Colman, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cranston, Ross

  Brennan, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burgon, Colin

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  408

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  David, Wayne

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foulkes, George

  Laxton, Bob

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gapes, Mike

  Lepper, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lucas, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Luke, Iain

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hanson, David

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  MacDougall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McFall, John

  Havard, Dai

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Healey, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heyes, David

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hill, Keith

  Mann, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marris, Rob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Meale, Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  409

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Simon, Siôn

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Southworth, Helen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Linda

  Tami, Mark

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pike, Peter

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Truswell, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purnell, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill

  Rammell, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rapson, Syd

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Watson, Tom

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wills, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ryan, Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sawford, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Phil Woolas.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Baker, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Cotter, Brian

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Brooke, Annette

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burnett, John

  Galloway, George

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  410

  Hancock, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Salmond, Alex

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heath, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hogg, Ftt Hon Douglas

  Shepherd, Richard

  Holmes, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  Lamb, Norman

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Laws David

  Tyler, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Webb, Steve

  McDonnell, John

  Weir, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Moore, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Oaten, Mark

  Wishart, Pete

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wray, James

  Price, Adam

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Pugh, Dr John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Kevin McNamara and

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Jeremy Corbyn.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
    Clause 25

      CERTIFICATION: APPEAL
      Amendment made: No. 70, in page 13, line 5, leave out—
      'does not agree with the belief or suspicion'
      and insert—
      'considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26

      CERTIFICATION: REVIEW
      Amendment made: No. 71, in page 13, line 34, leave out—
      'does nol agree with the belief or suspicion'
      and insert—
      'considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Question put, That clauses 27 to 35 stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 325, Noes 89.

      Division No.77]

      [9.12 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Baird, Vera

      Ainger, Nick

      Banks, Tony

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Battle, John

      Allen, Graham

      Bayley, Hugh

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benn, Hilary

      Bailey, Adrian

      Berry, Roger

      411

      Best, Harold

      Edwards, Huw

      Betts, Clive

      Etford, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ennis, Jeff

      Blizzard, Bob

      Farrelly, Paul

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Borrow, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Browne, Desmond

      Gapes, Mike

      Bryant, Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      Buck, Ms Karen

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burgon, Colin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Burnham, Andy

      Gilroy, Linda

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grogan, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Chaytor, David

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Havard, Dai

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Cohen, Harry

      Heyes, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith

      Colman, Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Crausby, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Curnmings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Illsley, Eric

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      David, Wayne

      Jamieson, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim

      Joyce, Eric

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dodds, Nigel

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drew, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      412

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Lammy, David

      Purnell, James

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Linton, Martin

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Lucas, Ian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Luke, Iain

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lyons, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie

      McCabe, Stephen

      Roy, Frank

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan

      McFall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McIsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKechin, Ann

      Sawford, Phil

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simon, Siôn

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Southworth, Helen

      Meale, Alan

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Merron, Gillian

      Squire, Rachel

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Miliband, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Stringer, Graham

      Mullin, Chris

      Tami, Mark

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Toriaen)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Todd, Mark

      O'Hara, Edward

      Touhig, Don

      Olner, Bill

      Trickett Jon

      Organ, Diana

      Truswell, Paul

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Tynan, Bill

      Pickthall, Colin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pike, Peter

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Plaskitt, James

      Watson, Tom

      Pond, Chris

      Watts, David

      Pope, Greg

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      413

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, Anthonv D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wyatt Derek

      Wood, Mike

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Lloyd, Tony

      Allan, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Austin, John

      McCafferty, Chris

      Baker, Norman

      McDonnell, John

      Barnes, Harry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bennett, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Breed, Colin

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Moore, Michael

      Burden, Richard

      Oaten, Mark

      Burnett, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burstow, Paul

      Price, Adam

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Pugh, Dr John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Rendel, David

      Chidgey, David

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Cotter, Brian

      Salmond, Alex

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Galloway, George

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

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Thurso, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Tyler, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Heath, David

      Webb, Steve

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Weir, Michael

      Holmes, Paul

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Willis, Phil

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Winnick, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Wishart, Pete

      Keetch, Paul

      Wray, James

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Lamb, Norman

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Laws, David

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Tom Brake.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clauses 27 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 106

      BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION: FOREIGN OFFICERS ETC.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss the following: Clauses 107 and 108 stand part.
      New clause 5—Consent for prosecution under sections 106 or 107—
      '—(1) No prosecution for an offence under sections 106 or 107 shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
      414
      (2) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once every twelve months a report on any prosecutions arising under section 106 or 107.'.
      Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I raise this point of order so that we do not make mistakes later on. The provisions in the group that we are about to discuss all relate to bribery and corruption. Clauses 107 and 108 are then grouped next on the list. If we finish our debate on that group before 10 o'clock and are able to begin consideration of clause 109 at 10 o'clock, can we vote on clause 109—I guess that clause 110 will be grouped with it—without having compromised our views on the earlier clauses which will by then have been disposed of? I want to ensure that they can be separated.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct. At that stage, if it is before 10 pm, clause 109 can be voted on separately.
      Mr. Letwin: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Heal. If matters should not fall that way, I understand that you will be under an obligation under Standing Orders to call clauses 107, 108, 109 and 110 together. In which case, I place it on record that although we will be voting against that collectivity, it will actually be a vote against clauses 109 and 110 and not against clauses 107 and 108.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members present will have heard what he said.
      Beverley Hughes: Clauses 106 and 107 implement proposals contained in our White Paper, "Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the Prevention of Corruption". As we noted earlier, all parties expressed support for the clauses. We hope that the clauses meet our commitments to the OECD convention.
      Clause 106 will ensure that the common law offence of bribery extends to persons holding public office outside the United Kingdom. It will also amend the Prevention of Corruption Acts to ensure that they cover the bribery and corruption of foreign public bodies and officials, as well as those in the private sector, irrespective of whether their functions are carried out here or abroad.
      Clause 107 will extend our courts' extraterritorial jurisdiction over bribery and corruption offences committed abroad by United Kingdom nationals and bodies incorporated under United Kingdom law. Clause 108 is technical, but important, as it will ensure that the existing presumption of corruption will not apply more widely as a result of those clauses.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I hope that the Committee will sympathise with me tonight because such is the nature of this place and these proceedings that, at different times during the course of the day, I have anticipated having to speak on bribery at very great length, very briefly or not at all. I have concluded that brevity would be appreciated by the Committee, because other important debates should be allowed to start as soon as possible after this one.
      What of these proposals to implement the OECD convention so as to make it an offence to bribe a foreign official to induce him to give a benefit? In short, the proposals are worthy, and they have our support. Their

      415
      implementation may have nothing to do with the current emergency; their connection with terrorism or security may be almost non-existent, but we are right to find a place for them nevertheless. However, may I make a few points to the Committee?
      First, I find it terribly sad that we have no time to discuss these matters fully. They deserve close scrutiny; they deserve the attention of the whole House. One of the saddest things about today is that a number of very important issues will not get the time that they deserve. They deserve also very wide consultation, so I hope that the Government have consulted the British business world—after all, it will be affected—and taken its views into account.
      I hope, too, that the Government have considered some of the practical difficulties of holding criminal court cases here that involve principally witnesses based outside our jurisdiction and that they have spoken to bodies such as a the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary and the Bar Council about some of those possible difficulties.
      Secondly, do the Government realise that the proposals may have profound effects on our trade and on employment in this country? Do they accept that the proposals that we are considering tonight are thought by many to be a major self-denying ordinance, which we will, no doubt, obey in this country, while many of our competitors will not? Many countries that are signed up already ignore the convention, or they allow people to avoid it by using devices such as bogus consultancy contracts.
      Of course, it is wrong to bribe foreign officials to get contracts, but that is often the way of the buying world. Interestingly, no country in Africa or the middle east has signed up. Only one country in south America is signed up. Very few countries in Asia have signed up, and Russia and China have not. It is because the Opposition feel that in all cases, including the common law offence of bribing a foreign official that will be newly created under clause 106, prosecutions should be brought only with the Attorney-General's consent, and because we believe that an annual report to Parliament detailing all such prosecutions should be required that the Opposition have proposed new clause 5, which covers just those points.
      Particularly, in view of the time constraints on all hon. Members tonight, I hope that the Government will be very kind and helpful, and that they will accept new clause 5. It is quite a good new clause; I helped to draft it myself. It would be a great kindness if the Government were to consider it. I know that they have doubts about it, but an annual report to Parliament on prosecutions should not cause them any difficulty.
      9.30 pm
      Denzil Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he wants prosecutions to be brought only with the Attorney-General's consent?
      Mr. Malins: The Attorney-General's consent is already required for certain bribery offences. These provisions also face a novelty. If a British person bribes someone abroad—whether within or without the Bill's remit—there may be sensitive legal complications. Therefore, it seems to Conservative Members that the Attorney-General's consent would be very useful in every case.
      Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there might be cases in which bribery is all right? Is he
      416
      suggesting that it might be useful to secure a nice, fat, juicy defence contract but that it would not be nice if it secured a simple one for organic food?
      Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and I am stumped for a response. I have just noticed the clock, and I undertook to be brief. How time passes when one is enjoying oneself.
      Mr. George Osborne: Have not the Government wished for a long time to incorporate the OECD convention on bribery into British law? Although we can debate at length the merits of the convention and whether it should be incorporated, it has absolutely nothing to do with the emergency powers needed to deal with the international terrorist threat.
      Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I made that point earlier.
      I conclude by asking the Minister to clarify the position. I hope that I am wrong, but it seems to me that the common law offence as proposed would be committed by our security services every time that they bribed a foreign official to spy for us. That is a serious point and I would be very glad if she could deal with it. If that problem exists, I am sure that, for obvious reasons, the Committee would wish to remove it.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am a little diffident about this proposal. Years ago, I had a summer job in Africa and I was responsible for accepting goods into a company's warehouse. It was impossible to do that job without providing money to a Government official. Much of the world works on that basis. In some countries, simple transactions need the lubrication of assisting public officials to make ends meet. That places us in a difficult position. Under the provision, I would presumably have been guilty of transmitting a $20 "dash", as it is called in Africa. However, that process operates around the world.
      Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is right. He refers to the practice of giving a "dash" and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, I must point out that my dear late mother passed her driving test in Africa only because my father, who was a Church of England clergyman, gave a "dash" to the driving instructor.
      We have to look at the world as it is. We have to be sure that, in implementing the proposals, we take into account the effect that they will have on British business and commerce. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to mutter, but Conservative Members have some concern for British business and we know something of the problems in the world. We hope that the Government will the examine the matter carefully and—possibly in another place—reconsider the provision to satisfy themselves that these proposals, which on paper are very worthy, will not be the impediment to British industry that some of us fear that they will be.
      Norman Baker: I shall be quick. Clauses 106 to 108 are unusual in two ways: they are reasonably uncontroversial by comparison with the rest of the Bill and the Government bothered to discuss them properly with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, an approach that might commend itself to other provisions.

      417
      Although I agree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that the clauses have little to do with terrorism, or anti-terrorism for that matter, we should still speed them on their way. I am conscious that clause 109 is more controversial and attempts to bypass Parliament almost entirely in a sweeping way. However, I shall conclude my remarks by saying that we support the clauses.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not want to speed the clauses on their way. They are sanctioned by the phrase "politically correct", but are probably bad legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made a sound point when he said that the provisions have nothing to do with terrorism, but they are subject to a timetable and as a consequence right hon. and hon. Members are too inhibited to speak about them. That is a thoroughly bad thing. I am against the measures for three substantial reasons, which in itself is a good enough reason to oppose the Bill.
      First, it is a general proposition of English law that people are not subject to the English criminal law for acts done outside this country's jurisdiction. There are some rare exceptions to that, but as a general proposition we should not extend English law in that way. It gives rise to a range of evidential problems and is difficult to justify because we have to ask what public interest is at stake. That brings me to my second point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
      It is my strong suspicion that the clauses would catch the security services. The Minister should comment on that. Let us be clear about one thing: members of the security services frequently bribe foreign officials in the interests of the United Kingdom. I was in the Foreign Office for five years and no one had better tell me that that does not happen. I find it difficult to understand why such people should be caught by the provisions, and if they are not to be caught, why not?
      The American Government have put a price on the head of bin Laden, and a good thing too. In some circumstances, that could constitute a bribe to an official to have him killed, but we are told that that would be an offence under this legislation. If my interpretation of the Bill is wrong, I look forward to hearing the Minister tell me why, but, on the face of it, I am right and the Bill is absurd.
      My final point relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said. All of us who have been involved in trade abroad—I did it as a Foreign Office Minister—know full well the consultancy arrangement and commission. Time and time again, major contracts are acquired by payments of substantial commission. If we are honest about those payments, they constitute a bribe. The money is paid to an agent; it is called a commission. From that commission, the agent pays an inducement. That happens throughout the world. All trading countries do it. If we create a criminal structure that prevents our businesses from doing that, or being fearful of doing that, we will place a serious constraint on them.
      I will have no part of the clauses, although I suspect that not enough hon. Members will vote with me. I hope that the provisions will be examined more fully in another
      418
      place and that the Minister will give a proper answer to my questions. The clauses should not be in the Bill. They involve serious issues.
      Beverley Hughes: I disagree entirely with the argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman just made, and which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made in his introduction: that there is no relationship between these clauses and terrorism. Some Members on the Opposition Front Bench do not share their views either. There is obviously a relationship, in that corrupt Governments help to create the conditions that engender terrorism and we need to make it clear that the bribery of foreign officials is just as unacceptable as the bribery of United Kingdom officials.
      Mr. George Osborne: For how long has it been the intention of the Home Office to incorporate in British law the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery? Could the Minister say for how long that has been an objective, so that we may judge whether it needs to be in this emergency legislation?
      Beverley Hughes: The convention was ratified by the UK Government in December 1998.
      Mr. Osborne: Right.
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House very long, but he may know that last year, a White Paper was published that proposed the revision of all our laws on bribery and corruption. Such revisions will be made in due course. In the meantime, all parties have agreed that these two clauses represent the minimum that we need to do to try to ensure our compliance with the OECD convention as far as we can. Actually, the start of that process was a specific request in a debate in the House, by the Conservative party's spokesperson on international development, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), that the Bill be used as the vehicle for these two clauses.
      We certainly agree with the spirit of the first part of new clause 5, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Woking, despite his evident hard work prior to tonight, that I am afraid that that has all been irrelevant because the Bill amends existing statutory offences, both of which already require a Law Officer's consent, so that requirement applies to the clauses in part 12 without the need for any further amendment.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Could the Minister help me by answering the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham—
      Mr. Hogg: Sleaford and North Hykeham.
      Mr. Turner: Grantham and Sleaford. [HON. MEMBERS]: No. Just Sleaford?
      Mr. Hogg: Sleaford and North Hykeham.
      Mr. Turner: I am so sorry. I am wasting time. The question was whether bribing a foreign official to indicate the whereabouts of Mr. bin Laden would be unlawful under the clause.
      Beverley Hughes: I shall reach that point in a moment.
      Just to deal with the second part of the new clause at this stage, I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Woking that the proposal for reporting to Parliament is necessary. The total number of persons proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Acts in the last calendar year was 17. On the basis of the experience in the United States we expect, as a result of these clauses, only another very small number—perhaps fewer than five—and I believe that a report to Parliament on that basis would be rather over-egging it.
      Denzil Davies: There may be only a few cases, but is not there a case in principle for asking the Attorney-General to make a report to the House of Commons on the exercise or non-exercise of his discretion?
      Beverley Hughes: No; I do not share that view. I do not consider that necessary. That is why, at the appropriate time, I shall ask the hon. Member for Woking not to press new clause 5.
      In answer to the question about the security services, we certainly do not envisage any circumstance where a prosecutor would consider instigating any proceedings in the situations outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and the requirement that the Attorney-General do give his consent to any statutory prosecutions is a long-stop safeguard, were that to be needed.
      Mr. Hogg: But let us be clear about what the hon. Lady has said. She has said that the act would be criminal, but that she is relying on the discretion of the Attorney-General not to start a prosecution.
      Beverley Hughes: That is not what I said. I said that we did not envisage any circumstances, such as those outlined by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which would satisfy the threshold for prosecution and, in any case, the fact that the Attorney-General's consent would be required is a safeguard.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      9.45 pm

    Clause 109

      IMPLEMENTATION OF THE THIRD PILLAR
      Mr. Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 65, line 19, after "may", insert "not".
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, page 65, line 19, after "provision", insert "except".
      420
      No. 59, in page 65 leave out lines 21 to 28 and insert—
      'arising from the 2001 Framework Decision of the European Union on combating terrorism'.
      No. 104, in page 65 line 21, after "pillar", insert—
      'limited to those directives that may be required to be implemented by 31st December 2001 under the Framework Decision on Counter-Terrorism and the 1994 and 1995 Supplementary Convention on Extradition'.
      No. 22, in page 66, line 8, leave out—
      'except in accordance with subsection (7)'.
      No. 21, in page 66 line 24, leave out subsection (7).
      Clause stand part.
      Clause 110 stand part.
      Mr. Letwin: I begin what will, of necessity, not be a long utterance by pointing out, mainly for the purposes of the other place but also I hope, in due course, for a wider audience, that it is positively one of the most astonishing features of our much-prized democracy that we can be discussing in 14 minutes a couple of clauses that relate to the fundamental structure of this country's constitution.
      Clause 109 deals with the removal of proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation on justice and home affairs, which it was the noble purpose of our former colleague and Prime Minister, John Major, to institute when he brought about, at great pains to himself and to the Government whom he led, the third pillar of the EU.
      We are now faced with a Bill that will make it possible for the Government of the day to implement decisions on matters of British law, with criminal penalties attached, which have been arrived at by negotiation under the prerogative power between Ministers in Brussels, without going through the laborious process that our predecessors so carefully constructed of First and Second Reading, Committee stage, Third Reading and a similar passage in the House of Lords. None of that will now be necessary.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not think it terribly wrong to treat European Union treaties as though they had been amended by the treaty of Nice before that treaty has been approved by all member states?
      Mr. Letwin: I do, although I have to say that by comparison with the fundamental destruction of parliamentary check that these clauses bring about, that is a fine point, which I would expect my hon. Friend to make. It is an important one, but it is by no means as important.
      Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the powers that we are talking about are broadly similar to, and based on, those in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which have been working very well since our accession in that year, and that they guarantee effective parliamentary scrutiny?
      Mr. Letwin: I suppose that the Minister and I have completely different views of the centrality of legislation that entails putting people in jail. Perhaps that is the central theme running through our discussions tonight. We are dealing here with something that people in the time of Charles I would certainly have recognised but which it appears Ministers have lost sight of. Our

      421
      predecessors fought a civil war to try to prevent the Executive from introducing legislation under the prerogative power that would put our citizens in jail. Now, as long as the Executive take themselves off to Brussels, they will be able to do just that in a 90-minute debate hidden away Upstairs. That is a monstrosity.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the city of Hull started the civil war by slamming its gates in the face of King Charles I, who went off to Nottingham in a huff. There is a democratic deficit in relation to the whole question of the third pillar. Would it not be far better if we were to seek to amend the treaties so that the ambit of the third pillar, and defence aspects and so on, came under the aegis of a properly elected European Parliament?
      Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman and I will differ on that point, but at least we are joined in holding the view that there should by some means be a proper democratic check. I prefer that which is provided by our own Parliament.
      The Bill proposes not the replacement of one democratic check with another, but merely the removal of the greater part of that which exists. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in seeking to remove these clauses wholesale, with one slight exception that the Opposition have explored with the Liberal Democrats. We understand there to be a small set of pre-existing obligations under the third pillar, which we have specifically exempted in our amendments.
      We also understand that it is the intention of Ministers—we hope that they will fulfil it in practice—to introduce the European arrest warrant provisions, and hence to subject them to the full glare of parliamentary scrutiny with a reasonable timetable. We are grateful for that. Thus, we are talking about implementation of every decision and framework decision under the third pillar thereafter. I hope that the Committee will realise what it is doing if it allows Ministers to introduce the legislation in its current form. If it does not realise that, I hope that the other place will do so.
      Mr. George Osborne: My point concerns an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in his cross-examination of the Under-Secretary in the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He asked her whether, as a result of the clause, measures that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism could be introduced by affirmative resolution in this House rather than in primary legislation. She said, "The answer is yes."
      Mr. Letwin: Not only was that her answer, but it was true.
      Mr. Cameron: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not only Opposition Members who feel strongly about the extraordinary power that is being taken in the clause? The Home Affairs Committee—a Labour-dominated body—agreed unanimously that it was wrong to take the power. Indeed, amendment No. 59, which originates from the Committee, seeks to restrict the power to provisions that apply to terrorism in the framework directive.
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
      422
      I now want to sit down to give the maximum opportunity to my opposite number, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), to make the point that we are not discussing a piece of Conservative Euroscepticism. The issue has nothing to do with that, as it relates to the preservation of the fundamental ability of this House to protect British citizens.
      Simon Hughes: I shall be extremely brief. I want to make the point that I was invited to make by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The view about how we should proceed on this matter unites people who have always been sceptical about more powers going to the European Union, such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and those who have been very positive about that prospect.
      We object for three simple reasons. First, it was always understood that justice and home affairs matters needed to be treated differently. That is why there is such a thing as the third pillar and why legislation dealing with liberty, prisons, policing and the rest has always been treated differently—Parliament has always been most keen to reserve its authority over those matters.
      Secondly, in that area the decision of the Council of Ministers is not subject to a co-decision by the European Parliament. I do not think that all my colleagues are aware of that fact. There does not have to be democratic accountability somewhere else for that decision. There is no democratic accountability.
      Angela Eagle: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the European Parliament takes a co-decision on some of the issues. His argument that there is no way in which that Parliament can oversee the matter—leaving aside the scrutiny that takes place as all these directives are drawn up through our processes here—is wrong.
      Simon Hughes: I stand to be corrected, but I talk to colleagues who are Members of the European Parliament and lead the group there. I understand that the matters that would be governed by these clauses, which would allow the Secretary of State to put statutory instruments before the House to be debated and disposed of in 90 minutes, are not matters that would go to the European Parliament after the Council of Ministers decides on them.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party and I have agreed that, where the United Kingdom has said that it will pass certain measures into law by the end of this year, we must do so—matters that are clearly related to terrorism or have a timetable commitment.
      We are not willing, however, to sign up to a sudden change in a very delicately negotiated constitutional settlement, which provides that third pillar justice and home affairs matters will be treated differently until and unless Parliament decides otherwise. We have not debated whether we should decide differently. We have never looked at the issue in the round. We have not considered amendments to the treaty. We are being asked to do all that here, in a limited time, in the context of this Bill. That is inappropriate and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will support the amendments and will vote that the clauses should be taken out of the Bill.
      Angela Eagle: I ask the Committee to resist all the amendments and agree that clauses 109 and 110 should stand part of the Bill.

      423
      On bypassing Parliament, which is the issue that has caused the outrage, these powers have been broadly working in relation to the first pillar since 1972. They provide an effective way for this Parliament to scrutinise the decisions taken—by unanimity—in the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
      Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Angela Eagle: I do not have time. I have only two minutes to answer some of the questions that have been raised. [Interruption.] I will not give way. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members had not spent so much time talking and voting, we would have had the time to have a much—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. Hon. Members may wish to hear what the Minister has to say.
      Angela Eagle: If we had spent less time on some of the shenanigans that we have witnessed tonight, we would have had more time to deal with the debates.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Is it right to describe debating and voting on clauses as shenanigans? Is it not a right of hon. Members?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is important that we get to the substance of the Bill.
      Angela Eagle: The amendments to the clauses that try to focus only on terrorism simply do not work. The framework decisions that the Justice and Home Affairs Council is drawing up deal with serious crime too. If Opposition Members are serious about fighting terrorism, they need to consider not only the framework decision on terrorism but the decisions on freezing assets, money laundering and mutual judicial co-operation, which help us to catch terrorists. We know from the documents that are emerging from Kabul that al-Qaeda has been involved in money laundering and drug smuggling.
      Opposition Members want to say that terrorism is important, but they also want to tie our hands when it comes to judicial co-operation on dealing with terrorist organisations. They need to realise that we need to take power at European level to ensure that we can deal with global organisations in the most effective way.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 344.

      Division No. 78]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beith, RtHon A J

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bercow, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Baker, Norman

      Blunt, Crispin

      Baldry, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Barker, Gregory

      Brady, Graham

      Baron, John

      Brazier, Julian

      424

      Breed, Colin

      Horam, John

      Brooke, Annette

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Burnett, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Burt, Alistair

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Butterfill, John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Keetch, Paul

      Cameron, David

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Key, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cash, William

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Lamb, Norman

      Chidgey, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Laws, David

      Clappison, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Collins, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Conway, Derek

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Loughton, Tim

      Cotter, Brian

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      McDonnell, John

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Dalyell, Tam

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maples, John

      Dodds, Nigel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Evans, Nigel

      Mercer, Patrick

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Flight, Howard

      Norman, Archie

      Flook, Adrian

      Oaten, Mark

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      öpik, Lembit

      Francois, Mark

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gale, Roger

      Ottaway, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Page, Richard

      Gibb, Nick

      Paice, James

      Gidley, Sandra

      Paterson, Owen

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Pickles, Eric

      Goodman, Paul

      Price, Adam

      Gray, James

      Prisk, Mark

      Grayling, Chris

      Pugh, Dr John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Greenway, John

      Rendel, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hammond, Philip

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hancock, Mike

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Salmond, Alex

      Hayes, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Heath, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hoban, Mark

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Holmes, Paul

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      425

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Walter, Robert

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

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Soames, Nicholas

      Webb, Steve

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Weir, Michael

      Spink, Bob

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilkinson, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Swayne, Desmond

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Swire, Hugo

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Syms, Robert

      Willis, Phil

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Wishart, Pete

      Thurso, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tredinnick, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyler, Paul

      Tom Brake and

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Charles Hendry.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Allen, Graham

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Baird, Vera

      Clelland, David

      Banks, Tony

      Clwyd, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barron, Kevin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Battle, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Connarty, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Benn, Hilary

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Cranston, Ross

      Betts, Clive

      Crausby, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bryant, Chris

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Burden, Richard

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burnham, Andy

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caton, Martin

      Edwards, Huw

      Cawsey, Ian

      Efford, Clive

      426

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kemp, Fraser

      Etherington, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fisher, Mark

      Kidney, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Lammy, David

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gapes, Mike

      Laxton, Bob

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lepper, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Levitt, Tom

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Goggins, Paul

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Love, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Lucas, Ian

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Luke, Iain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Lyons, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      MacDonald, Calum

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      MacDougall, John

      Havard, Dai

      McFall, John

      Healey, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McKenchin, Ann

      Hendrick, Mark

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hermon, Lady

      McWalter, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Heyes, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mann, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Marris, Rob

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hope, Phil

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Meale, Alan

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hurst, Alan

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Moran, Margaret

      Illsley, Eric

      Morley, Elliot

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Olner, Bill

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      O'Neill, Martin

      Joyce, Eric

      Organ, Diana

      Kaufman, Rl Hon Gerald

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      427

      Pearson, Ian

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Pertham, Linda

      Squire, Rachel

      Picking, Anne

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Pickthall, Colin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pike, Peter

      Stevenson, George

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pond, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pope, Greg

      Stringer, Graham

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tami, Mark

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Todd, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Touhig, Don

      Rammell, Bill

      Trickett, Jon

      Rapson, Syd

      Truswell, Paul

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tynan, Bill

      Rooney, Terry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ross, Ernie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roy, Frank

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ruane, Chris

      Watson, Tom

      Ruddock, Joan

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ryan, Joan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wills, Michael

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wood, Mike

      Simon, Siôn

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Southworth, Helen

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question put, That clauses 109 and 110 stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 343, Noes 203.

      Division No. 79]

      [10.15 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Baird, Vera

      Blizzard, Bob

      Banks, Tony

      Blunkett Rt Hon David

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Borrow, David

      428

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Brennan, Kevin

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Browne, Desmond

      Foulkes, George

      Bryant, Chris

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burgon, Colin

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burnham, Andy

      Gerard, Neil

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Havard, Dai

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Healey, John

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Heppell, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Hermon, Lady

      Colman, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heyes, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hill, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Hood, Jimmy

      Crausby, David

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hope, Phil

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      David, Wayne

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jamieson, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Drew, David

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Joyce, Eric

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Edwards, Huw

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kemp, Fraser

      Etherington, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fisher, Mark

      Kidney, David

      429

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pike, Peter

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Plaskitt, James

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pond, Chris

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rammell, Bill

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Lloyd, Tony

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lucas, Ian

      Luke, Iain

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lyons, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie

      McCafferty, Chris

      Roy, Frank

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan

      McFall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McIsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKechin, Ann

      Sawford, Phil

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWalter, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWilliam, John

      Simon, Siôn

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Southworth, Helen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Merron, Gillian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stringer, Graham

      Moran, Margaret

      Tami, Mark

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Todd, Mark

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Touhig, Don

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Truswell, Paul

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Organ, Diana

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Owen, Albert

      Tynan, Bill

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pearson, Ian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Perham, Linda

      Wareing, Robert N

      Picking, Anne

      Watson, Tom

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      430

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wray, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Wood, Mike

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Fight, Howard

      Allan, Richard

      Rook, Adrian

      Amess, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bacon, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Baker, Norman

      Gale, Roger

      Baldry, Tony

      Gibb, Nick

      Barker, Gregory

      Gidley, Sandra

      Baron, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Beggs, Roy

      Goodman, Paul

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gray, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Grayling, Chris

      Bercow, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Greenway, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brady, Graham

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Breed, Colin

      Hammond, Philip

      Brooke, Annette

      Hancock, Mike

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Heath, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Butterfill, John

      Hoban, Mark

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Holmes, Paul

      Cameron, David

      Horam, John

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chidgey, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clappison, James

      Keetch, Paul

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Key, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Collins, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Conway, Derek

      Lamb, Norman

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Laws, David

      Cran, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Letwin, Oliver

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantharm)

      Lidington, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Loughton, Tim

      Dodds, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      McDonnell, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Ewing, Annabelle

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fallen, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Maples, John

      431

      Mates, Michael

      Spink, Bob

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Spring, Richard

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moore, Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Moss, Malcolm

      Swire, Hugo

      Norman, Archie

      Syms, Robert

      Oaten, Mark

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      ôpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurso, John

      Page, Richard

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Paice, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Trend, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Price, Adam

      Tyler, Paul

      Prisk, Mark

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Pugh, Dr John

      Walter, Robert

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Webb, Steve

      Rendel, David

      Weir, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Wilkinson, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Willetts, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Salmond, Alex

      Wilshire, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wishart, Pete

      Simmonds, Mark

      Yeo, Tim

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. Charles Hendry and

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Tom Brake.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clauses 109 and 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 111

      USE OF NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES TO CAUSE HARM AND INTIMIDATE
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 68, line 2, at end insert "anywhere in the world".
      No. 39, in line 3, leave out "property" and insert—
      'real or personal property anywhere in the world'.
      No. 40, in line 13, leave out "any person" and insert—
      'a person anywhere in the world'.
      No. 41, leave out lines 22 to 24—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 112 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 115

      INFORMATION ABOUT ACTS OF TERRORISM
      Amendment made: No. 68, in page 70, line 9, leave out "or a procurator fiscal".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 116 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Pearson.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 26th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages have been received—[Mr.Pearson.]

  Young Offenders Units
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The events with which I am concerned tonight relate to the death of a 12-year-old boy in my constituency called Wesley Neailly, who was reported missing on 5 June 1998. Dominic McKilligan, aged 18, was charged with his murder in July 1998 and subsequently found guilty.
  Of course, nothing can bring back Wesley Neailly. Nothing can heal the hurt of his mother, his grandfather and other members of his family. But there are lessons to be learned from the circumstances that led to this dreadful tragedy, and I know that Wesley Neailly's family want those lessons to be learned. They want the bad practice and bad management that is evident in the history of this dreadful affair to be put right once and for all.
  I wish to place on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). When he was a Minister at the Home Office, he met Wesley Neailly's family with me, leading to the early implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. I also wish to thank the northern region health executive for commissioning the central report that was published last week dealing with the history of this dreadful affair.
  There are only a limited number of cases each year in which young people between the ages of 10 and 18 commit violent or sexual offences. They make up a small, very disturbed group of young people. Very few go on to commit homicide—murder—in the way that occurred in this case.
  The report demonstrates that there are early signals which could, if the organisation was right, prevent some of the disasters that occurred in this affair. Wesley Neailly was a 12-year-old boy in my constituency. Most of my constituency is very diverse. It comprises a mixture of people living together, of different races, religions, life styles and age groups, and has a very mobile population of the kind that one sees in any big city in which people find themselves and, sometimes, lose themselves.
  Dominic McKilligan arrived in Fenham, just one such part of my constituency, at the age of 18, to lose himself and, tragically, to find others. When he came to Fenham, he was already highly intelligent, manipulative and disturbed, a practised abuser of long standing with a long-established capacity for wicked threats and acts for which he showed no remorse. He sought out young Wesley Neailly, befriended him, led him away and murdered him. The circumstances that led up to that tragedy are the subject of the reports and they are a source of great concern to me. I was very shocked and disturbed by their contents.
  For example, when Dominic McKilligan was placed in the Fenham area of my constituency—he did not just arrive there, he was placed there—no outreach programme was set up for him. The report says in cold and chilling terms that the consequences of the lack of action in respect of the young man's discharge into my constituency were that no agency that had been responsible for his care when he was discharged from the Aycliffe unit in County Durham had any formal plan in place to visit and support him in the place where he was
  434
  going to live. No statutory agency in the area in which he was going to live was made aware of his presence until two and a half months after his discharge from Aycliffe and six days after the ending of the care order which might have been the basis of some preventive action. The first time that Northumbria police have any record of knowing about Dominic McKilligan's presence in the area was when he himself chose to report to the local police information about the disappearance of Wesley Neailly.
  The failure of agencies to share information with each other, with the local community and with the local police is at the disastrous heart of that dreadful tragedy. The report documents in chilling detail the lack of documentation regarding McKilligan's treatment in his first year at the Aycliffe centre. Those records apparently cannot be found. That is a shocking fact, and something that the Aycliffe unit must investigate thoroughly.
  It took 10 months from McKilligan's arrival at Aycliffe from Bournemouth for him to receive a full assessment. Why did it take so long? The Kolvin unit at the then Newcastle city hospitals trust, which had the clinical supervision of McKilligan's care, deemed him—at times only two months apart—to be a high risk and a low risk. There must be some inquiry into the conduct of the Kolvin unit and why that confusion of analysis occurred. What other confusions of analysis may have occurred at other times?
  The report contains clear evidence not merely of lack of co-ordination between Bournemouth, where McKilligan originated, the Aycliffe unit in Durham where he was cared for, and Newcastle, where he was placed, but of conflict between the caring agencies and of a failure to share information. The arguments between the agencies were more centred on money and finance than they were on the substance of the case.
  The record keeping was lamentably poor. There should have been seven recorded reviews of McKilligan's progress, care and treatment at Aycliffe. Only three can be found. McKilligan decided that he would leave Aycliffe after an incident in which he flirted with another boy and was threatened with the child protection board. That triggered his decision to leave Aycliffe. During his time at Aycliffe, a unit under the control of Durham county council, 15 very serious incidents are logged concerning his behaviour, 13 of which were of a clearly sexual nature. The unit's policy was that it did not encourage sexual behaviour and activity between those who were being cared for at Aycliffe. None the less, inadequate action seems to have been taken to deal with this matter.
  The report records, in chilling terms, that specialist units—Aycliffe at Durham and the Kolvin unit at the Newcastle city hospitals trust—understandably feel the need to succeed and that behaviours can thus too readily be justified. The report documents 16 agencies as having had the care of Dominic McKilligan, involving 200 members of their staff. Several professions were involved. As I said, there was a failure to share information; there was conflict between some of the caring agencies and there were rows about money and the responsibility for supervision. There was extremely poor record keeping at the Aycliffe centre.
  Finally, I point out that McKilligan came to Newcastle to follow a music course at Newcastle college. I want to record my deep understanding of what the professionals at the college— who had no knowledge of that young man

  435
  and his history—must feel about the period in which he was under their care. I have a great deal of sympathy for them.
  It is clear from the report and from a similar report produced by Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority that the Kolvin unit at Newcastle city hospitals trust failed adequately to carry out the duty of supervision of that young man that it had agreed to undertake. Durham county council, which is responsible for the management of the Aycliffe unit, did not take adequate action. We must explore the need for further inquiry both by the mental health trust that has taken over responsibility for the Kolvin unit from Newcastle city hospitals trust, and by Durham county council into its actions.
  Is there a need to identify the staff responsible and perhaps to carry out disciplinary action or to provide additional training? We must certainly demonstrate to the people of the north-east that the failures recorded in such chilling detail can never be repeated. General words of comfort and general assurances will not do. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make clear her desire that such inquiries should be carried out speedily and robustly, and that if they are not undertaken by Durham county council and the mental health trust, she will herself ensure that the necessary corrective action is put in hand.
  Some important lessons for the Government emerge from this matter. There has been no proper calculation of the number of young people who need that specialist care. There are no consistent standards for care arrangements, for assessment and treatment, for clinical oversight and accountability and for the training of staff. There is no single regulatory inspection system for units that care for such deeply disturbed young people.
  Furthermore, there is no geographical consistency or equity of provision. There is a grave shortage of places. That is how Dominic McKilligan, who lived in Bournemouth, came to be placed in a unit in County Durham. Had there been better, and better spread, provision, that would never have happened. There must be co-ordination of the protocols and policies that link all the caring agencies—social services, health, education and, of course, the custodial services that deal with young offenders—so that they will think and act together. They must co-ordinate their records and share information, especially if children and young people leave their home area and switch between responsible authorities, so that those young people can benefit from co-ordinated, specialist support.
  The reports highlight the enormous need for nationwide specialist assessment facilities and for skilled remand facilities. There should not be 1,000 young people in that age group in the care of prisons. There should be skilled treatment facilities, including secure treatment facilities, so that other communities can be protected in a way that my community in Newcastle was not.
  The Government should take responsibility for the regulation of what is an extraordinary array of different facilities, some run by the NHS, some run by voluntary agencies, some even run for profit by the private sector and some, such as Aycliffe, run by local social services agencies and the county council.
  The treatment facilities should be provided on nationwide basis, so that it will never again be necessary for a deeply disturbed young man to be taken from his
  436
  home community—where there was a great deal of knowledge about him, his family and his early life, with all the signals that that gave about his later behaviour—and placed at the other end of the country, where some of that knowledge sadly does not appear to have arrived or to have been properly shared.
  At present, there are a very limited number of specialist facilities for young sex offenders. Those that exist are spread across that wide range of different agencies, without nationally agreed standards of care. I hope that alongside the necessary, robust corrective action that must be taken by Durham county council and by the mental health trust, which now has responsibility for managing the Kolvin unit, there will be a programme of national action to correct the deficiencies in the system that the reports highlight—Wesley Neailly's family expect no less.
  10.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on securing this important debate on the case of Dominic McKilligan.
  The death of any child is desperately sad, but the death of Wesley Neailly was particularly tragic, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to his family.
  As my hon. Friend has said, Dominic McKilligan was only 18 when he murdered Wesley. Dominic was a damaged young man who had exhibited very dangerous behaviour and had had a great deal of contact with statutory agencies over several years. He had significant contact with social services, mental health services and the criminal justice system. As a child, he was the subject of a care order to the local authority, and following his conviction for sexual offences as a young teenager, he received treatment for his offending behaviour.
  Dorset, and then Bournemouth social services, however, had lead responsibility for Dominic's welfare and were ultimately responsible for ensuring that his care plan encompassed all aspects of his treatment and that there was very careful planning for his discharge from the care system on turning 18.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, given the risks that Dominic presented, a very high standard of assessment, planning, intervention and review was absolutely essential, but there was clearly a failure in this case. Let me make it clear, however, that the requirement for thorough assessment, planning, intervention and review is nothing new. The Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, under which local authorities are required to draw up care plans, and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991, under which reviews are required to take place to enable the plan for the child to be reconsidered and any necessary changes to the care plan to be made, are in operation.
  Wesley's death rightly gave rise to very serious questions about how effectively the agencies responsible had worked together to plan and provide for Dominic's care and treatment. Without doubt, there are important lessons to be learned from this case for a number of agencies. They include how to ensure that people and the current systems work correctly and that people and resources develop to minimise the possibility of such an event happening again.

  437
  It was because of the clear need to learn from this tragic case that the responsible area child protection committees—ACPCs— —for Bournemouth, Durham and Newcastle decided to carry out a serious case review, under the "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance, into the management of the care and treatment provided to Dominic McKilligan. In parallel with this review, Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority, which is the host commissioner for the Kolvin unit that oversaw Dominic McKilligan's treatment programme at the Aycliffe centre in Durham, commissioned an independent inquiry into the health care and treatment of Dominic under the terms of the health service guidance in circular (94)27. As my hon. Friend said, the report of the inquiry was published, along with a summary of the serious case review, on 14 November 2001.
  Both the serious case review and the independent health authority inquiry have identified specific issues for local authorities, the NHS, and their partner agencies to address through their ACPCs. The serious case review, which makes recommendations to the three ACPCs that commissioned the review, concludes that Wesley Neailley's death could not have been predicted. However, it highlights how important it is for the key professionals involved with young people who have committed violent or sexual offences to carry out, on a multi-agency basis, effective assessments of young people's needs and the likelihood of such offences being committed in the future; to use current research findings to inform professional judgments and decision making; and to ensure responsibility and accountability for the implementation and reviewing of plans across agencies.
  Those, along with other recommendations, have been the subject of detailed action plans drawn up by each of the ACPCs and the NHS trust involved in this case to take forward the review's recommendations.
  My hon. Friend made an important point about how we monitor implementation and future progress. The implementation of these plans will be rigorously monitored by the Department of Health, through its regional offices and the social services inspectorate.
  Key recommendations from the independent health inquiry included the premise that the Department of Health should issue further guidance which reinforces the requirements of agencies responsible for young people that need mental health treatment; and that the Department should review existing guidance to local authorities and provide written notification to other agencies when young people are discharged from care and placed in other areas.
  The Department will consider seriously whether any additional guidance is required. My hon. Friend made an important point about the failure of the discharge process in this case. In terms of planning for discharge, since 1 October 2001 local authorities have been required to comply with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. The principal aim of the Act, which was implemented this October, is to improve the support available to young people leaving care.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, we know that Dominic left care at the age of 18 already a deeply troubled young man, and that he then became lost to the system. The provisions of the Act, had they been in force at the time,
  438
  might have gone some way to preventing this tragedy. Dominic would have left care at 18, but the Act imposes a new duty on local authorities to keep in touch with care leavers until they are at least 21 and to make sure that they receive the support to which they are entitled.
  My hon. Friend asked for further work to be done in relation to the health responsibility and, in particular, to the responsibility of the Kolvin unit. I am glad that Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority and Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust, which is now responsible for the Kolvin unit, have taken action to review their involvement in supporting treatment programmes that are undertaken by other organisations, so as to ensure that responsibilities for clinical oversight are clear. In future, any arrangements for the provision of specialist treatment programmes or of training support to other organisations that are delivering such programmes will be unambiguous with regard to the important issue of clinical responsibility, and will have clear standards against which the programme can be monitored. Under the Health Act 1999, the Commission for Health Improvement has responsibility for inspection of NHS provision. I hope to comment further on inspection and common standards.
  Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for going through these matters and take heart from the changes that she mentions. However, she will recognise that the report illustrates that the procedures of the time were not properly carried out. Does she know whether the action plans relevant to Durham county council, Bournemouth social services or the Kolvin unit have resulted in disciplinary action or acceptance of responsibility by the staff?
  Jacqui Smith: I do not know whether the action plans have led to disciplinary procedures. As I emphasised, they are a key part of the response to such problems and will be closely monitored. Durham social services department has carried out an internal inquiry. Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that specific issue.
  The serious case review also made the important recommendation that area child protection committees should make representations to Ministers, and highlighted the urgent need for a national strategy to be developed for the management and treatment of young, violent and/or sex offenders. My ministerial colleagues in the Home Office are giving that careful consideration
  The youth justice board is preparing an effective practice strategy for working with young people who sexually abuse. To inform that, a number of pilots are being conducted in the community, with plans to extend them to the secure estate. The board is also ensuring that all youth-offending team staff receive appropriate training and that work is monitored and quality assured to measure effectiveness. The Department of Health is also closely involved in those discussions
  Dealing effectively with the most dangerous individuals, including young people, is a key part of modernising the criminal justice system and making it more responsive. We have made substantial improvements to the way in which we treat and rehabilitate young people in particular. It may reassure my hon. Friend to know that if a 14-year-old boy were to be convicted today of the same crimes as Dominic

  439
  McKilligan committed as a 14-year-old, he would be required to register with the police under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
  Multi-agency public protection panels exist in every area of the country, bringing together agencies with a statutory duty to co-operate to manage high-risk offenders. As Dominic approached 18 years of age, he would have been the subject of one of those meetings, which would in turn have been part of the pathway planning process because he was a child leaving care. A senior member of staff from Newcastle college would have attended that meeting and been part of the discharge planning process. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that a college that has not been properly notified is unable to take the necessary action.
  An inter-agency inspection of safeguards for children is scheduled for this winter. The inspection will focus on the range of safeguarding measures that are in place in council areas. It will incorporate judgments about services that are provided by social services, health, the police, probation officers, education and custodial establishments, and the courts, and it will consider the agencies' individual effectiveness as well as their effectiveness in the corporate arena, such as in area child protection committees and the community safety forum.
  Mr. Cousins: Do the Government propose to address the shortage of treatment facilities nationally for the category of young people who require care and supervision?
  Jacqui Smith: It is part of our investment in mental health services to ensure that we increase the number of secure placements. It is crucial to get better co-ordination between the services. I made clear how the Government are addressing some of those issues, and we will learn the lessons that my hon. Friend spelled out.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
  Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  That the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (S. I., 2001, No. 3644), dated 1lth November 2001, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 74.

  Division No. 70]

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Alexander, Douglas

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cranston, Ross

  Bailey, Adrian

  Crausby, David

  Baird, Vera

  Cruddas, Jon

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beggs, Roy

  Daisley, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  David, Wayne

  Best, Harold

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Browne, Desmond

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bryant, Chris

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentiands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Havard, Dai

  441

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hermon, Lady

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Margaret

  Miliband, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jamieson, David

  Owen, Albert

  Jenkins, Brian

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Picking, Anne

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric

  Pike, Peter

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Lammy, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony

  Ross, Ernie

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  Lucas, Ian

  Ruane, Chris

  Luke, Iain

  Lyons, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Simon, Siôn

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  442

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Touhig, Don

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Dew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Southworth, Helen

  Tynan, Bill

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Squire, Rachel

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Watson, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Straw, Rt Han Jack

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wilson, Brian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Tami, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Todd Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Allan, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Baker, Norman

  Laws, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  McDonnell, John

  Bennett, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Brake, Tom

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Brooke, Annette

  Moore, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Mullin, Chris

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Price, Adam

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Pugh, Dr John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Rendel, David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Chidgey, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Salmond, Alex

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

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

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Thurso, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Heath, David

  Webb, Steve

  Holmes, Paul

  Weir, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Wishart, Pete

  Keetch, Paul

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELITURST in the Chair]

Alder Hey Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Derek Twigg: I am pleased that this important debate is taking place. A number of my colleagues have been contacted by their constituents, and 12 families have contacted me over the past few weeks. They have asked me to express their concerns about a terrible and emotional issue. Indeed, it is a scandal. They are concerned about the way in which matters have been dealt with after the publication of a report and following on from various recent events. Some of my hon. Friends are present, and others would like to be. I hope that I can express many of their views. Some of my colleagues will speak when I resume my place.
My constituents are determined that their views should be highlighted in Parliament. What happened at Alder Hey hospital was a shocking scandal and almost beyond belief. Equally appalling is the way in which families have been dealt with at times by people at the hospital and by some members of the medical profession. The chief executive has been found guilty of misconduct. I note this morning that she has accepted the disciplinary panel's decision. It found that there was no alternative but regretfully to terminate her employment summarily in accordance with the terms and conditions of her contract. Miss Rowland was advised of that decision. It will be welcomed by the families concerned, as I welcome it.
Much of the parents' criticism is based on the need for further legislation. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that. The parents believe that disciplinary action has been avoided. A typical family in my constituency who have raised concerns are Mr. and Mrs. Jarvis of Runcorn, whose son, Matthew, died aged four. The loss of their child is an important human story. We can imagine the emotional upheaval when they learned of the retention of organs.
We hear of a whispering campaign in the medical profession to the effect that families have over-reacted. I do not know how I would have reacted in the circumstances. It is clear that families have faced emotional upheaval. Mr. and Mrs. Jarvis are typical of the families involved and wanted me to voice their concerns.
The families are upset and concerned that all the doctors referred to the General Medical Council, as mentioned in the Redfern report, have been cleared, except for Professor van Velzen and Dr. John Martin. As I understand it, their hearings have not been set. Parents are concerned also that doctors' actions before 1988 and after 1995 have not been considered. They want to know why the GMC has used the Redfern
68WH
report as a stand-alone document without referring to individual cases. With thousands of pages of documentary evidence, why did the GMC not call upon that material when making its decisions or call parents and relatives as witnesses? Parents cannot understand why they were not called as witnesses.
I have referred to Alder Hey hospital, but some of my constituents want other hospitals to be mentioned. For example, there is Warrington hospital, where about 60 families have been contacted and a disciplinary case has caused concern. The problem is widespread and concern extends throughout the country beyond Alder Hey.
Families are concerned about legislation. A change in the law has been promised in respect of the procedures used to gain informed consent to carry out post mortems and permission to retain organs. Pity II, the organisation that represents the families, says that it has been told that a change in the law cannot be brought before Parliament before the Session that starts in October 2002. The parents say that that is too long to wait. They fear that legal change may be diluted or even forgotten about. They want to know why the date cannot be brought forward. The matter is causing significant concern to the parents' group and among parents in Halton. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can deal with it this morning.
Parents are concerned about the role of the GMC. Disciplinary action has been considered but it has not been taken in most instances. That raises the issues of transparency and fairness and the way in which disciplinary action is handled for doctors. I understand that the GMC can basically take two forms of action. One is to strike off a doctor to stop him or her practising. The second is for it to send a letter of advice. Such letters went to eight doctors in the case that I am raising.
To the general public and many hon. Members, a letter of advice may not seem to be particularly strong disciplinary action. I understand from a doctor's point of view that such a letter is quite an important event in his or her career, and they would be very worried about receiving one. I understand also that there is no halfway house, such as a final warning or a yellow card system—a term that I do not particularly like—which would mean, "Next time, you're out." That situation concerns constituents, my colleagues and me.
I understand that the GMC has asked the Government to legislate on fitness to practise. It also wants more regulation. I met the council yesterday to discuss some of the issues. I considered it important that I understood its side in respect of the events. I know that the council has been encouraged by the Government to review its procedures—which is long overdue.
It seems strange that the medical profession does not have provision for taking disciplinary action locally. A doctor will be referred to the central body in London. The profession has an unusual way of dealing with colleagues who may face disciplinary action. It may be asked why alleged offences that took place in Liverpool, for example, will be dealt with in London. Why not deal with them locally? Parents have raised the issue with me. The GMC seems to be under general attack. Even doctors are attacking it for its handling of this case. I shall refer to a specific example later.
It is important that disciplinary procedures for doctors are seen to be fair and applied in a transparent manner. Last year, about 4,470 complaints and

69WH
inquiries were received by the GMC, an increase on the 3,001 received in 1999. Of the 4,470, some 753 were referred to various GMC committees. There are about 180,000 doctors, but the number of complaints is a significant proportion.
Disciplinary action must be seen to be transparent and fair. At present, the GMC is seen as a toothless tiger run by doctors who look after their own. That may not be a fair view but there is that perception in many parts of my constituency and among the public generally. That underlines my suggestion that something must be done to ensure that the GMC deals with cases fairly.
I know that there are lay members on the GMC, but I still feel that it is necessary to review how disciplinary action is taken against those in the medical profession. The present system is not seen as fair.
I said that I would refer to some of the criticism of the GMC. I believe that it is important to do that, although I do not want to take too much time because other hon. Members want to speak. David Hughes, a consultant paediatrician, who is chairman of Alder Hey's medical board, said that Professor Donaldson, the chief medical officer, was looking for someone to blame when he referred many senior medical staff to the GMC. That is a scandalous accusation. He said that Professor Donaldson asked the council to investigate doctors who were criticised in the report. I am glad that he did. It is incredible that he has been criticised for doing that.
Dr. Hughes writes:
"It was with great distress that we witnessed the indiscriminate referral of our colleagues to the GMC by Professor Donaldson".
That is an extraordinary accusation by a senior member of the medical profession against the chief medical officer. Dr. Hughes also writes that Professor Donaldson
"displayed poor judgement and political expediency."
He suggests that the chief medical officer is influenced politically. By whom? He continues:
"This action demonstrated the need to seek individuals to blame rather than acknowledge the culture that created the circumstances for 'scandals' that were manifestly widespread and an accepted part of the system."
He also criticises the GMC for the "demeaning" way in which it handled the cases and for telling solicitors who acted for the parents that charges against most doctors had been dropped.
Dr. Hughes talks about blaming the culture, not individuals. It is unbelievable that such a culture could appear out of thin air rather than being created by individuals and that it went unchallenged. It is incredible for such a senior man in the medical profession to suggest that no individual, but a culture that appeared out of thin air, is to blame. It is important to emphasise that the Alder Hey scandal revealed that no one challenged the culture, so it persisted. Even those who did not like what was happening do not appear to have challenged it.
I repeat that I find it extraordinary that a senior member of the medical profession can take Dr. Hughes's line of argument in this day and age. Arrogance exists in some parts of the medical profession and parts of the NHS bureaucracy and management. It
70WH
should be challenged. It has been manifest in the treatment of the families of the children, and not least in the dismissal of the chief executive of Alder Hey. That arrogance has made matters 10 times worse. It is time not only for the medical profession to adopt more open procedures, but to accept openly that it must sometimes take the blame for mistakes. If it starts to do that, matters will improve.
I believe that several questions need answering. The medical profession should examine itself and consider the way in which problems are managed. Legislation should be introduced sooner rather than later.
9.43 am
Mr. George Howarth: Sir Alan, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing an important debate and on his thoughtful and well informed presentation of the arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) is disappointed that he cannot attend, but he had longstanding engagements away from the House.
We need to distinguish between the horrendous events that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton described, especially their effect on the families—many are constituents of mine—and Alder Hey as a working hospital. As a local resident, never mind a political representative, I have many connections with the hospital through members of my family. The medical treatment and the nursing care there are exemplary. It is therefore important to distinguish between the deplorable saga of organ retention and the medical treatment that is available at Alder Hey. It is no exaggeration to say that, despite the difficulties of the past few years, Alder Hey continues to enjoy a good reputation as one of the foremost treatment centres for children in the our region and beyond.
The sorry saga that my hon. Friend outlined is an example of a wider problem in our communities. We have no clear set of routines and procedures for dealing with horrendous events. Let us consider the Hillsborough disaster. I am not trying to make a direct parallel between that and events at Alder Hey, but there seem to be no adequate procedures for dealing with large-scale, emotionally charged events.
My hon. Friend said that he looked forward to legislation, but the problem is not confined to health. I hope that we shall look beyond health, important though it is, and consider the way in which we deal with all such matters, whether through judicial processes, coroners procedures or inquiry procedures that are available to Secretaries of State and the Prime Minister. We do not handle such events well. That is not a criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister or the Government. We have simply inherited a set of accumulated practices that do not measure up to the difficulties.
When the Redfern inquiry was in progress, I was a member of the Government and I tried to arrange a meeting between me, the solicitor who represented many of the families and Lord Hunt, the Minister who was responsible at the time. I was unable to do that. In 15 years as a Member of Parliament, I have never been refused a meeting with a Minister. I am still angry about my treatment by Lord Hunt, not only because I was a

71WH
member of the Government, but because I felt that such treatment of any hon. Member was a discourtesy. Today is the first opportunity to put that on the record, and I am pleased to do that.
I shall not go through all the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton outlined so ably. Sir Alan, I therefore conclude by saying that I hope that, as we review the procedures, we will find better ways of dealing with such problems. We are left with a series of unresolved issues and many aggrieved families, who do not know how matters will end. Although it may not be possible to find perfect procedures, I hope that we can find better solutions than those that have applied so far.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), but the correct form of address when a Deputy Speaker is in the Chair in Westminster Hall is "Mr. Deputy Speaker". Members of the Chairman's Panel are addressed by name.
Mr. Howarth: My apologies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept that it is confusing.
9.48 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I must get that form of address right.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on introducing the debate, which is about one of the most appalling scandals in recent medical history. It happened before the Minister assumed her responsibilities, so any comments that sound critical of the Government do not apply to her. She was generous enough to meet me and Robin Makin, a solicitor from Liverpool who is covering several hundred cases, on 23 October. I thank her for that.
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) about Alder Hey hospital, which was always regarded as a centre of excellence. It looked after children from Merseyside, the north-west, north Wales, the Isle of Man and further afield and it had a wonderful reputation, but that has been marred by recent events. It has devoted employees, and I make no criticism of the staff as a whole, but considerable trauma has been caused for the parents. They are still traumatised. After all, some have attended two, three or even four funerals to bury the hearts of their children. We must bring those responsible to book.
I understand from talking to the Secretary of State on the day that the Redfern report was published that no criminal sanctions are available. There are the disciplinary proceedings to which my hon. Friends referred, but a considerable number of wrongdoers have got off scot free. Hilary Rowland, the hospital's chief executive, was dismissed, but one might say that she is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps "tip" is the wrong word; she may be lower down the scale and she may not have had complete responsibility, as has been alleged. In September 1999, she warned Robert Tinston, director of the north-west NHS executive, that the situation at the hospital constituted a major issue, but the executive failed to ensure that appropriate disaster planning, guidance and measures were introduced and implemented.
72WH
On 23 March 2000, the chairman of Alder Hey was sacked. Professor Robert Tinston was put in charge and given personal responsibility for ensuring that arrangements for the return of the organs were in place and reporting fortnightly to the Minister on progress. On 18 July 2000, I asked the Secretary of State to make public Professor Tinston's report. Hon. Members should note when I asked my question and that I received a reply on 20 November, which stated:
"Internal reports between officials and Ministers are normally exempt from disclosure under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that relates to information that would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, unless justifiable reasons are presented why they should not be covered by this exemption clause."—[Official Report, 20 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 42W.]
I would have thought that there is no justification for the Government concealing from those with a vital interest information about the state of knowledge regarding organs removed and retained at Alder Hey and that among those people are the parents of the children involved.
On 30 January 2001—the day that the Redfern report was published—the Secretary of State answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). On the sale of live tissue to pharmaceutical companies, my right hon. Friend said:
"it is our understanding that there was such a practice at the hospital in the early 1990s."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 184.]
I am appalled. I acknowledge what my hon. Friends have said about the culture at the hospital, but, candidly, a culture that allows large private companies to profit from the remains of children is surely criminal. I hope that such activity has ceased, and I believe that it has.
We must get a strong grip on the hospital authorities, but I agree that Alder Hey must not be sacrificed because the problem is national and has existed in hospitals all over the country for a considerable time. Indeed, we know that, as long ago as 1995, Alder Hey and Liverpool university were aware of the existence of accumulated human material, so the problem arose long before Redfern was brought into play.
There have been failings much higher up the chain of command than Hilary Rowland. I have referred to one such person—the chief executive of the north-west NHS executive, Professor Tinston—and I believe that they should all go. The Government must get a grip on the situation and I want the Minister to say what is being done and what progress they are making. For example, what is being done to research the psychological features of the problem and have they kept faith by consulting all the parents who were prepared to give evidence? I hope that she supplies that information.
Many parents are suffering traumas and no doubt my colleagues have, like me, received postcards from individuals. I have half a dozen in my hand: they call for action against the wrongdoers and hope that parliamentary privilege will protect us as we make our remarks today. I do not intend to name any other person, but I am concerned about what the Government are doing.
A great many Britons go abroad as tourists or on business, so I would have thought that the international implications of the problem were being researched. We

73WH
should consider what happens in other countries. For example, I understand that when a person dies in Austria, hospitals have an automatic right to strip the body of any organs or tissue that they believe that they require. That may affect British holidaymakers and British business men who visit that country, but we do not appear to know what happens, even in European Union countries. Perhaps the problem should be discussed in the Council of Ministers to achieve uniformity throughout the EU.
The good name of Alder Hey must not be sacrificed, because the problem is national, but we must legislate to ensure that criminal sanctions are available to punish wrongdoers. No such sanctions appear to exist. I would insist on a code of conduct, but not only to regulate the doctors. We need an over-arching system to regulate all in the NHS and that has to include the administrators, who must be made accountable and subject to individual scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister responds to those points and that a genuine search is made for the answers to the questions that cannot be dealt with today to ensure that this never happens again. That has been said so often in the past, but this time we must really mean it.
9.59 am
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) for securing a debate on a matter that is important to all of us, especially those in the north-west. Eight families have contacted me since the publication of the Redfern report, and no doubt many more constituents who have not been in touch have also been affected.
I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend said about what I think he called a whispering campaign, suggesting that families were overreacting. That is not true of the families to whom I have spoken, who, although deeply hurt, have taken a restrained and responsible approach and done their homework—researching on the internet, for example, to try to ensure that they get the facts right.
Merseyside has had more than its fair share of tragedies in recent years. Like the Hillsborough disaster, the Alder Hey scandal needs to be dealt with in a comprehensive way, allowing relatives to bring an end to their grief and anger in the knowledge that all relevant information has been exposed publicly, guilt has been acknowledged and, where appropriate, action has been taken against those who have failed in their duty—and, most important, that systems have been changed so that such tragedies do not happen in future.
The grief and anger stemming from Hillsborough—I make no excuse for the comparison—has never been fully assuaged, although the disaster occurred some 12 years ago. We must not allow the feelings of the Alder Hey parents, and their friends and relatives, to go unanswered, as happened for far too long after Hillsborough. It is hard to overstate the deep distress caused to parents who discovered that their children's organs had been removed without their permission, or even their knowledge.
I want to raise a specific issue, at the request of my constituents Janette and Stephen Robinson of Skelmersdale, whose son Michael was one of the
74WH
unfortunately deceased children whose organs were removed. They point out that, although some senior figures have been disciplined —we heard today that the chief executive was among them—Mrs. Karen England, who was at least involved in some of the cover-up, has avoided any formal censure, if such was appropriate, by moving to another job.
I seriously dislike referring to this lady by name, but her involvement is an important aspect of the case, and I could not describe what happened without identifying her. I realise that it is not pleasant to talk about an individual who is not present to speak for herself, but by virtue of her role as a senior administrator working with Professor van Velzen, Mrs. England must have known the truth—or at least part of it—about the removal and retention of organs. She was put in charge of handling relationships with the parents when the scandal broke, and is heavily criticised in the Redfern report for mishandling them. It seems that she may well have falsified records in at least one case, and she has certainly misled families.
When the chairman of Alder Hey was removed and the chief executive was sent on gardening leave, Mrs. England was seconded to Warrington General hospital. In January this year, she was suspended by Alder Hey, but it turned out that in the interim she had secured a full-time post at Warrington, and therefore could not be disciplined or investigated by Alder Hey. When those at Warrington looked into the case, quite properly, they found that Mrs. England had not broken her contract as far as they were concerned, so there was nothing that they felt they should do.
I realise that when one goes into a particular case like this, it may seem like a witch-hunt aimed at an individual. I do not intend that; I simply assert that there is at least a prima facie case to answer in connection with one person.
I have some questions for the Minister. I understand that she may not be able to answer them today, but perhaps she could do so later in writing. They were put to me by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, who attempted repeatedly to speak to Mrs. England about what had happened to their son. She refused to respond, so they never received an answer. I am now seeking answers on their behalf.
First, my constituents ask why Mrs. England was allowed to remove herself from the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust when an external inquiry was taking place in which she was a key player. Secondly, who at the trust supplied references in connection with the full-time post that she secured at Warrington General? Thirdly, what did Warrington General know of her background, and her possible involvement in the events that we are discussing? Is she obliged to reveal her involvement when she applies for another post?
In a letter sent to me earlier this week, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson make points reiterated today by my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). They say:
"We are not trying to damage the name of Alder Hey or to vilify the hospital. We would like some natural justice for what happened to our own child and to all the other children involved. It seems completely inconceivable that people involved in wrong doing have been let off scot free. This would not be allowed to happen to others in positions of authority in other professions."

75WH
I agree with all of that final paragraph in the letter, except the last sentence. This is, in fact, allowed to happen to others in positions of authority in other professions. We saw it happen in the case of Hillsborough: we saw people who should have been examined and possibly disciplined for their negligence in regard to that terrible event managing to escape by retiring at the appropriate moment. In this case, someone who may well have been involved—or at least had something to explain to the health authorities—has been able to escape, possibly by accident, through the simple mechanism of changing job and moving from one trust to another, which has removed her from any further investigation.
I do not believe that that is right. I feel that it should be addressed by the NHS as a whole, so that people such as Mr. and Mrs. Robinson and the other parents mentioned by my hon. Friends can be confident that the health service will not allow such things to happen again—or, should they happen again, will not allow those responsible to go unpunished.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John Butterffil (in the Chair): Order. A number of hon. Members still wish to speak. It would be helpful if speeches were reasonably short, to allow time for the Minister to reply to the debate.
10.8 am
Dr. John Pugh: Like one of the earlier speakers, I have a family connection with Alder Hey: my brother was born there, and a young child received medical help there. Until the very recent and very sad events, Alder Hey had a sound reputation throughout the Liverpool area.
I thank the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) for raising this issue. One phrase has stuck in my mind—a reference in, I believe, the British Medical Journal to the spurious distinction between culture and individuals: culture can be blamed, but individuals cannot. I submit that that distinction has no validity. Blame cannot simply be laid on an anonymous culture; it must be embodied in the actions of individuals.
The Redfern report identified two necessary and important changes, which bear on individuals as well as cultures. As is widely acknowledged, there must be legislative change, but there must also be cultural change. What happened at Alder Hey was not simply a consequence of the behaviour of one rogue doctor; a number of people were implicated or involved, or overlooked what was going on—administrators, for instance, and the coroner's office. It is not simply the actions of that one particular doctor. The administration subsequently was not desirable. As a result of the incompetence of administrators, constituents of mine have had to suffer the pain of multiple burials of members of their family. No one would wish that upon anyone.
We must remember that there has been a police investigation and that reforms are promised which we would all collectively support—a new law on consent, a review of the coroner system and a review of management accountability. We would endorse that and be comfortable with it, but the question put by the
76WH
hon. Member for Halton is whether there has been sufficient cultural change—whether it has really got home—and whether it is universal. That is what this debate appears to highlight best.
There has been an element of cultural change. I was speaking last night to Ed Bradley, who organised on behalf of parents much of the action that brought the sad events at Alder Hey to light. He is now working with the Institute of Pathologists in order to provide a better way of behaving and of proceeding, and to avoid the unfortunate aspects that have characterised Alder Hey—unfortunate is to put it very mildly.
However, there are other indications—the hon. Member for Halton has drawn them to our attention—that the cultural change has not bitten sufficiently. One mentions in that respect the comments in the British Medical Journal, where there seems to be an unwillingness to accept that to ask for appropriate disciplinary procedures is distinct from pure witch-hunting. There is a clear intellectual distinction that I think we would all support.
As I have said, I thank the hon. Member for Halton for securing the debate. If it serves any good, it is to highlight that there is some way to go in changing the culture. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that there is certainly some way to go in changing the legislation. There is work to be done there. Sadly, there is some way to go in apportioning blame.
10.12 am
Mr. David Watts: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate. Many hon. Members have tried for some weeks to secure a similar debate to put on record our concerns and those of the parents who have contacted us over the past few weeks.
I pay tribute to Pity II, which has been campaigning for justice for that group of people for the past few years, and the solicitors who are acting on their behalf. I am not a lover of solicitors as a group, even though my son is one, but I believe that there are some good solicitors and the two who have been involved, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Makin, have done an excellent job in ensuring that the case is heard.
I would like to be associated with some of the comments about Alder Hey. There is no doubt that many parents throughout the north-west and a wider area owe their lives to the skill and dedication of staff at Alder Hey. There is no doubt that the current investigation and the controversy about what went on is having a tremendous effect on the staff who are still working at Alder Hey. The message from here is that we support those general staff, and we want that hospital to go from strength to strength and welcome the contribution that it has made over many years.
There is no doubt, however, that many parents have been let down by Alder Hey hospital and Liverpool university. We have heard a lot about the hospital, but it was a joint action. It would have happened only with the support of Liverpool university and Alder Hey. There was clear involvement of both medical and administrative staff in bringing about the problems.
No one should underestimate the grief that the parents felt. Anyone who has ever known someone who has lost a child understands that it leaves them with an

77WH
emptiness and hopelessness. Often they cannot rebuild their lives. We cannot overestimate the strain, stress and profound effect that the death of a child, regardless of the age, has on a family. Therefore, it is possible to imagine what the grief would be like when they find out that the child they buried, or thought they buried, had had their organs removed without consent. The grief would refocus and they would not be able to get back to rebuilding their lives.
That is bad enough, but let us remember what happened. Even when those parents found out that their children's organs had been retained and they had a second burial for those organs, a third element of organs was left in either the university or the hospital, so they often had to have three burial services. That is a scandal.
Then the parents found out that the organs had been retained for no good purpose, that they had not been used for anything that was worth while. Therefore, not only have they gone through that traumatic experience, but they have found that it had no purpose. They were told initially that there was nothing wrong, it was normal practice and that they had no case. They were asked what they were moaning about. They were told that it was standard practice in hospitals and universities. They are very angry, and rightly so, to find out that their child's organs were retained without their permission.
The parents want to know the detail of the investigation. They want to know the detail of the administration disciplinary hearings that took place. A number of my colleagues have raised those issues. There are three administration staff at Alder Hey. One has been named today. The accusation is that that person lied to the inquiry and falsified documents. That person was then transferred to another hospital. If that is the case, it is another scandal. The one thing we need to know from the Minister is, if those allegations are true, is it acceptable for someone who has been found to do those two things to still be working in the NHS? The answer is no. I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is an investigation into that issue and that action is taken, if it is needed.
For those people who do not know, 76 doctors were referred to the General Medical Council for investigation to examine whether there was a case against them. Only a small number of those doctors are now going through the disciplinary hearing system. I was amazed when I met the GMC yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Halton to find out that the GMC cannot take action against a doctor unless it believes that he is unfit to practise—even if it believes that he has made a terrible mistake or misjudgment, it cannot take action. The proof has to be that he is not able to do his job and should have his registration papers removed. The test for whether action is taken against a doctor is too high.
In fairness to the GMC, it accepts that. I understand that it is campaigning for and has contacted the Government to say that it wants wider powers, to be able to take action below that threshold. That is right.
My experience is that self-regulation is no regulation at all. As a Member of Parliament, I have had dealings with the GMC before—I am sure everyone in the
78WH
Chamber has. I have also had contact with the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and even with the Association of British Travel Agents. When we try to get accountability into those professions and services, we find that we are dealing with people who are more interested in their members than the general public. The Government should take action to make those bodies independent and to ensure that, when they review issues regarding the public's interest, the public interest will come first.
Derek Twigg: On that last point, my hon. Friend may recall that I mentioned that doctors are now attacking the GMC too. We assume that none of the doctors is stupid. They obviously are not attacking it for no reason. Does he think that they are attacking it because they feel that it has been too hard on doctors and their colleagues, or do they want to give the impression that the GMC has been unfair—it must have been because the doctors are attacking it?
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. There are two reasons for that. First, there is an arrogance in the medical profession. It believes that lay people, the ordinary public, should not be able to hold those groups to account. Secondly, it is trying to hide the facts of the case. It sets itself high standards, which we would all expect doctors to do, but it has failed in this case. It has failed in the investigation, failed to protect its good reputation and failed to take action to ensure that those events could not happen again.
I leave hon. Members with one thought. People believe that, after this scandal, the matter has been resolved, that accountability systems have been put in place and that legislation is on its way. I do not believe that it is. The purpose of the debate is to make sure that Ministers hear loud and clear that we want legislation on this matter, and that we want it quickly.
However, we must start to make sure that the good practice developed in Alder Hey following the inquiry is maintained throughout the system. Two weeks ago, a constituent told me that a hospital close to my constituency had retained organs without permission. It was not Alder Hey, and I shall not name it in this debate. I wrote to the hospital two weeks ago for an explanation, and have yet to receive one. I sent a fax yesterday, telling the hospital that I was taking part in this debate and asking whether there was any truth in the allegation.
So far, I have received no reply, so I take it that there is something in the allegation. If so, that demonstrates once again the arrogance and lack of accountability of the medical profession. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take immediate action to ensure that the legislation is changed so that what happened at Alder Hey cannot happen again.
10.21 am
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have highlighted the human aspects of the story and, as politicians, we must take careful note of them.
I am sure that no one can fail to be horrified at the extent of what went on at Alder Hey. Most people will be familiar with the unfortunate story: a large number of

79WH
organs were retained without parental consent, and that nightmare was exacerbated by the actions of van Velzen, which can only be described as bizarre. I make no excuses for him, but every profession contains some bizarre individual of whom no one is proud but who seems to get away with totally unacceptable behaviour. We need to make sure that the public are protected from those rare people.
Similar problems in other parts of the country have not received so much national publicity. For example, local hospitals in Southampton retained a large number of organs, and perhaps lessons should have been learned from their handling of the matter. They were proactive and honest about what had happened. They spent much time, effort and manpower talking and explaining things to parents.
In addition, the hospitals in Southampton apologised for what had happened. Members of the medical profession are not good at apologising and saying that they are wrong. My postbag would be halved if people occasionally could say, "I'm sorry, what we did was wrong."
However, I do not want to dwell on the past. The law as it stands is clear: organs should not be removed and retained for medical purposes after a coroner's post-mortem examination unless prior consent has been obtained. It is depressing to acknowledge that it seems to have been common practice to flout that law, but the important question is how we move on.
The hon. Member for Halton made some important points about openness in the NHS. I agree that the perceived culture is that everyone in the medical profession stands together. That often leads people to believe that matters have been covered up, and the GMC has come in for a lot of criticism.
I hope that such allegations will become things of the past. Last night, the House of Commons discussed the National Health Service Reform and Health Professions Bill, which will establish the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. I hope that the new council will take the best practice from all the different regulatory bodies, so that all such bodies perform their duties in a spirit of openness, and with greater transparency in their processes.
The hon. Member for Halton also referred to criticism of indiscriminate referral of people to the GMC. I stand to be corrected in this respect, but my understanding is that the referral of people to the GMC was indiscriminate, and that some of the people referred were doctors but were not in fact medically qualified. As the GMC deals with only the medical profession, it is therefore fair to say that some of the referrals were indiscriminate.
I am not an apologist for the GMC, but my view is that it can deal only with professional misconduct. It has no remit to deal with poor judgment, and that is why the people involved were let off. The key people involved were responsible for about 90 per cent. of the problem. What those key players did amounted to professional misconduct, and it is right and proper that they should be referred to the GMC.
There seems to be a general feeling in the debate today that everybody involved should be brought to book, even if they were only bit players. My question is, would that do anything to progress matters, and to make sure
80WH
that the same thing did not happen in the future? I believe that that is what we, as politicians, should be concerned about.
Derek Twigg: I think that I heard the hon. Lady aright, and that she said that she considers that indiscriminate referral took place. Does she believe that Professor Donaldson, who undertook that referral, behaved unprofessionally?
Sandra Gidley: I am saying that I would question his judgment. Professor Donaldson thought that he was right, but I would question his judgment. Sufficient research to ensure that the correct people were referred does not seem to have been done.
Mr. Watts: On what basis does the hon. Lady reach that assumption? Has she gone through all the cases, one after another, and decided on the merits of each case whether they should have been forwarded, or does she base her statement on what certain doctors and consultants have said?
Sandra Gidley: As I said earlier, the list of those referred to the GMC includes people who are not medically qualified. The GMC can deal only with medically qualified doctors. If that is not indiscriminate, I do not what know is.
I agree that the whole process is grindingly slow, as has been stated already. We must do all that we can to speed matters up, without sacrificing fairness. We must ensure that disciplinary action is swift and fair. That would be in the interests of patients, relatives and the medical profession as a whole. The "Doctor as God" culture is disappearing, thankfully, but it remains prevalent. I believe that it was present at Alder Hey.
The experience gives us a chance to ensure that a proper framework is in place so that we will never be in the same position again. Work has been done on a proper code of conduct, and I do not understand why legislation should be needed. Many hospitals have implemented that code of conduct, as they have no desire to become known as "Alder Hey 2". However, given the scale of the problem, I believe that legislation is needed, as there should be no possibility of anyone being able to get away with such malpractice in the future, and no excuse available if it happens.
Mr. George Howarth: I hope that the hon. Lady will help me on one point. Is she saying that, on the one hand, she does not think that legislation is necessary but that, on the other, there should be legislation for some other reason? I find that very strange.
Sandra Gidley: I am saying that it is a shame that we need to have legislation. In a perfect world—and I accept that we do not live in one—hospitals and doctors would be keen to put in place the right procedures. However, there can be no excuse for any recurrence of what happened at Alder Hey. For that reason, as a safeguard against people like van Velzen and others who are equally off the wall, we need to put legislation in place. I wish that that were not necessary, but we must protect the public. The system has been shown to fail and we must do something about that.

81WH
Medical students and doctors are not trained to deal with such delicate matters. It must be extremely difficult to explain to a bereaved parent that the hospital might want to keep a child's organ for the greater good. If those matters are faced sensibly and sensitively, some parents might think it heartening that something good can come out of the situation. However, the secret and surreptitious way in which it was done meant that parents felt that their children had been violated. Medical students and doctors must have the training to ensure that that does not happen again.
Hon. Members have raised questions today about disciplinary procedures in hospitals. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that in future the hospital disciplinary systems are more effective and transparent, given that there have been accusations of cover-ups? That is not an issue solely for Alder Hey, but for all hospitals around the country.
Dr. Pugh: Is the hon. Lady saying that the lack of transparency at Alder Hey has made it difficult to operate a perfectly proper pathology and for the medical fraternity to feel that it is secure in doing things that would in the long term benefit children, parents and the community? In other words, has the lack of transparency and the attempts at a cover-up by some members of the medical profession harmed the interests of not only parents and communities but the profession itself?
Sandra Gidley: Almost definitely. The lack of transparency and doctors' unwillingness to share information and explain what is going on has a knock-on effect on everybody. We have to move towards a culture in which medics explain the problem and the situation and have a transparent disciplinary procedure, if such is necessary. In that way, the public can see what is going on and know that justice is being done.
It is fair to say that events at Alder Hey have had a knock-on effect on people donating organs. There has been a detrimental effect on the medical profession because it has not learned to move with the times and operate with greater transparency.
These are the issues that we have to address. I will finish now so that the Minister has time to address them.
10.32 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing this important debate. As we are all aware, it is more than two years since the tragic and horrific scandal that occurred at Alder Hey children's hospital became known. What took place over the past decade needs no explanation here; suffice it to say that the deeply disturbing actions of some at that hospital are the most horrific and distressing that I have heard about in our health system.
We cannot begin to know the pain and suffering that was caused to so many parents and their families by the callous, barbaric actions of a few at Alder Hey. That pain and suffering continues for far too many. As all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have said, this is a deeply upsetting and disgraceful affair.
82WH
It is also important to put this matter in context, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said in his speech. There was a culture at the hospital that involved some people, but we should, to be fair, draw a distinction and avoid making a sweeping condemnation of the hospital itself. Alder Hey has, throughout its history, pioneered significant improvements in surgical techniques and care, and has made a valuable contribution to paediatric medicine. Inevitably, Alder Hey will for ever be scarred by these cataclysmic events, but we must try to ensure that the work of the hospital is not harmed in the future because of the horrific events of the past.
There is no point in reliving the events surrounding this horrific case. We have all become familiar with them as the whole sad story has unfolded. Reliving what happened would serve no purpose today, especially in the light of yesterday's announcement that Alder Hey's chief executive has been found guilty of misconduct and of bringing the hospital into disrepute.
I would like an update on the progress in dealing with this case. Most importantly, can the Minister inform us of the progress that has been made with regard to the special commission that has been established to oversee the return to families of organs and tissues from around the country? It is essential that as much help and assistance as possible be provided to the families affected and that a proactive approach be taken to support them and endeavour to relieve some of the pain that they have endured over the past years.
The overriding concern of the families affected is to be able to put their children to rest so that they can try to move on with their lives. Until they can do that, there can be little relief for their bereavement. I fully understand that, owing to the nature of the case, such action is not easily achieved in all cases. That is the crux of why this case is so distressing. However, where finality can be sought, every effort should and must be made, and unparalleled assistance should be provided to ensure that it is.
Can the Minister inform us of the steps taken to ensure that all NHS trusts provide support and advice to families at the time of their bereavement? The spotlight is on Alder Hey, but it must not be forgotten that the unravelling of the events there has shown that this practice has been going on in varying degrees throughout the country. There are deeply distressed families elsewhere in the country as well as in the Merseyside area.
Can the Minister also inform us of the progress that has been made in the review of the coroners system, established following the scandal? The review was intended to inform us of the lessons we can learn from these events and thus help to establish safety mechanisms to prevent such instances from ever recurring. Linked to that is the wider review of existing law on all aspects of taking, storing and using tissue and organs from both the living and the dead. Many hon. Members have highlighted this issue, and I know that we all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on it.
Furthermore, there is the question of the Government's commitment to introduce legislation to make any necessary changes. Is the Minister in a

83WH
position to enlighten us as to when that might happen? If that is not possible, does she have in mind a time scale that she can share with us?
I hope that the changes in the law will be supported by a new statutory code of practice that will cover organs used by the pharmaceutical industry. Can the Minister assure us that a standardised consent form to be introduced throughout the health service will accompany such a measure if one does not exist at present?
A number of hon. Members have also referred to the procedures and systems in place when it becomes apparent, following investigations, that someone has been grossly negligent in carrying out their duties or—with regard to some of the allegations that have been made in this debate—has allegedly sought to cover the tracks of the activities of some. I believe, as I think any reasonable person would, that those are very serious allegations. If I were a parent who had been affected and had had this appalling experience, I would want anybody who had been abusing the system or seeking to cover up such an abuse punished, and punished severely, not simply for the sake of vengeance but because of the degree and scale of the offence they had committed or the negligence for which they had been responsible.
I do not think it acceptable for people to be shunted around from job to job if they have been grossly negligent or inefficient in their job or have deliberately taken part in any cover-up. It is not good enough to say that, because someone has gone from one trust to another, nothing can be done to bring them to account—if the evidence warrants it. I hope that the Minister will look into that issue further if she is unable to say anything today about those concerns, which many hon. Members share. I have personal experience with my local trust of health care performance being of serious concern to health Ministers, and that was during the lifetime of the Labour Government. It could have been assumed that because certain members of staff had grossly failed, they would be removed from their jobs and would need to look for another job in another sphere. They were, however, shunted sideways to another job in the NHS. The lack of accountability for performance in the profession is extraordinary.
Everyone will agree that the case of Alder Hey is alarming and distressing. We must ensure that its consequences are dealt with swiftly and thoroughly, and with as much sympathy as possible. Above all, we must ensure that mechanisms are in place to change the culture, so that such events, which have caused so much grief and suffering to so many, can never happen again in our health system.
10.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on initiating today's debate. I have been involved for several months with the issues that have been raised by hon. Members. Some months ago, I visited Liverpool to meet many of the families, under the auspices of the Pity II group. I spent some time with them listening to their concerns, and they shared with me their grief, distress and anger at the events connected with the taking of organs without consent at Alder Hey. I discussed with
84WH
the families the way forward and how we could develop mechanisms—through legislation, codes of practice, guidance and changes in the system and culture, as many hon. Members have mentioned—to try to ensure that other families are not put in a position similar to those families from Liverpool and the north-west region.
Last week, I was invited to join parents and relatives in remembrance of the children whose organs had been retained by the Alder Hey hospital at a memorial service held in Liverpool's Anglican cathedral. It was not possible to remain unmoved by such an occasion, but we need to try to keep a clear head to ensure that we take action in the future. That is what the parents want. They have to live with their grief and the damage that has been done to their families, and it will take many of them years to come to terms with what has happened. They want the Government to hear their concerns and to act upon them. That is the responsibility of Government and of politicians generally.
Everybody acknowledged that many of the children who died received first-class care at Alder Hey, and many hon. Members have today recognised the dedication of the staff. In Liverpool and across the north-west region, people respect Alder Hey for the top quality services that it provides. In the immediate sadness and grief after the death of their children, the parents took their bodies away and buried them in accordance with their cultural beliefs, but afterwards they felt let down by some of the people on whom they had relied. The parents felt that their trust had been betrayed in the light of subsequent events.
I understand why it is so difficult for these families to regain their trust in the medical profession. We all now know that organ retention was widespread throughout the NHS at the time. Although we have taken urgent steps to end that abhorrent situation, many parents are not yet ready for their confidence and trust to be restored in the organisations and, especially, in the individuals who let them down. It is up to us, as a Government, and the staff working in the NHS to try to win back that trust. That will take time to achieve because, as the Bishop of Liverpool said last Saturday, the families
"feel betrayed, so much so that it becomes difficult to trust anybody in authority".
It is our responsibility to try to heal the emotional wounds and, without forgetting the past, to put in place the practical measures that will begin to rebuild the trust of those families.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, because it gives me a chance to update hon. Members on the progress that has been made since the Redfern inquiry, and on the recommendations of the chief medical officer and their implementation and development. I am hopeful that that progress will go some way towards restoring confidence in those parents and families. I am also grateful for the opportunity to place on record my thanks to the staff at Alder Hey hospital who have gone through some difficult times but have continued to care for families from across the region.
I know that families have felt frustrated in their quest for answers to some of their questions. I also know that they feel deeply that no family should ever again

85WH
experience what they have experienced. It was the concerns about organ retention at Alder Hey that led the chief medical officer to conduct an investigation to see how widely that practice was followed in the NHS. That is why last year we issued the interim guidance— to which the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred—to ensure that in future there will be no ambiguity about the need to obtain consent for the retention of organs for the purposes of teaching, research or donation. That is also why we are preparing full guidance and consent forms, which are being piloted. The families have been fully consulted about the content of those consent forms and whether they are appropriate, sensitive, easy to understand and accessible.
We have to ensure that when parents consent to the retention of organs, they do so in the full knowledge of what is likely to happen to them. Hon. Members will recognise that some families are content for research to take place if they are provided with the full information. It is not that they do not want to co-operate. They know that the research can assist in preventing illnesses affecting children in the future, and that can be a tremendous testament to their own children. However, transparency, honesty and openness in dealing with families are crucial, as they mean that they can trust the profession in dealing with those matters.
The Redfern report made a series of recommendations covering serious incident procedures, the training and management of staff, record keeping, the development of audit trails, the roles of clinicians, the review of the coroner system, and the necessary review of the Human Tissue Act 1961, as well as the issue of consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made an interesting point about the way we deal with serious incidents generally, not just those that happen in the NHS. We are poorly prepared for the emotional distress that arises from serious incidents. Over the past few years, we have seen several such incidents and I take seriously the need to learn the lessons from each of those events and to prepare an over-arching strategy, so that we do not try to reinvent the wheel. That strategy could include bereavement counselling, the role of the emergency services and contingency plans to support people after a serious incident.
When the report was published, we introduced a number of early measures that we could implement straight away. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established the retained organs commission to oversee the return of organs and tissue to families around the country. I have held several meetings with members of the commission, whose procedures are well established. They have kept in close consultation with all the families concerned, and have held several public meetings where families have expressed their point of view. The commission is fulfilling an extremely worthwhile role in ensuring the orderly return of organs, and in trying to minimise the distress suffered by many families who had to hold multiple funerals. Managing the process of return is an important part of the measures we have taken.
86WH
The Home Secretary set in train a review of the coroners system. The Department of Health is keeping in close contact with the review. Tom Luce, a former head of social care policy at the Department of Health, has been appointed as chairman of the review, so there are clear links between the two Departments. It is crucial that the coroners review should not take place in isolation from the events that led to the need for the review.
One of the recommendations in the guidance from the chief medical officer was that we should consider new, non-invasive forms of post mortem and, where possible, use new technology, such as scanning, that can provide an authoritative cause of death. In some cases, there would thus be no need for an invasive post mortem, which would alleviate much of the distress experienced by families when such procedures are carried out on a child. The coroners review will be considering that recommendation.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has established a review of the joint contracts of employment between trusts and universities. The accountability of academic staff, through their contracts of employment, as between the university and the trust is a key issue, so it is an important part of the review.
A commitment was given to ensure that all trusts provide support and advice to families at the time of bereavement. An extensive mapping exercise is under way to assess existing bereavement services throughout the country—where they are patchy and where they need improvement—to ensure that every family has access, if they want it, to bereavement counselling and psychological support. From my personal experience with the families, I know that their psychological well-being has been affected by the events that they suffered, so it is extremely important to ensure that they have psychological support and counselling if they want it.
We gave a commitment to enshrine the concept of consent in law. Many hon. Members have asked when that legal review will take place and when legislation will be introduced. There was a proposal to publish a simple, two-clause Bill, but after examination it is clear that we need a wider and more comprehensive review of the Human Tissue Act. A consultation document is due to be published shortly; we are seeking the views of a range of people as to how we can strengthen the legislation on retained organs. We must ensure that we think the process through properly, that the right sanctions are implemented, and that our definition of "consent" is right.
Dr. Pugh: Can the Minister tell us when there will be new legislation? When can we envisage the introduction of new legislation if it is to be preceded by lengthy consultation?
Ms Blears: The consultation need not be lengthy, but I want it to be thorough because I want to get the legislation right, since this is such a sensitive matter. Obviously, the introduction of legislation depends on parliamentary time. That is why I told the parents that I did not envisage it in this parliamentary Session, but hon. Members can rest assured that I shall press extremely strongly for parliamentary time to enable a Bill to be introduced. We made a commitment to the families at the time of the inquiry, and we certainly intend to honour it.

87WH
I have also undertaken to keep the families involved in the consultation process. Many of the problems in relation to retained organs have arisen owing to a breakdown of communication between people in authority and many of the families. The families have my personal assurance that I shall keep in very close contact with them.
Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend deal with the issue of the GMC structures and their reform?
Ms Blears: I want to deal both with the disciplinary procedures that have been taken against managers and administrative staff and with the GMC procedures. As hon. Members heard earlier, the former chief executive at Alder Hey has been dismissed. Members have expressed much concern, and indeed the chief executive was named in this Chamber today—as was Karen England.
Mr. Burns: Will the dismissed member of staff receive a financial pay-off?
Ms Blears: I understand that it was a summary dismissal, in accordance with her terms and conditions of employment, after the finding of misconduct. In those circumstances, there is not normally financial recompense. It is a disciplinary matter and the person has been summarily dismissed.
I understand that, in May 2000, Karen England was seconded to a temporary post at Warrington hospital for a period of up to six months, but in August 2000, before her suspension, she successfully obtained a substantive post at the Warrington hospitals trust. I also understand that that post was advertised externally, that references were taken up and that she was appointed through the usual recruitment procedures. It was not a case of her being transferred or, as one hon. Member said, "shunted", into an alternative post. She applied, references were taken up and she was appointed in the normal way.
All the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the disciplinary procedures used in the various trusts. As there was concern as to whether the proceedings would be robust and rigorous, an external human resources adviser was appointed who had nothing to do with Alder Hey and who independently validated the procedures. Although I understand the anger, concern and frustration of the parents, the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the individual contracts of employment and were externally validated.
I understand the desire of the parents to read the detail of those disciplinary matters, but as there is a legal mutual duty of confidence between employer and employee it is extremely difficult to put such matters in the public domain once the trusts have undertaken and resolved disciplinary proceedings. As there was concern about how the proceedings would be conducted, there
88WH
was external validation by someone completely unconnected with the trusts involved. I hope that gives hon. Members some reassurance, but I entirely understand that concerns will remain.
I am pleased that the GMC is considering radical changes to the way it deals with fitness to practise issues. The Government are considering the GMC's proposals with interest and encouragement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton and other hon. Members said, the current system is extremely rigid: when someone is unfit to practice, one can either take action or do nothing. A halfway house system is proposed—the issuing of a yellow card to doctors that acts as a warning.
Mr. Watts: If those discussions are not fruitful or successful, will my hon. Friend legislate?
Ms Blears: Obviously, the regulation of the health care professions is governed by their regulating bodies. We want to ensure that we maintain that regulation system. Furthermore, the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill proposes the establishment of a Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. That would be the over-arching body that many Members want, and would consider how all the regulatory bodies function. For the first time, there will be a public interest element in the council, so that if a regulatory body takes a decision that is manifestly against the public interest, an independent body will be able to refer the matter to the courts for reconsideration.
That is a huge step forward. When I explained it to the families, they were extremely encouraged at the prospect that somebody could intervene when a decision was taken by a regulatory body that was clearly not in the public interest. I think that hon. Members will welcome that development. Furthermore, the adoption of a type of yellow-card scheme, so that action can be taken if similar matters arise in future, would also be an extremely positive way forward.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, the GMC has been criticised from both sides. The parents feel strongly that doctors have not been brought to account. Many doctors feel strongly that the chief medical officer was wrong to refer them. Our experience in this place makes us aware that we sometimes receive criticism from both sides, but that occasionally we may nevertheless tread the right path. Obviously, serious matters have arisen.
It is unfair to say that the chief medical officer referred doctors indiscriminately. He sent a copy of the Redfern inquiry report; it was then for the GMC to take action. Obviously, the CMG was concerned about doctors' behaviour in this case and referred the report.
The Government are taking these matters extremely seriously. I am grateful for all the contributions that hon. Members have made to the debate and I shall certainly take note of the suggestions and ideas that have been proposed. I hope that over the months to come we can begin to re-establish trust between the families that have been affected and the health service.

Farming (North-West)
11 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate farming in the north-west. This is a vital time for farming, and the industry is at a crossroads and will need clear direction from the Government. I have received an apology from my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for not being able to be here.
There is no doubt that farming is now seen in a completely different light since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Those who felt that it was a stand-alone industry can think again. Farming was reeling from its own recession, which has lasted for about the past five years, and foot and mouth was just another body blow to it. Its impact has also hit tourism and allied trades with enormous repercussions.
The foot and mouth outbreak is obviously important to tourism—one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing industries in the world. The outbreak has had enormous repercussions in Ribble Valley on industries such as rural garages. There are still some garages in villages, and they have been hit, as have post offices. Many post offices run tearooms, which rely on passing trade for business, and at least one simply shut up shop halfway through the outbreak because of the fall in custom.
Pubs have also experienced a decline in trade. I spoke to the landlord of the Coach and Horses at Bolton-by-Bowland today, and he said that the trade from walkers, which is the cream to his industry, fell away completely as paths were closed. That had an enormous impact on him, and he could not make the financial progress that he wished to make. An enormous investment in time as well as money is made in village pubs.
The foot and mouth outbreak hit the Lake district particularly hard. In March this year, the Cumbria tourist board conducted a business survey, which showed that the total tourism spend in that month suffered a 53 to 68 per cent. drop, which has had enormous repercussions throughout the Lake district.
So a healthy, vibrant countryside means a healthy, prosperous countryside. Although my debate is entitled, "Farming in the North-West", we should also consider the state of the north-west itself. There are almost 18,000 farms in the north-west, supporting 38,800 workers, and 17 per cent. of the cattle and calf population of England and Wales is found in the north-west. The Council for the Protection of Rural England reported in a paper that it published on the strategic lessons of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease that 40 per cent. of rural microbusinesses in the north-east had suffered a high or medium financial impact, according to a survey carried out in April. The outbreak had also adversely affected a quarter of all firms in the United Kingdom, and we know that to be the case in the north-west.
In October 2001, a survey by Deloitte and Touche showed that farm incomes had declined, year on year. For example, a 500 acre family farm earned £18,000 in 1995–96, but that figure was down to £8,000 last year, and it is estimated that that farm would now earn about £2,500. Farmgate prices have fallen, although consumers might be forgiven for thinking that they have not.
90WH
It has also been estimated that there are 500,000 farmers in the country and that 50,000 have left the industry in the past two years. That, too, will have an enormous impact. Many farmers who were involved in full-time farming have switched to part-time farming. Commenting on the haemorrhage from the industry, the president of the National Farmers Union, Ben Gill, said:
"These figures are a dire reflection of the continuing desperate situation in British agriculture. They illustrate what we have warned: that the crisis has cut so deeply into the heart of farming in this country that, in spite of the survival instincts of our farmers, many simply cannot carry on."
That has had an impact on farmers in many ways; bank borrowing has increased; farm incomes have decreased by 70 per cent. over five years; and investment in the industry is at its lowest level since the 1970s, which will, of course, have an enormous follow-on effect in years to come.
Dugdales—a feed merchant in my constituency—is a perfect example. I spoke to Stephen Dugdale today, and he said that the tonnage of feed that he was selling had decreased—people simply do not feed dead animals. It will take a long time for that business to come back; it is doing so slowly, but the impact on businesses such as his has been enormous, especially during the outbreak's peak.
One farmer in my patch—Andrew Bristol—spoke scathingly about the way in which the clean-up operation was handled, especially given the delays that followed the Prime Minister's intervention in it. Andrew had to wait eight weeks for his contract to arrive, which has delayed considerably the clean-up and disinfection of his farm. Fortunately, he was signed off just two days ago, but he thinks that he will not restock his farm until March or even later. When he does restock it, he says that he will have to wait before his first cheque comes in.
There are similar examples. A farmer from Grindleton—David Coupland—showed me his initial contract for the clean-up operation. It was estimated that it would take him two hours to clean one very large shed, with concrete at the back and wooden sleepers on each side. That estimate is totally unrealistic; it takes me more than two hours to clean my living room. I simply do not know how anyone can reasonably be expected to clean and disinfect a barn properly in that time. Even J. K. Row-ling would not get away with that—it is more potty than Potter. We need realism in the estimate times for the clean-ups. The contracts need to be issued more quickly and the payments need to be made on time.
That view was reinforced by Steve Fawcett of the NFU. He said that the mood of farmers in Ribble Valley was still downbeat, with many questioning whether there is a future for farming. Henry Rowntree—another farmer—believes that the industry now needs more focus. He said that there is no doubt that some farmers will have to bite the bullet and that they will leave the industry. He also said that they definitely need to become more competitive, but he has told me that the French will introduce a ban on imports of sheep older than six months with their spinal cords in place as from 1 January and that they are using certain health measures to do so.
Many people ask why we cannot restrict imports into this country. We are told that we cannot do that because of the single market, yet the French manage to do it.

91WH
Why cannot we look very carefully at the rules and regulations that they are using to protect their industry and do exactly the same? No, we play by the rules, and others do not quite do so.
There has been a lot of unease about the importation of cheap or inferior meat into this country. I suspect that no debate on farming would be complete without the term, "level playing field", so let us get it out of the way sooner rather than later. I spoke to a farmer in my constituency. Janet Wallbank, who said that, when one of her friends took a car across to Ireland, the family was questioned by officials when they got off the ferry to discover whether they had any food on board. They said, "We've only got some milk", so the officials took the milk from them, yet on their return to the United Kingdom, they were not even questioned about whether they were bringing in any food.
I went to Australia this summer, and there were posters on either side of the entrance to the main hallway at Sydney airport, and one person was employed to shout at the passengers, while pointing at the bin, that it was their last opportunity to get rid of any foodstuffs that they had brought into the country, including anything that was on the plane; otherwise they could end up with a costly fine. That does focus the attention, but nothing like that happened when I returned to the United Kingdom. So we must consider, yet again, what happens with food imports into this country.
Those involved in airport security are very strict about anyone with knives or metal objects, and we need the same effort to be made against the importation of foodstuffs, which we believe led to the initial outbreak of food and mouth disease. We need the same determination to stop foodstuffs coming in as we show in preventing metal objects or anything that might be dangerous from being taken on to planes. We need to focus our attention on that problem.
Janet also said something about the insurance problem. It has been argued that all farmers should insure against an outbreak of foot and mouth but, once the outbreak began, we know that it was impossible to obtain insurance. Henry Rowntree wondered what factors the insurance companies would consider in determining a proper premium and he told me that one of the issues that they would examine is how the outbreak was handled this time. Before they can set a realistic premium, they will want to know exactly what action the Government will take in any future outbreak. I ask the Minister to address that issue.
Touch wood, we hope that we are coming towards the end of this outbreak; there has not been a case in my patch or in the country for several weeks. It is therefore time to focus attention on what we will do to prevent any future outbreaks.
Henry Rowntree told me that the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knew that there were virulent strains of foot and mouth in other parts of the world and that it had been told about the imports coming into this country. However, no checks were made on the meat stuffs coming in. He also told me that farming was under great economic strain—we know that from the decline in farm incomes—that the state veterinary service had been cut and that there was fragmentation of holdings within the industry.
92WH
However, we now know that there were no contingency plans whatever for foot and mouth. That was a clear recipe for an outbreak, and he said that he had spoken to people from New Zealand and Australia who told him that they were not surprised that we had had an outbreak in this country.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): It is only fair to ask the hon. Gentleman to put to one side the comment that there were no contingency plans. Whether those plans were adequate for the recent outbreak, which was quite different from the one that we had in the 1960s, is an entirely different matter. However, the suggestion that there were no contingency plans has been refuted on a number of occasions.
Mr. Evans: I want to come to that point shortly. I have reported what a farmer in my patch said, so the Minister must accept that many farmers believe it. However, when Ministers were asked about the rumours that abounded that phone calls were made before the outbreak to order wood for funeral pyres, we were told that they had been made because rehearsals and practice take place every year.
Alun Michael: My memory from when we were in opposition is that it is the role of the Opposition to spread enlightenment rather than unfounded rumours. Some things are believed because they are repeated. It is not the job of Members on either side of the House to repeat things that are not true.
Mr. Evans: It is also the job of Opposition to spread a little realism in light of whatever we face from those on the Government Benches. Although biosecurity will never be perfect whatever we do, the Minister must accept that it could be better. We must work towards improving it.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has just referred to the contingency plans, but my hon. Friend will be aware that I tabled many written questions about those plans towards the end of last Session and received very inadequate and exceptionally late answers. They did not deal satisfactorily with the questions of what contingency plans were in place and why, after a gap of 34 years, certain people had been rung up for timber supplies. It is incumbent on us to question seriously why, at least two months before the initial outbreak was announced, such inquiries for supplies had suddenly been made. Satisfactory answers have simply not yet been produced. It is our job to hold the Government to account.
Mr. Evans: That is one issue on which there were not rumours. We know that the phone calls were made and that perhaps explains the feeling that the Government knew more than they were letting on.
Such questions relate to the 1967 outbreak and to the report that followed an independent inquiry. Recommendations were made but we wonder why they were not properly followed in the current outbreak. Perhaps they were not good enough.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend raises important issues. Everyone will come to their own

93WH
view as to whether the contingency plans were in place or whether they were inadequate. However, one of the recommendations in the Northumberland report was that action should be taken immediately after an outbreak was diagnosed. Did not the Government make the mistake of leaving three critical days in February in which livestock movements continued as usual? Decisions were delayed unnecessarily.
Mr. Evans: If I were quicker on my feet, I would come straight to that point. My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I shall come shortly to the concerns expressed that delays led to the outbreak being far worse than it would have been if action had been taken straight away.
I have already mentioned David Coupland, and he came to see my at my surgery. Any Member who represents a rural constituency has been visited by farmers since the outbreak began and some of the stories that they relate are very sad. There are also some horror stories about the mishandling of the outbreak. David told me that a number of animals were culled on his farm and that the vehicles that turned up to remove the dead bodies spilled all sorts of fluids on to the roads. Anyone who knows my constituency will realise that farmers drive around those roads.
David Coupland also said that some of the personnel involved clearly did not follow their guidelines. It was a hot day and they were wearing only half their protective uniforms; they had no protection on their heads. He said that what was most depressing is that farmers were blamed for spreading the disease. It is upsetting when farmers are told that they and their animal movements are spreading the disease when the people from MAFF and latterly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were not following the guidelines.
Robert Parker of the Clitheroe auction mart believes that there is much talent in farming that the Government are not using. He hopes that, after the outbreak, they will listen more to the experts who can provide good advice about biosecurity and the future for farming. I give the Clitheroe auction mart 100 per cent. support, because it has suffered badly since the cessation of sales. Robert has started a farmers' market where he has more than 20 stalls and he says that it is doing really well. That is a superb example of the industry supporting the industry.
I turned up at the auction mart a couple of weeks ago when John Barber of the rural stress network organised a whole day of activities so that the community could support the farming industry. A number of stalls from all sorts of countryside organisations were present and more than 1,200 people turned up to support the day. It ended with an auction of items that had been donated by the community, and the money went to the charities that have supported the farming industry since the outbreak of foot and mouth. I congratulate everyone involved.
Will the Minister specifically consider the activities of the Bowland initiative in my constituency? It is supported by a number of organisations, including, in the past two years, MAFF and DEFRA. However, DEFRA has announced that it will no longer support the initiative, which is sad because that support has been
94WH
especially necessary since the outbreak began. The initiative employs 10 people and, to date, it has given advice and assistance with grants to more than 120 farmers in the area; another 400 are on the waiting list. Farmers now need advice on diversification and assistance in filling out forms. If they are late sending the forms back, they do not receive anything but the forms are sometimes very confusing. To be able to obtain assistance from an organisation such as the Bowland initiative is very valuable. Will the Minister consider the support that DEFRA gives it?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the assistance and advice that is available to farmers. The Bowland initiative is excellent and I have given it specific consideration. The problem is that it was part of the objective 5b arrangements. Those have been changed and that option is no longer open to us. I assure him, however, that we have learned lessons from the Bowland initiative and objective 5b. We are keen to make advice and help available and are considering ways in which that can be delivered. Unfortunately, the strand of funding to which the hon. Gentleman refers is no longer available. That is the simple answer.
Mr. Evans: I accept that and I am sure that farmers will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I hope that the ingenuity and flexibility of his Department will allow it to find a way to support that initiative so that it continues.
On the need for an independent inquiry, we know that Devon county council held its own inquiry. It is sad that DEFRA did not give evidence to it. No doubt the Minister will want to comment on that.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me correct him immediately. The Devon inquiry issued a press release welcoming my response to its questions. We made it clear from the beginning that getting involved in giving evidence directly might look as though we were anticipating the independent inquiries established by the Government. That was understood by the Devon inquiry and the chairman, to whom I spoke only last week.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that clarification. I understood that written rather than oral evidence was submitted. I appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman has acted in that way. However, if he believes that the two inquiries announced by the Government will be sufficient to compensate for a full and independent inquiry he is sadly mistaken. Northumberland county council is holding an inquiry and I asked Hazel Harding of Lancashire county council to do the same because of the impact of foot and mouth outbreaks on our patch. Sadly, she said that the council is not prepared to do that. It is a pity that we have to rely on county councils to do the Government's job of setting up inquiries.
The Farmers Guardian, which is published in my constituency, had an interesting front-page article on 9 November about the lack of an early ban on animal movements to combat the spread of foot and mouth disease, which relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said. It refers to what two Government advisers, Mark Woolhouse

95WH
and Professor Roy Anderson, say about the spread of foot and mouth. They believe that the delay resulted in far more animals being culled. According to Mark Woolhouse, the number of cases could have been halved if livestock movements had been banned immediately. Professor Roy Anderson, advising the Government on the fight against the disease, said that
"the speed it spread meant the consequences of any delays were huge".
He went on to point out that it might sound odd
"'to say a three-day delay was crucial, but it was crucial."'
That is what Government advisers are saying.
It is also interesting to note that page 2 has an article on the foot and mouth disease inquiry in Strasbourg. It is fair to say that I am not the greatest supporter of the European Union, but it is odd that we have to rely on county councils and the European Parliament when we cannot rely on our Government to establish an independent inquiry. I suspect that the Government fear that something may come out of an inquiry which will embarrass them, but they should take that embarrassment on the chin. It is far better to have a full independent inquiry that gets to the core of why the disease spread as quickly as it did because it did not spread in the same way in France or Ireland. We need to get to the real reasons for that. Let us take evidence from as many groups as possible so that if we have another outbreak—heaven forbid that we do—we will at least have learned the lessons and have recommendations to follow, such as those in the Devon county council report. Far better to be embarrassed than to have no proper full public inquiry.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has come to a disgraceful part of his speech. If he really cared about the farming industry, farmers and the damage that foot and mouth has done, he would want as he has said that he does—a full independent inquiry to get to the bottom of the matter. We have established three inquiries to do just that and speedily provide recommendations for the future. There is an open invitation for people to give evidence to them. The diversion of pretending that a public inquiry would be a magic wand is an irresponsible indulgence.
Mr. Evans: Having set up two inquiries that will not be as thorough as they could be shows that the Government are totally irresponsible because they want to push the problem into the long grass.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am keen to take issue with the Minister. If he is correct about how quick and efficient his inquiries will be, why on earth has he introduced the Animal Health Bill when he has not received the results from those inquiries?
Mr. Evans: The case for a full public inquiry is overwhelming. Those who suffered from the worst outbreak of foot and mouth ever to occur in this country want it; the only people who do not are the Government. I can only conclude that they are afraid of what a full and independent inquiry would produce, but it would be much better for the industry and its future if such an inquiry were held. Farmers whose animals were culled are thinking about restocking. They are unsure about
96WH
the future of their industry. A full and independent inquiry, with proper recommendations, would reassure them.
Mr. Tim Collins: As the only representative in the Chamber of Cumbria, the county that was by far the worst affected by foot and mouth, I have yet to meet a single farmer, tourist business or constituent of any party political affiliation who does not want a full public independent inquiry and who believes that the Government's proposals are adequate.
Mr. Evans: That is also the opinion of every organisation involved in the farming industry, and I suspect that it goes further. We saw the disease's impact on tourism and other allied trades. The Government should bite the bullet and get on with it.
I am glad to say that the last outbreak in my patch was in July. We have just moved from being classified as a high-risk area to an at-risk area. I hope that we will be free of foot and mouth disease next week, which offers the industry some light at the end of the tunnel. We need an integrated approach on the part of organisations in the north-west, with the North West Development Agency, the county councils and rural development bodies working together to ensure that there is a future for the industry.
Certain issues—the old chestnuts—still need to be resolved, and it is important that we get things right. Supermarkets should prioritise local produce, which needs to be clearly labelled and promoted. We talk about the web of industries that rely on one another, and local supermarkets can do much to help local farmers. We must reconsider the costs and burdens on the industry. The livestock markets—the auction marts—need to be given hope that they can start up again because they are an important part of the farming industry. British produce needs to be properly marketed again to enable consumers to appreciate the benefits of buying British meat.
There must be proper and clear guidance for the future. There can be no hidden agenda for the farming industry. Our farmers are important not just as producers of foodstuffs, but for the health of the countryside, of tourism and of employment in areas where it is difficult to create new jobs. Farmers will look to the Government, post-foot and mouth, to come up with the answers. I hope that the Minister will reassure them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. Quite a number of Back Benchers are seeking to catch my eye. We have a limited amount of time for the debate, so if contributions are relatively brief it may enable everyone who wishes to speak to do so.
11.29 am
Mr. David Borrow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing a debate on an important issue for many of us in the north-west. The hon. Gentleman represents the upper reaches of the Ribble Valley, where the countryside is

97WH
hillier than it is at my end of the valley, which is very flat. Significantly, he focused on the livestock industry, which is obviously the main farming activity in his constituency, whereas I shall focus on horticulture and market gardening, which is the main activity in my constituency. First, however, I shall mention a few issues surrounding the foot and mouth outbreak this year.
As we look to restructure the farming industry in the north-west, we should recognise that the parts of the industry that will face the biggest challenge in restructuring are those that depend on subsidy or trade protection measures. As a result of the reform of the common agricultural policy, the recent agreement at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Doha and the continuation of those changes, many upland farmers who are involved in livestock farming face real challenges in maintaining the sustainability of those farms. Over the next few years, the challenge for my Government—and for the industry—will be to consider ways to ensure that as many of those farms as possible are sustainable and viable in the medium to long term, and ways to move from direct production-based support for the livestock industry to different forms of support.
Those changes are coming: we cannot assume that the existing regime will last more than a few years. Change arising from forces outside the United Kingdom is inevitable, so the Government and the industry must work closely together to ensure that as many businesses as possible survive, and that those that do survive are sustainable and have a long-term future. Some very difficult, painful decisions—which have little to do with foot and mouth disease—will have to be taken.
On the inquiries that have been set up into foot and mouth disease, my view is that it is important to get some interim reports back into Government on what has happened and what measures need to be taken to prevent a repeat of the outbreak. The inquiries that have been set up by the Government are independent of Government. They may not take the form of an independent public inquiry of the type that some people have demanded but, given the time that it took for the public inquiry into BSE to report, I am not sure that we can afford to wait so many years before we have something definitive on which to base a decision.
My view, which differs from that of Ministers, is that when those inquiries have reported and we have studied the reports, there may well be a demand for a further public inquiry of the traditional type, which may take several years, but which may be welcome at that point. I am not yet convinced that such an inquiry can happen now.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made a comment about the Animal Health Bill. In my view, we need to take measures urgently to deal with possible further outbreaks of the disease on the basis of the information that we have, so I support the Bill. On Second Reading, I commented on the way in which the Government had handled its introduction, but the need for the measure has been demonstrated. We need to sort
98WH
out some of its details in the next few weeks. We cannot afford to delay until we have held a massive public inquiry on the issue.
Mr. Wiggin: The difficulty in what the hon. Gentleman has just said stems from the fact that none of the inquiries has reported, so your argument, which so sensibly suggested that you would wait to find out what the results were before legislating—
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. I am not making any arguments.
Mr. Wiggin: I apologise. The argument that we should wait before legislating is negated because the legislation is already under way. What is disturbing is that, whatever evidence emerges from these public inquiries, it will be too late to help shape the Animal Health Bill.
Mr. Borrow: In my view, if Ministers have information on the ways in which the existing system is not adequate, they have a duty to report to Parliament and to introduce legislation as soon as possible to put those things right. They may not be able to put everything right because they may not have all the information, and when the inquiries are concluded the Government may need to introduce further measures, but I do not believe that one should delay doing anything simply because one does not have all the information necessary to get everything right at once.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Borrow: I wish to move on.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) is here this morning. I was fortunate in that none of the livestock farmers in my constituency suffered from the foot and mouth disease, but the nearest outbreak was in my hon. Friend's constituency, so I am sure that he will refer to the subject if he gets the opportunity to speak.
I wish to discuss some of the broader issues surrounding agriculture. In the past few years, it has often been assumed that all agriculture is livestock agriculture. That assumption is wrong and causes difficulties. In my constituency and others in the north-west, thousands of people work in agriculture that has nothing to do with livestock. The bulk of those constituents work in parts of agriculture where the CAP does not apply. They do not rely on subsidies at all. In the arable sector and the horticulture sector, they are working in a market situation, competing with producers throughout the world.
Most people who work in the livestock sector are members of a farming family, who own and run the business themselves. Most of the horticultural firms in my constituency are family firms, but they do not simply consist of a farming family. A significant aspect of the horticulture sector is the large number of employees who work in it. Consequently, the horticulture sector operates differently.

99WH
In the four and a half years that I have represented South Ribble I have noticed that, in the arable and horticulture sector, the industry has moved away from the north-west towards eastern England. Several aspects have contributed to that move.
Given the good quality of the land in Cheshire and the Lancashire plain, the north-west has traditionally been an important area for arable farming and market gardening, but the areas are somewhat isolated from the main part of the rest of UK agriculture. Although they have strong local markets, many of the major supermarkets and other purchasers of products have moved their purchasing to eastern England. That change has come about partly as a result of the decline in traditional wholesale markets—Liverpool and Manchester in particular.
Many of the small businesses that, traditionally, took their produce to the wholesale markets no longer have that means of access to the market, and most production now goes directly to supermarkets. Therefore, for many supermarkets, contracts are increasingly made through large companies in eastern England rather than with smaller companies in the north-west. There needs to be recognition that one problem of the sector in the northwest is the fact that many businesses are not operating in a co-operative way with one another as happens in other parts of the country, and many businesses are relatively small, which means that, in a market situation, they do not have the muscle of producers in eastern England.
I believe that the weather in the north-west has helped to encourage production and purchasing in eastern England. In the very wet autumn of last year, a large proportion of the vegetable production was never taken out of the ground. Many of the potatoes were left frozen in the ground, which delayed the spring planting, so most of the production moved from winter crops to spring crops, which are less profitable. That ties in with the long-term decline of production in the north-west.
Figures that I got from the National Farmers Union in my area yesterday show that some 20 out of the 60 sugar beet producers in the north-west are likely to leave the industry in the immediate future. All that points to the fact that the arable sector in the north-west is in decline, and much of the production is moving to eastern England. We need to look seriously at those issues.
I turn now to horticulture. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the number of people leaving farming. Horticulture relies to a large extent on casual labour, much of which now has to come from overseas, and that is a significant problem. The season for horticulture production is longer than the period for which the seasonal agriculture worker scheme operates. Many businesses in my constituency use the scheme to bring in workers, particularly from eastern Europe, but they are not in the UK long enough to complete the season. There have been incidents of gangmasters bringing in illegal workers, but the farmers to whom I have spoken would much prefer to know that their casual employees are here legitimately.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In considering those issues, and given the weather patterns in the north-west, and his constituency in particular, has the hon. Gentleman also
100WH
made an honest and thorough assessment of the cost to horticulture of the Government's climate change levy, which penalises that sector?
Mr. Borrow: That is on the list of matters on which I intend to comment later, if the hon. Gentleman will wait.
As local farmers have pointed out to me, in a constituency where the unemployment rate is under 1.5 per cent., there is a long-term problem in recruiting full-time, permanent employees, even when people are paid significantly above the agricultural wages board figures. There are casual workers who show aptitude and could take on a full-time post, but immigration rules do not allow them do so. I am aware that the Home Office is reviewing the rules governing workers from overseas taking specific jobs in the UK, and the needs of horticulture must be considered in that review.
Another bugbear for the horticulture and market gardening sector is its relationship with supermarkets. The Department of Trade and Industry has introduced a voluntary code of practice covering the relationships between supermarkets and farmers, but there is concern that the consultation on it was largely with the supermarkets, and not to any significant extent with farmers. In addition, the code of practice simply deals with foodstuffs and excludes the domestic plants sector. The production of house plants is a growth area in horticulture, and if it is not covered by the code of practice, there will be no solution to the problem of the producers' weakness in relation to the supermarkets. In addition, many of the companies that sell house plants are not supermarkets but big do-it-yourself chains, and they are not covered by the code of practice—
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the debate. There is a boundary between horticulture and fanning, although it is not always clear. He is pursuing the subject of horticulture into areas that are beyond the normal definition of farming, and I hope that he will be brief. I have been indulgent so far.
Mr. Borrow: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I am not sure that my farmers would make that distinction, but I will abide by the rules of the Chamber on that matter.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the climate change levy. I have always found it difficult to understand how we can apply that policy to greenhouse horticulture. I am pleased that the Government have agreed to a 50 per cent. discount for horticulture, but I am not convinced that it will solve the problem. The levy is linked to the use of energy rather than to emissions. In the glasshouse sector, emissions are used within the glasshouses and are absorbed by the plants, so we can ask whether the levy should apply at all. A year ago, when gas prices were increasing rapidly, I suggested that Ministers should monitor the situation towards the end of the first year of operation of the climate change levy, to see what impact it is having on horticulture. I should be grateful if the Minister could say in his reply whether he is prepared to do that.
The Government are introducing a fruit for schools scheme to encourage healthy eating among children. Many salad-growers in my constituency have suggested

101WH
introducing a similar scheme to promote salad crops. Companies such as Flavourfresh in my constituency produce small, sweet tomatoes, which are part of a range of salad crops that would be very attractive to children, so I urge Ministers to consider extending the scheme.
Finally, I turn to the long-term effects of the decline in salad crop and vegetable production in the north-west and nationally. If we increasingly import salad and vegetables, instead of producing them in the UK, and particularly in the north-west, we will not only lose jobs in agriculture, but find that the food processing industry increasingly relocates. If potatoes are being imported rather than produced locally, there is less need for factories making crisps, and when those companies are looking to reinvest, they are increasingly likely to do so overseas. If we lose a large proportion of the vegetable and horticulture sector in the north-west, that will have serious effects on food processing.
Those sectors are not subsidised and expect to compete with other countries on a level playing field. The Government need to think what they can do to ensure that these industries are not affected by short-term changes, and if long-term movements are taking place, they need to consider how to assist them so that they remain viable.
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): I appealed for relatively short speeches so that all hon. Members could speak, but I think that it will now be difficult for them all to have the chance.
11.48 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Farming in the north-west, like that in other regions, has already diversified. Eddisbury shares with Congleton, Tatton and North Shropshire the largest milk field in Europe.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And with Macclesfield.
Mr. O'Brien: Indeed. I think that my hon. Friend's constituency contains a few more sheep than mine. As a result of the foot and mouth crisis, we have had to face yet again a major collapse in confidence, as well as the very severe practical difficulties that have been heaped on the farming community. Although the incidence of foot and mouth in the current outbreak has been considerably lower than in 1967, it should not be suggested that that has in any way diminished the sheer fear, concern and stress that have been the condition of life for farmers and their families throughout my constituency.
Given the pressure of time, I need not rehearse all the criticisms about the Government's actions, or rather inactions, in relation to the crisis that we have just experienced—luckily, Cheshire has had FMD-free status since the middle of last month, so certain movements are now occurring again under licence. In 1967, when my constituency was the epicentre of the outbreak, the Northumberland inquiry reported within nine months. The inquiry was holistic, complete and thorough. As it happens—I make no connection—the
102WH
crisis occurred under a Labour Government. The then Minister of Agriculture, Fred Peart, later Lord Peart, came out of it with a greatly enhanced reputation. His handling of the crisis, the way in which the Northumberland report was prepared and the actions that it recommended redounded to the credit of Governments generally, irrespective of party-political affiliation.
My farmers and the communities in the rural areas of Eddisbury wish that what happened then could have been emulated now. I dare say that that feeling reaches across the north-west, especially in Cumbria, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) have had to face by far the worst of the crisis. There have been lost opportunities, for which the Government must stand accountable, in what all of us feel has been a very sad episode in the life of farming in the north-west. I urge them to think again about having a collection of inquiries, not least as there is a very large question mark about whether they are truly of a public nature. While they have a number of inquiries, it is impossible to dispel concern and suspicion about their motivation being an intention to divide and rule. There is anxiety that the inquiries represent the desire to use a more manipulative approach, rather than a genuine attempt to learn the lessons, however hard, for all concerned, as we go forward and try to build a future for the rural economy, which is so critical to my constituents and to people throughout the north-west.
It is right that the Animal Health Bill has been criticised. Yet again, the Government are using the title of a Bill to try to lull people into false security. If one looks very carefully at the detail of the clauses, one has the impression that animal health is not necessarily the motivation of the Bill. The more that I have looked into the matter, the more that I am concerned, especially in the light of representations from my farmers, that the Bill is the nearest that I have seen in my two and a half years in the House to the introduction into a Parliament of a Stalinist measure—a suggestion that I am loth to make.
There is something that the Government could do now—or could have done previously—that would alleviate the problems. I refer to the need to address issues relating to honesty in food labelling. I make no apology for the fact that this matter is something of a passion of mine. By dealing with it, the Government could not only help farmers, but demonstrate once and for all that they have grasped that the link between producers and consumers is essential to the survival of the rural economy in the north-west and elsewhere. By breaking that link in the value chain— a simple and obvious business and economic notion—through the Food Standards Agency's introduction of labelling regulations, they have ensured that accountability now rests with the Department of Health. The Government have suggested that they have only a consumerist agenda—or perhaps an eye on voting intentions—rather than a true understanding of the true drivers and economic underpinning of food production in this country.
There is a need for honesty in food labelling in countries of origin, as there is an enormous need for the consumer to have confidence in where food has come

103WH
from. A proper approach is also required in terms of the control and expectations of high-quality production standards. Our farmers, not least in Eddisbury, and throughout the north-west, have production standards that are not only the highest in Europe, but can match the best in the world. It was a huge disappointment that yet again, when a private Member's Bill on food labelling was recently introduced, it was a Minister, this time from the Department of Health, who talked it out. The same thing happened when I introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject in the last Session. That Bill was blocked by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), then a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is a great shame that the Government are taking that approach. Such proposals are a lost opportunity and they could easily take them forward, instead of hiding behind what is becoming a nightmarish and bureaucratic set of skirts around the EU. To realise what they are doing, one has only to look at the latest letter from Lord Whitty, the Minister for food, farming and waterways, to the public relations manager of the National Farmers Union. In the letter, which is dated 15 November, Lord Whitty talks much about illegal imports and tries to give some sense of confidence to all of us who are concerned about these matters and the desperately anti-competitive position that is created for our farmers, but there is not a word about food labelling and the need for honesty. The letter is yet another smokescreen that attempts to get away from the essential element that should be addressed.
Dairy farming is, patently, critical to my constituents, but it is also fundamental throughout the north-west. It is clear that the collapse in incomes has been severe. The Government are often focused on the need to dispel the idea that intensive farming is a way forward and to suggest that we should consider diversification. Most of my farmers have diversified to the nth degree and have continued to try to do so. When the Prime Minister appeared in the Ceredigion by-election and was spouting diversification, it was notable that he came with none in his pocket. In a number of conversations, farmers in my constituency have told me that diversification is all very well, but often relies on the tourism industry. That has also been shattered by the foot and mouth epidemic, which has broken confidence in tourism. For most farmers, who cannot alienate the asset—the land is where it is—such an approach is tinkering at the edges and is not fundamental. Many have been encouraged by the Government to go organic, but the organic market is now over-supplied, often by products from abroad—a problem that is causing intense difficulty for those who have got to undergo a long period of adjustment.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend presents a splendid case on behalf of farmers in the north-west. Will he also comment briefly on the right to roam, which will cause immense difficulty for livestock farmers, especially in respect of guaranteeing safety for people when they are on the land? Moreover, the Government
104WH
seem to have extended the right beyond heath, moor and down to ordinary farmland. Will there be no privacy, security and rights for farmers in this country?
Mr. O'Brien: As always, my hon. Friend makes a topical and important point. Cheshire is one of the first areas in the country to be mapped for those purposes. To relate the matter to the debate, I turn to one of the major points that I hope the Minister for Rural Affairs will take away with him, even if he is not in a position to respond to it today. In the light of the Lord Haskins report, there has been a comprehensive attack on the underpinning of the rural economy and market. I refer to the suggestion that cattle marts should be put to a slow—or even fast—death. The lorry that comes to take cattle to the abattoir—sadly, this one of the only services that works—can go past the end of the farm gate. The calves cannot be taken to the gate for picking up. However, people who would like to roam and ramble can come to the lane, if there happens to be a public footpath, and there is no control over them, especially as the vehicles will travel along the route. There is a complete and utter discrepancy between the approach regarding those who wish to enjoy the countryside for its amenity—I would certainly encourage them to do so—and that which relates to those who have to earn their living from it. That is causing deep distress to many of my constituents.
Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his words about encouraging people to come to the countryside contrast starkly with what he has just said? He appears to be suggesting that there is a risk of walkers spreading foot and mouth disease when the veterinary risk assessment demonstrates that that is not the case.
Mr. O'Brien: On the contrary. The Minister has helped to reinforce the point that the discrepancy works against farmers, rather than for the ramblers. No doubt, there will be discussion of routes that ramblers can take, but many of my constituents are upset by the fact that farmers are continually subject to enormous pressures from regulation, which is driving many of them to despair and is certainly attacking their income. Fear of a renewed outbreak of foot and mouth has created the difficulty that sheep from north Wales will not be overwintered on the flat pastures of the Cheshire plain, which will lead to further loss of income. Cheshire county council and Business Link are aware of that and have sought to give advice, without much funding to back them up, to help businesses through the worst of recent times.
It would be right to record that during the collapse of incomes there has been a dearth of young people wishing to join the industry, which is causing intense concern among family businesses. To make sure that the Minister at least takes something away from our debate, I should like to put on record again the fact that Cheshire is on the front line in the increasing spread of tuberculosis. We are waiting, with bated breath—if we carry on holding our breath I dare say that we will all expire before we get an answer—the results of tests originally conducted on the recommendation of Professor Krebs. Measures on the spread of TB need to be thought through, and we must consider whether the

105WH
problem is related to the badger population. We need a conclusion on the tests, because the disease is causing intense concern in Cheshire. I know that farmers in the north-west feel that if Cheshire is breached, they will all be at exceptionally serious risk.
This is not a case of special pleading for farmers; we are doing the job of representing our constituents—our farmers, all those involved in the rural economy and communities that are dependent, first and foremost, on a thriving farming industry and have faced many pressures recently. I accept that there is probably no quick fix, but a number of farmers will no longer be able to survive in the industry. I urge the Government to look at that major strategic issue. The industry is worth fighting for. The Government should not simply tinker at the margins and give priority to people who see the countryside as something to be enjoyed. If farmers in the north-west are not supported, the countryside will not be the attractive place that the rest of the community wishes to enjoy.
12.2 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for ensuring that this debate has taken place. I am sorry that we do not have more time; Members have been a little greedy this morning, and could have shared the time a little more.
My constituency was one of the first to be affected by foot and mouth; one of the first cases in the country occurred there. We were lucky that MAFF was effective in south Lancashire; it dealt with the case although, unfortunately, a neighbouring farm lost its cattle as well. However, I congratulate the Department on the way in which it dealt with the problem; we had no further cases. I am pleased that our farmers were lucky. However, I am concerned about the effect on farmers whose animals did get foot and mouth. They suffered, are still suffering and have not secured free transportation for their animals; they cannot get into the export market. Farmers in our area got out of beef farming because of BSE and the problems that it created. They went into sheep farming, but now they cannot get a proper price for their animals and are beginning to suffer. Will the Minister consider seriously the idea of blood-testing sheep to get them into the export market? I hope that he will take that on board because Mr. Lawrence, a farmer in my constituency, is suffering; he has done everything right but, through no fault of his own, is beginning to suffer because he cannot get back into the export market.
On BSE, I am interested in figures for France and Germany, since our export markets are still blocked. We must look at that and get the ban lifted; we want to make sure that the same thing applies to all countries. Without question, tourism in south Lancashire has been affected. The Salmon family have run Rivington Barn for many years, and provided a good quality service. However, it was affected, just like the farming community. I hope that we can ensure that tourism will return.
Tony Cunningham: I apologise for my late arrival; I have just come from a Select Committee.
106WH
When talking about farmers and tourism, we must remember that many farmers are also involved in the tourism industry; we need to protect the industry because it is important to farmers as well.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must look at how to assist farmers who want to diversify; it is important that we help them. A moorland farm in my constituency can apply for funding, but the adjoining farm cannot. We need to deal with that and ensure that there is a level playing field for all farmers—that all have an equal opportunity to diversify and can all apply for funding.
I turn to the issue of labelling, which has already been raised. We need clear, open labelling to ensure that people know where food is sourced from, where it has gone and what is on the shelf. We want to develop that and make sure that it is introduced. People have asked for a public inquiry, and I believe that we should have one: indeed, I would go even further. Many people will not agree but, once this is over, we should have a royal commission on the future of farming in the new millennium. The Government could consider that proposal. We should also conduct research into vaccination and the effects of cattle vaccination on wildlife, because without vaccination, foot and mouth can be transferred to deer herds. More money, resources and research are needed. In future, better resources for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are needed; at the moment, they come in cycles and we never know when the next cycle will be. We want to ensure that money is available.
The armed forces played a major role during the outbreak, but did so too late. They should have been brought in much earlier and quicker. They were good and effective and we ought to be ready if they are needed again; we must ensure that they know what their role is and what they are expected to do. It is important that their role is established, and they are ready if the situation ever arises again. I hope that it does not, as many farmers have been affected in the north-west and we must look after them.
Members of Parliament should have been briefed at the beginning of the outbreak. MAFF would not reply to us and said that we had to go to a Minister. How could a Minister deal with our inquiries, when we were asking questions posed by our farmers? We cannot rely on the press to inform Members of Parliament; it should be us who inform the press. Local authorities were receiving information. Luckily, I have a good working relationship with my local authority, which informed me of what was happening, but that is not right. There should be a clear route from DEFRA, locally and regionally, to Members of Parliament and their offices. At the end of the day, farmers were in dire straits. They were suffering and were under the cosh. They needed support, and the way to provide that is to ensure that we have the information in the first place.
I shall conclude now, as I know that others wish to speak.
12.7 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). This is a timely

107WH
debate because, just as the crisis has slipped from the newspapers and from many people's minds, many farmers and people involved in farming activities are beginning to feel the pinch. Most of them have managed to get through the summer; they have had a reasonable cash flow, and there is evidence of people visiting their village pubs, shops, post offices and so on. Now, however, we are hitting winter and farmers' cash flow is certainly drying up; now is the time when some will clearly fail.
I want to say a couple of things about something that is turning into a great divide. Some farmers have a choice because they have received compensation and have a particular holding that gives them opportunities. Their age and family situation give them a choice about what they can do in the next year, or in two, five or 10 years' time. However, a considerable number of struggling farmers have little choice. They have not received any compensation, but have been hugely affected by foot and mouth, especially the movement restrictions. The banks have been sympathetic to them, but they have had to borrow considerably more money. Although interests rates have come down a bit, which has cushioned their position a little, they are now borrowing more than they have ever borrowed in their lives. Their borrowing is going up and the value of their assets is going down; they are locked into a bleak future. Some of them are tenant farmers who have received little—in some cases, nothing—in assistance at this critical time.
There needs to be a strategy for both sets of farmers. For those who have a choice, there should be an understanding of the Government's over-arching strategy. They need to know how they will play their part in future farming patterns. Diversification is a matter for them. They also need to know what investment they may be able to make and how they can spend their compensation money in restocking or moving into something else. In other words, they need to understand what their future is and the best way of using their assets to invest.
Those farmers will be able to have a future, but we need a strategy for those who will remain in agriculture, to ensure that they can provide the safe, sustainable, animal welfare-friendly and properly labelled food that we all want.
I have considerable sympathy with the views of the hon. Members for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). There is a desire to move the debate on and to tackle the issues. I know that some of them are difficult from a European perspective, but consumers want us to get on and do our job in providing honesty in labelling.
Will farmers who have seen their income fall and costs increase be able to trade their way out of that situation? If the answer is yes, how long will the process take? Will banks be sympathetic for ever? What support can be given to them? What is the strategy for those who are locked in?
What about farmers who have reached the age at which they are thinking of retiring? Many farmers in my constituency, and I am sure in the south-west as a whole, are rapidly approaching the time when they would like to retire, but they cannot. They are locked into an
108WH
extremely difficult situation. Is there no hope of a dignified early retirement scheme to allow them to get out of a situation for which they are not to blame?
There are businesses that will fail this winter; through no fault of their own, they will not make it through to next summer. Given the costs that they have endured and the income that they have not had during the summer, they will go under. There will be little information about that published in the newspapers. I hope that the Government will not abandon farmers who find themselves in that position.
12.13 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on introducing this timely debate, which has been extremely interesting. I shall have to gallop to pick up some of the points that have been made.
My hon. Friend stated categorically that agriculture does not stand alone. It underpins the economy of rural areas. Foot and mouth disease has had an enormous impact on farming, with shock waves going through allied industries, including machinery and feed merchants, and particularly tourism.
The north-west is a large livestock area. The impact of the foot and mouth epidemic, especially in counties such as Cumbria, has been dramatic. It has devastated the industry. The point has been well made that those whose farms have been culled out have the time to consider whether they should restock or change their enterprise. Livestock owners whose farms have not been culled out are suffering dreadfully, especially those in the hills. Over-stocking has taken place because of the inability to move the animals. There are difficulties with forage. This is the busiest time of year for movements of sheep, but livestock owners have been unable to move anything from their holdings.
Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister addressed the great difficulties for hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere which stem from the operation of the 21-day restrictions, and their fear that they will be made permanent? There are serious agricultural necessities that make it necessary for farmers to move livestock on and off farms within 21 days. The weather makes it impossible to operate otherwise. The Minister must address the difficulties that arise from the introduction of such a system.
Mrs. Winterton: I cannot add more to the important point that has been made by my hon. Friend. Having been fortunate enough to visit his constituency recently, I know only too well that what he says is true. The sheep sector and other livestock sectors would be devastated if the 21-day rule remained.
There must be an understanding of the difference between intensive agriculture and extensive agriculture. In the uplands, we have extensive agriculture, and there have to be animal movements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley called for fair competition for farmers, with no more added regulation being placed on their shoulders by the Government. The climate change levy is one example

109WH
that has been mentioned. In addition, cheap food imports are flooding in, bringing with them the possibility of both animal disease and human disease. The problem needs to be tackled. In introducing the Animal Health Bill, the Minister has put the cart before the horse. Surely the Government should have done something about illegal imports and other imports as a matter of priority. The important issue of keeping disease out of the country needs to be addressed.
Biosecurity has been mentioned. Farmers feel sore about being accused of spreading disease themselves. I said only the other day that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials and others are equally to blame, if blame is to be apportioned. In another area—not the north-west—I have seen the poor biosecurity arrangements at DEFRA headquarters. In Cumbria, however, I was most impressed by what the county council had done in terms of biosecurity. We all know that delays in the slaughter and disposal of dead livestock were more responsible for spreading foot and mouth. The initial delay in making decisions meant that twice the number of animals were slaughtered than need have been.
I think that everyone is still in favour of a full independent inquiry. We believe that that is essential if there is to be transparency. Until the Government face what went wrong, no real progress can be made. Confidence in the Government's integrity will remain shattered until such an inquiry takes place. Every farming and rural organisation demands an independent inquiry. We commend Devon and other counties for their individual initiatives, but the Government should be taking the lead.
The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned horticulture and arable areas. Those are extremely important, but we should perhaps concentrate on the livestock sector. The hon. Gentleman talked about the need for co-operation among smaller units if they are to get together to build a critical mass. That is equally true of the livestock sector. Unless it can negotiate with supermarket chains on better terms than at present, it will continue to be screwed into the ground.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury mentioned the Northumberland report and the lessons from that which were not learned by the Government. He mentioned the importance of honesty in food labelling. He referred to diversification, which has been going on since the 1980s. However, that can never replace the necessity for farming and agriculture to thrive in the United Kingdom, with commodity prices at added value, to ensure that the countryside is kept as we all wish to see it kept. We all want to see a vibrant industry.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Will she emphasise that unless the countryside is farmed and farmers are making a profit, we shall not be able to maintain the countryside in a way that will attract tourism, which is so important?
Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. At present, cash flow is extremely difficult. Perhaps many
110WH
farmers will leave the land when the crunch comes. The Government can help them now. For example, the annual sheep premium is at a low level, and we could have a national supplement. The hill farm allowance was introduced at 90 per cent of the former hill livestock compensatory allowance. Will the allowance be maintained at that level until 2002 and later, and not cut to 50 per cent.? Will the Minister ensure that the teams that are now not having to test for foot and mouth will move on, as we hope, to test for TB? That testing has gone by the board. It is a vital issue for livestock farmers in the west of the UK.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on obtaining a timely debate, in which we have examined the impact of foot and mouth disease on the north-west; I have witnessed its effects on people and the economy in the region. Monday was the 50th day since the last outbreak. It must be cause for some optimism that 52 days have passed since 30 September, when the last outbreak occurred. Despite that, there is no doubt that times are tough for many farmers, and foot and mouth disease has hit the north-west hard. The problems have been compounded by low world commodity prices, exchange rates and other matters.
Several excellent contributions have been made to our short debate. It is difficult to do it justice, especially when many contributions were one-sentence interventions about massive issues. It is impossible to respond to them adequately in such a short time. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) made a thoughtful speech in which he referred to the inevitability of change and the importance of events at Doha, and challenged the Government to engage with change. We accept that challenge.
We must record the success of farmers such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency who compete effectively as businesses. He was right to stress the need for farmers to work co-operatively if they are to have enough muscle to ensure that a greater proportion of supermarket prices reaches their pockets as primary producers. Good examples exist, but we must continue to encourage that. Many more farmers need to learn the importance of working together. Pressure of time prevents me from responding to all the points in my hon. Friend's considered contribution, but I shall do that in writing.
I shall also write to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) about some of the points that he made and to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), whose intervention covered a big question, to which there is hardly time to refer, let alone respond in detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) stressed the need to get back into export markets. I assure him that we are focusing on the international dimension of the challenge to farming. Diversification and extending opportunities are also important.
The hon. Members for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) missed an opportunity when they referred to measures that are currently being considered. Surely they acknowledge that speedy action

111WH
is crucial in tackling an outbreak. When culling was challenged, delays caused problems. Imagine the criticism that Conservative Members would be levelling at us if we had not acted to take powers, and another outbreak of foot and mouth disease had come rushing through the country.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: What about prevention?
Alun Michael: Of course prevention is important and the Government are putting a great deal of effort into it to ensure that outbreaks do not recur.
We are tackling import control. Conservative Members do not appear to understand that diversification is not only about tourism.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Of course we do. We are part of the community. It is the right hon. Gentleman who does not understand.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is blustering as usual. He should listen for once.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman claimed that the organic market was oversupplied. It is not being oversupplied by British farming. That is why the Government support diversification into organic produce.
The hon. Gentleman's ranting intervention about opening rights of way should have been treated with contempt. If Conservative Members examine the veterinary risk assessment of a variety of activities—farm-related and non-farm-related—they will appreciate the care with which controls have been placed on them. All controls are based on the assessment.
Promoting the myth that walkers spread foot and mouth disease damages the countryside and farmers who depend on tourism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said. Movement between farms and groups of animals creates the problems. Farmers have commented on the interdependency of farming and tourism. Many say that they had never appreciated it before they witnessed the impact of the outbreak on the whole rural economy.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley made several serious points, although I fear that most of them were negative. However, he and the hon. Member for Congleton indulged in some regrettable populism when they suggested that a public inquiry would act as a magic wand. The Government's arrangements, which comprise three strands—consideration of veterinary issues, the future of food and farming and especially what may have gone wrong at different stages of the outbreak—have been established to ensure that lessons are learned quickly and measures are introduced so that failures are not repeated. That is the correct approach to issues that hon. Members have rightly raised.
I have spoken to many people involved in farming and other parts of the rural economy. Some understand the difference between a public inquiry, and the mantra that suggests that it is simple, and the alternatives—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about transparency?
Alun Michael: The alternatives will be transparent and bring information into the public domain. They will
112WH
be speedy and exhaustive. Those who understand the difference have said that the Government are doing the right thing. [Interruption.] Those who suggest that a public inquiry is a magic wand which reaches parts that the three strands cannot reach are irresponsible. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are being irresponsible.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You don't want the truth.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that the Minister has 10 minutes in which to reply. There are tried and tested, orthodox means of intervening. May I prevail on hon. Members to keep the background music at its lowest volume?
Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Benton. It would be nice if Conservative Members listened. Having put them right on a public inquiry, I need to set the record straight on the Government, who have been a good friend to farmers.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Arrogance.
Alun Michael: No, it is the hon. Gentleman who is being arrogant in trying to shout down the truth. He is irresponsible.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not. You are.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I have already asked for hon. Members' co-operation. I now ask hon. Members to listen patiently to the remainder of the winding-up speech. If any hon. Member feels it necessary to intervene, it is up to the Minister to decide whether to give way. I ask again for the background music to be kept low.
Alun Michael: I am tempted to suggest that Conservative Members simply want to cut the time available for the response.
Those who peddle scare stories are not undermining the Government, but the confidence of those who deserve encouragement and support. Those people desperately need confidence. Let me nail the rural myths. The Government are not trying to shut down British livestock farming; there is no European Union plot to sabotage farming; we are not using foot and mouth to close down large parts of the sheep sector. The Government are committed to viable, vibrant and sustainable British agriculture, which comprises livestock and arable farms.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: No, the hon. Lady had her chance.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Oh!
Alun Michael: The hon. Lady should control her husband; we would then have more time for debate.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I understood that you were in charge of proceedings and

113WH
that you would call hon. Members to order if necessary. It is not for me to call any hon. Member to order and I should like the Minister to withdraw his rather silly remark.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): I call the Minister.
Alun Michael: It is understandable that most of the debate has focused on foot and mouth disease because the crisis has devastated farming communities. It has affected not only farmers but tourism and rural businesses generally. It has also highlighted the strong interdependence of farming and other parts of the rural economy. It is therefore encouraging that the crisis has brought together previously disparate rural interests to collaborate on mutually supportive solutions. I am sad that that has not been reflected in Conservative Members' contributions.
I want to place on record my thanks and those of my ministerial colleagues to the staff who have shown such dedication and commitment throughout this period. I have visited the disease control centres in Carlisle and the north-east. Many relatively junior members of staff have taken on major roles and risen to the occasion, and they deserve our appreciation.
The interruptions have meant that I have had little time to respond. I undertake to examine the record of what has been said by all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, and ensure that I do not fail to cover in correspondence any points that I have been unable to tackle in the debate.

Children Act
12.30 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. The 35th anniversary of Ken Loach's groundbreaking documentary "Cathy Come Home" falls next month. The programme put homelessness on the post-war map by dramatically showing the effect it can have on attempts to keep families together.
A great deal has changed since that television programme was made. Indeed, it was part of the reason why changes took place. The safety net for homeless families has been strengthened considerably, most notably by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and, following a setback under the Housing Act 1996, the Homelessness Bill, which is going through Parliament. As I said in a debate on the Bill, it is attempting to rewrite "Cathy Come Home" with a happy ending, but, unfortunately and separately from mainstream housing legislation, two recent court decisions on the operation of the Children Act threaten to undermine some of the good work and once again raise the spectre of homelessness leading to parents facing separation from their children.
Under the 1996 Act, local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation for unintentionally homeless people in priority need, but where families with children are not to be housed by a housing department the Children Act provides a further safety net, which is particularly important when families are found to be intentionally homeless. Approximately 9,000 households are found to be intentionally homeless every year; the majority are families with children.
Decisions on intentional homelessness are notoriously complex. Shelter's experience is that local authority intentionality assessments are often harsh—I can bear out that experience from my case load—and in many examples inadequate. Housing aid centres often successfully overturn assessments when they can prosecute cases to conclusion. In addition, some authorities apply the letter of the law so strictly that households may be found intentionally homeless in circumstances that appear unjust. For example, a family may experience unexpected financial difficulty and sell their home to avoid falling into debt.
The consequences of being found intentionally homeless are severe. The household are given only limited time in temporary accommodation—usually about 28 days—and are often barred from the housing register. In such circumstances, their options are likely to be extremely limited. Private sector accommodation requires a deposit and rent in advance—resources that are beyond the reach of many homeless households. Again, I have extensive constituency experience of such difficulties.
The Children Act provides an important means to secure vital assistance for families with children when the housing department is not under a duty to house them. Families are often given assistance by social services authorities under section 17 of the Act. For example, help with a deposit or the rent is provided or, in some cases, accommodation, which may also be provided under section 20, is offered.

115WH
Although the combination of the duties placed on housing departments under the homelessness legislation and the powers available to social services under the Children Act has provided a reasonably satisfactory, though far from perfect, safety net for homeless families with children, the nature of the obligations on social services authorities under the Act has been considered in two recent cases.
The Court of Appeal decision of 11 April 2001 on the application for judicial review by G found that section 17 merely confers a power rather than a duty for local authorities to provide assistance and that the duty to provide accommodation under section 20 is one to house the child, not the parents with the child. The High Court reiterated that judgment in A v. London Borough of Lambeth on 25 May 2001. The decision was reconfirmed in the Court of Appeal on 5 November.
The decision of the courts in those cases is likely to have a significant impact on homeless families seeking assistance in finding accommodation from social services authorities. As a result of the judgments, social services authorities are likely to provide help in far fewer cases. When help is provided, it is much more likely to be an offer to house the children, without their parents, under section 20. It will be an offer to take the children into care.
In my judgment, that severely undermines the central principles of the Children Act: that the needs of the children are paramount and that families should be kept together wherever possible. Parents will clearly not want to be separated from their children and, in practice, it is likely that families confronted with a social services offer to take a child into care will search desperately for other alternatives to stay together, no matter how inadequate or short term.
I am conscious of the fact that such threats and pressure may be a salutary experience for families that get into difficulties with rent or mortgage arrears or whose older children become involved in antisocial behaviour, but, when the final penalty is applied and the families are effectively homeless and without further call on public support having exhausted their various options, it can lead to a rapid deterioration in family circumstances.
The result may be that families sleep on friends' floors, often in highly overcrowded and volatile circumstances, and I have experience of families and children sleeping in cars. Furthermore, enhanced mobility makes it difficult to track families, particularly those with younger children. I do not want to overplay the situation, but the Victoria Climbie inquiry shows the dangers for that small minority of children who fall through the service net. Such mobility may lead to teenage boys and girls drifting into casual arrangements with friends or girlfriends, which are unsuitable in terms of minimising the risk of becoming involved in unfortunate circumstances such as unplanned pregnancy or antisocial behaviour.
I accept that parents may be at fault and that some intentionality decisions are justified according to the letter of the law, but that does not justify the unacceptable risks arising for families from the removal of all the legislative safety nets.
I refer briefly to a letter sent to me by ATD Fourth World following the recent article on the issue in The Observer. It makes a point that I agree with:
116WH
"Most of the families we work with have had experience of being in care as children … again and again we see evidence that the deeper the poverty of the family, the wider the range of disadvantages they struggle with, the more likely they are to lose their children rather than get long term help and support to stay with them."
I shall run through cases that have come to Shelter's attention as a result of the recent judgments. One involves a family with children aged six, 10 and 13. There were no health or child protection issues and the household were found to be intentionally homeless because of rent arrears. They stayed with in-laws until asked to leave and they then approached the homeless persons unit, which refused to assist. They slept on the streets for a night and returned to the homeless persons unit, which referred them to social services.
Social services said that no help could be provided for the family as a whole and offered to take the children into care. Shelter contacted the social services department to arrange an assessment under the Children Act. The parents called back the next day to say that they had been refused additional assistance. At that point, Shelter lost contact with the family. That is exactly the risk of vulnerable families falling through the net to which I referred.
The second case involves a woman with mental health problems stemming from being sexually abused as a child. She brought her assured shorthold tenancy to an end because she could no longer afford the rent. She has two children aged 15 and 10, and the youngest, who attends a special needs school, has learning difficulties. They approached the local authority for assistance under the homelessness legislation and were placed in hostel accommodation for a month.
The family were then found to be intentionally homeless—a decision that was upheld on review—and they applied to the social services authority for assistance under the Children Act. It offered accommodation for the children only when the hostel accommodation was no longer available. The woman refused the offer.
The housing department has sought possession of the family's hostel accommodation. With representation from Shelter, the possession order has been delayed for six weeks, and a judicial review is now under way against the social services authority. Although the opinion of the health authority community care team is that the mother is vulnerable and in need of on-going support, and that her condition is being exacerbated by uncertainty about her housing and fear that her children will be taken into care, the recent court decisions mean that the prospect of success is weak.
Another family, with two children aged six and three months, were refused assistance by the housing department. They stayed secretly in a friend's room in a single person's homelessness hostel. The hostel found out, and asked them to leave. They sought advice from Shelterline, which arranged for them to be referred to social services for an assessment under the Children Act. Social services responded by offering to take the children into care. Although the mother was still breastfeeding her three-month-old baby, they told the Shelterline adviser that separating the children from their parents was not against their best interests, and no further assistance was offered.

117WH
Shelter has been involved in other cases. I am currently dealing with two. On Friday, the mother of an 11-year-old was told to leave her homelessness accommodation. I do not query the validity of the intentionality decision; I do not know whether it is correct or not. What I do know is that the mother refused a review, and then consulted me on the day on which she was due to leave. I have reason to suspect that anyone who refuses a review in such circumstances is confused and vulnerable, and in need of a high level of assistance.
Another case involves the mother of five sons, two of whom, regrettably, have been involved in serious antisocial behaviour. The family face eviction, and an offer has been made for the three youngest children to be taken into care by social services. I have no doubt that the family are likely to end up sleeping casually and with friends in the area where the antisocial behaviour was occurring, and that the proposal will not offer a long-term solution.
A number of people have written to me since The Observer article, pointing out that part of the problem is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for families on housing benefit or low incomes, and particularly families with a chequered housing history, to gain access to private rented accommodation. Alternative provision, particularly in London and the south-east, simply does not exist.
I raised these issues in July, in the Standing Committee considering the Homelessness Bill. In last week's Second Reading debate in another place, they were raised by several peers. Lord Falconer said that the Government took the matter very seriously and were giving it careful consideration, and that he intended to meet representatives of local authorities and social services and report what they had said. I am sure that he is doing that, and I welcome the seriousness with which he is taking the issue.
I have had my own conversations with representatives of local government and social services, who have described court decisions on the Children Act as retrograde steps. They have also made important points about the resource implications for hard-pressed social services departments.
I know that the problem is being addressed. My aim is to push things further, especially in the context of legislation currently being considered in Parliament. I believe that sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act, which have been called into question by the courts, should be amended to strengthen social services' duty to give assistance to homeless families with children. Guidance should not be sufficient. In the case of R v. Lambeth Borough Council ex parte A, Lord Justice Laws said:
"The guidance is not a legal resource for the construction of the statute".
Guidance therefore will not be sufficient. I hope that if the Homelessness Bill cannot be amended—and we were advised that such amendments would be outside its scope—an amendment can be tabled to the Adoption and Children Bill, which is currently before a Special Standing Committee in the House of Commons.
118WH
The court cases have thrown up a serious issue that particularly affects vulnerable families at a time of nothing less than housing crisis, especially in London and the south-east. It is essential for the Government to use whatever opportunities are available to close the loophole.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I welcome the chance to discuss this important issue. The debate is timely, because these matters are at the forefront of our minds following the recent Court of Appeal judgment—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck)—in the case of A v. London Borough of Lambeth. We all agree that our social legislation should provide an adequate safety net for the most vulnerable members of the community.
The Children Act 1989 remains extremely important to the establishment of such a safety net. The Act, its accompanying regulations and the associated volumes of guidance cover all statutory care of children in England and Wales. The Act created a comprehensive framework of powers and duties for local authorities with social services responsibilities, to ensure that children receive the care and protection that they need. It promotes co-operation among the various statutory agencies and among professionals to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and imposes a range of responsibilities on local authorities for the care and protection of children and young people under the age of 18.
My hon. Friend drew particular attention to issues raised by sections 17 and 20. Section 17 requires local authorities to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in their areas who are in need and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote their upbringing within families. It gives authorities a range of powers that they can exercise to fulfil that duty. They can, for instance, assess children's needs, provide assistance in kind or in cash, and arrange for others to provide any necessary services. Section 17 also makes clear that assistance can be given to the family of a child in need—my hon. Friend referred to that important point—or to any member of the family, as long as it is intended to promote or safeguard the welfare of the child. A connection must be made: the main consideration must be the child's welfare, but if in the fulfilment of the child's needs it is necessary to assist the family, section 17 allows that.
The Act and, more recently, the legal judgments from which my hon. Friend's concerns stem make clear that the section 17 duty is not a specific duty relating to the needs of an individual child, but a general duty. Local authorities must meet the needs of children in their areas. They must provide a range of services that promote and safeguard the welfare of all children in need, but those services do not have to be perfect for each child. Authorities have no legal obligation to address the needs of individual children in any particular way.
Under section 20, however, authorities have a duty to individual children in need. It is, specifically, to provide them with accommodation if they have no parents, or if

119WH
those who have been caring for them cannot give them suitable accommodation and care for whatever reason. That safety net is probably used most often by local authorities to accommodate disabled children for short periods, allowing their families a respite from their caring responsibilities, but it can also be used as a support by homeless parents, giving them time to find suitable accommodation without having to worry about their children's safety in the meantime.
I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the effects of recent court judgments. Officials in my Department are still considering them carefully, particularly the one that my hon. Friend mentioned most—the A v. Lambeth Borough Council judgment, handed down only on 5 November. These are clearly important cases that will have far-reaching effects, and my hon. Friend has done us all a service by drawing their implications to our attention.
The case of G v. London Borough of Barnet defined section 17 duties more specifically. It made clear that once an offer of help under the section had been rejected—provided that accommodation for a child was available under section 20 and the offer of help under section 17 remained open—a local authority was under no obligation to offer a different form of help, although its offer might not be entirely what the family wanted. When an authority has made an offer of help under section 17, it has a fallback under section 20. If a family chooses not to accept the offer, the authority has met its legal requirements.
The finding of the High Court in the second case again confirms that the section 17 duty is a general duty. However, the judgment of Sir Philip Otton and Lord Justice Chadwick went rather further than the matters being considered by the court. They concluded that section 17 did not encompass, or give powers in relation to, the provision of accommodation. I believe that in the past some authorities have used section 17 as a permissive power enabling them to give families accommodation, perhaps on a short-term basis—despite having no legal duty to do so—when that has been judged to be in the best interests of a child in need. The worrying part is that, if the A v. London Borough of Lambeth judgment were to hold, there would be no such power under section 17, which could limit the actions of local authorities. As I say, officials in the Department are considering the judgment extremely carefully to ascertain the implications of the comments by Sir Philip Otton and Lord Justice Chadwick.
Before April this year, housing authorities that had assessed a family as intentionally homeless sometimes told local social services that there might be one or more children in need in the family. Social services would then carry out an assessment of the needs of the children. It might end up housing the family, sometimes in less than satisfactory bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation. There is a desperate shortage of housing, certainly in the London area, so accommodation is hard to come by. That is not always the case in other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend is aware. Indeed, in the area that I represent, there is a surplus of accommodation, but I recognise the stresses in London and the south-east area.
Housing people in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation and carrying out assessments took up a great deal of social services' time and often did not result
120WH
in a satisfactory solution for the families concerned. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, perhaps as a welcome spin-off from some of those judgments, some local authorities are trying to work far more constructively with intentionally homeless families in their area. The London borough of Lambeth has taken the view that the clarification of roles between local authority housing departments and local authority social services departments has given it a fresh opportunity to provide intentionally homeless families more effective help in securing long-term accommodation. Rather than providing short-term, unsatisfactory solutions, they have been working together to support families in some of the difficult areas that my hon. Friend has mentioned such as access to private sector housing, where there is a need for initial deposits and sometimes a need for extra financial assistance. Lambeth council has appointed three specialist workers to provide advice, assistance and support to those families as well as advice from the housing department.
I understand that so far the borough has supported at least 30 families in finding long-term accommodation and securing financial assistance for the initial deposit and the first month's rent.
Ms Buck: I am impressed by that example. I congratulate the London borough of Lambeth on its work. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, if that example were followed to its conclusion, homeless families would face a postcode lottery in terms of the quality of service? If they were lucky enough to reach the end of the road, as it were, in a borough that had developed a positive strategy, that would be excellent, but many local authorities have simply not made such provision. Families could end up in the worst possible circumstances without a legislative framework or good local authority practice.
Ms Blears: I accept my hon. Friend's point that provision of a range of services for local communities varies from local authority to local authority. She has highlighted examples of families who have found themselves in extremely unsatisfactory circumstances, such as sleeping in motor vehicles and on the floors of friends' houses. We do not want vulnerable children in need to be placed in that position as a result of current circumstances.
Since April this year, Lambeth has worked with 50 intentionally homeless families. Although I am aware that Shelter has expressed concern that more children will be taken into care and accommodated by local authorities as a result of the current situation, Lambeth has not had to accommodate any more children as a result of the current legal interpretation of its statutory powers and duties. In fact, it has been able to provide better care.
We hope that local authorities across the country will begin to develop such services to support people. That is why, as my hon. Friend has said, discussions are going on with the Association of Directors of Social Services and local authorities across the piece to try to gather information on the way in which procedures may have changed as a result of the judgments. We need to map out the practices that local authorities are adopting as a

121WH
result of the judgments that might lead them to make decisions different from those that they would have made previously.
Lord Falconer, with officials from the Department of Health, is meeting directors of social services next week to discuss those issues. We are writing to Shelter to ask it to let us have full details of any examples. Obviously, we will take on board the examples that my hon. Friend has highlighted, so that we can gauge the extent of the problem. Officials in the Department will then meet Shelter to discuss taking up those matters.
We will consider the judgments very carefully, especially the judgment of 5 November, in terms of the powers under section 17. We will then decide whether any action needs to be taken and, if so, what would be most appropriate. The amendment of primary legislation, both the Children Act and the housing legislation, has already been suggested. Although I accept that my hon. Friend does not feel that guidance would be sufficient to amend the situation, it is an option that is open to us. We want to study the judgment and examine what effect it is having in the field. We want to find out whether local authorities are deciding to change their practices. We shall certainly encourage the type of scheme that Lambeth and other authorities are beginning to establish. It is far better if families with vulnerable children in need can be assisted to find long-term sustainable solutions, rather than provided with short-term unsatisfactory ones.
Ms Buck: Part of the problem is that the definition of children in need is itself subjective. My view is that part of the problem is that children may not be deemed to be in need at the beginning of the Children Act process before becoming homeless, but that the homelessness process tips them over into being vulnerable and in need. Living in the circumstances that I have described or in hostel and bed-and-breakfast accommodation is virtually equivalent to defining a child as being in need,
122WH
and has serious consequences for the child's health, educational performance and behaviour. That wider context also needs to be borne in mind.
Ms Blears: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I have met many families who face a series of issues, which multiply and create a huge layer of deprivation, poverty and difficulties. It is very difficult for families in such circumstances to see a way out and to look at their future.
My hon. Friend has highlighted one of the key difficulties for all of us—striking the right balance. Access to social services must not be used almost in direct contravention of our housing policy. Where people are intentionally homeless as a result of their actions—for example, serious antisocial behaviour—they should not seek recourse simply to social services and end up being rehoused perhaps two or three doors away from where they committed the antisocial behaviour.
I am aware that that has happened occasionally, and it has caused immense distress to the wider community. Although I accept that the priority is children who are in need and who are vulnerable through no fault of their own because of family circumstances—we as a society have a fundamental duty to meet the needs of those children—we must balance that with the needs of the wider community and other families.
Resources are limited. Local authorities are under immense pressure to find appropriate and adequate housing solutions for many people. Certainly in the London area, there is a shortage of housing. Trying to strike the right balance between all the people who need support and proper housing—housing is a fundamental platform from which people manage to organise the rest of their lives, whether it be work, training or employment—is very difficult, but we undertake to study the judgments extremely carefully, look at their implications, and see what needs to be done. However, overall, our top priority must be to ensure that those vulnerable children in need receive the protection and care of all of us.

Small Acute Hospitals
1 pm
Andrew George: I am pleased to have secured this important debate. I had hoped that it would be longer, but I am happy with a short debate and I shall try to keep my comments brief.
I raised related matters in connection with the small acute West Cornwall hospital in Penzance in my constituency in a debate in this Chamber on 13 March. Today, I want to deal with developments since then, and to raise questions relevant to small hospitals in general. I may of course refer to West Cornwall hospital in particular, as I know it well.
I should also declare an interest, as my wife works at West Cornwall hospital. If time allows, Mr. Benton, I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) may make a short contribution.
A number of things have happened since the debate on 13 March. At the beginning of that debate I mentioned that my oldest brother, Mark, had been admitted to West Cornwall hospital. He was seriously ill, and ultimately he was transferred to the Treliske hospital. Before going to hospital, my brother had been staying with me and my wife. I am sad to say that, after returning to our home for a short time, my brother tragically died on 2 May at Treliske.
Since then, I have had meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), at which matters were discussed with local representatives and the district council. The promised risk assessment at West Cornwall was completed at the end of May. Its conclusions, which were not a surprise to anyone, were that the hospital had inadequate anaesthetic cover, and that it needed more investment in its diagnostic facilities—especially in radiology, ultrasound, CT scanner equipment, and so on. It also found limitations in the accident and emergency service, especially at night, when the service is led by nurses. I have asked the trust to address the concerns that have been raised, rather than wait for the end of the review period.
I am pleased that the West Cornwall hospital trust has, with other partners, produced a strategic outline case for investment in the hospital, with remote diagnostic and treatment centres throughout Cornwall. I and other Cornish Members have another meeting with the Under-Secretary tomorrow to discuss that outline bid. I welcome that as an important step forward in the process.
Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the document published by the Nuffield trust entitled "Local Medical Emergency Units". It recommends a different approach to the opportunities that small acute hospitals provide.
The case for the maintenance and retention of accident and emergency services at small acute hospitals rests on the fact that they are clearly closer to events and therefore to the commencement of the episode. In addition, the lengths of time that people wait to be assessed, and the trolley waits that they have to endure, are generally shorter than in larger district general hospitals. I am not criticising the staff in DGHs, who I consider to be as dedicated and committed to the health
124WH
service as staff in smaller hospitals. It is simply a fact of life that trolley waits are longer in the larger DGHs. That is certainly true in my constituency.
However, patient confidence remains high, as is shown in campaigns that have been held across the country. In west Cornwall, 8,000 people have signed letters expressing support for the retention and expansion of services at West Cornwall hospital. In general, communities do not campaign to prop up bad services. If people perceive services to be good, they want to keep them and thus are moved to campaign on their behalf.
The pressures on small hospitals must be recognised. It is harder to provide 24-hour cover when junior doctors' hours are under pressure. As was mentioned in the debate on 13 March, that will be increasingly the case from August 2003. The fact that consultants are increasingly unwilling to work rotas that affect their family lives must be taken into account. Specialisation in medicine is creating fewer general physicians and doctors who are good at managing medical emergencies. Emergency admissions are rising, and it is sometimes difficult to appoint additional staff in smaller hospitals, where there is a sense that the environment is in decline.
Those difficulties must be seen against a background of rising expectations, the increasing incidence of litigation by patients, and the commitment to changes in clinical governance. The favoured model for dealing with the problems faced by small hospitals is to create large, central hospitals. As a result, local hospitals become the focus for discharge treatment and outpatient services in general.
The problem with that model is that it creates logjams in the service. As the Nuffield report to which I referred earlier noted, there is a lack of shared care between the central and the smaller hospitals. As a result, there is a weakening in people's appreciation of the systems of nursing care in the smaller hospitals.
The report contains a model proposed by the former chief executive of Middlesex general hospital, Andy Black, who is now a health consultant. He suggests that that whole approach be turned on its head, and that local hospitals should become the front doors of the district general hospitals. Moreover, local hospitals would provide assessment and rapid consultation using modern systems of digital transmission. They would also use telemedicine, a matter about which my questions to the Department have received useful replies. In that way, the model suggests that medical and nursing staff would be part of the same team, working in rotation between the main site and the local site or sites.
Crucially, Andy Black's model proposes that the local hospital would have imaging and laboratory support, and high-quality electronic links. That is another matter about which I have asked questions, and I am pleased that over the past two years the Department has been looking into the availability of the technology. A report will be published next year on the results of that investigation and on the recommendations that flow from it. Finally, it is clear that a critical transfer team will be needed in the structure that I have described.
The advantage of the model is that patients would arrive at hospital sooner after an incident, and that they would be seen more quickly. Moreover, the structure would ensure a good link with primary care.

125WH
When my constituents in west Cornwall—from Land's End, the Lizard and the Isles of Scilly, for instance—go to a central hospital, it is much more difficult to discharge them back home. That results in bed blocking and the clogging of services in the central hospital. The model proposed by Andy Black would lead to the quicker discharge of patients.
Moreover, many patients would not need to go to the central DGH once they had been assessed, diagnosed and treated locally. Those who had to go to the DGH would not need to be assessed and diagnosed again, as a lot of that work would have been undertaken by the local hospital. The transfer team—and there would also be a team capable of dealing with the transfer of critical cases—would take people to the DGH, where the process would continue rather than start again.
I have a series of questions for the Minister on these matters. No doubt he will say that small hospitals are a good thing and that we should keep them, but the moot point is what facilities are retained at them. I have had meetings with the president of the Royal College of Physicians and I detect that the college is changing its approach. It does not seem to see itself as the institution that has to pronounce on the future of small hospitals, but as a body that exists to advise and reflect on the professional standards that should apply in them.
As a result, the Government should give a political steer on this matter. The Department needs to make a clear statement about how the configuration of services should be provided, especially in the remoter rural areas.
The report mentions Downpatrick in Northern Ireland, which is already implementing a model of what Andy Black describes as a step-up rather than a step-down approach. In the latter, patients come into the centre and ultimately step down to the local centre. Under a step-up approach, they come in the front door of the small hospital and step up into the district general hospital if required.
That process is being increasingly considered in other places. There are reviews at West Cornwall hospital and no doubt there will be pressure in areas that face similar pressures because of the small size of their hospitals. It would be helpful if the Department of Health, rather than leaving it to the Royal College of Physicians, indicated where it believed the priorities were and in which direction local services should go in this type of delivery. Otherwise, we are moving increasingly towards centralising services rather than creating or using the front doors that already exist.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this subject and look forward to the remainder of the debate.
1.11 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for allowing me to speak briefly on a subject that, as the Minister knows, is close to the interests of my constituents.
To emphasise the importance of the change of view from the Royal College of Physicians, the president told a group of Members of Parliament that there are already
126WH
40 hospitals in the country taking acute medical admissions that do not have full surgical services to back that up. That is a crucial change.
The president also said that hospitals must have a front door for emergencies. That was borne home to me only today after talking to an elderly lady who went to Kidderminster hospital this week for a breast cancer screening report. Her elderly husband went with her but had an epileptic fit in the out-patients department and was taken to the minor injuries unit. He was told that no doctor was available and had to go 18 miles to Worcester. The knock-on effects on the larger hospitals make this a very important issue.
Other patients have invited the Secretary of State to spend 24 hours on a trolley in the medical assessment unit at Worcester to see what it is like. Many small hospitals that are close to larger ones have not been mentioned. I refer in particular to Pontefract, which is close to Wakefield, and to Macclesfield. Runcorn and Ashington. They could all be under threat from the sort of moves that have taken services away from some hospitals.
Let me conclude by paraphrasing the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), at the end of an Adjournment debate that I was lucky enough to secure. Can we go forward in partnership, because if we do, we can avoid conflict and come to a resolution that will be more satisfactory to the large numbers of patients who have, until now, relied on small acute hospitals?
1.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, may I say how sorry I was to hear about the brother of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)? I genuinely did not know that that had happened, and I send him and his family my sincere condolences. It must have been a terrible time for them.
The hon. Gentleman has raised what most people in the House would rightly regard as very important issues that not only affect the future of the West Cornwall hospital but address the wider question of change in the national health service and the balance that needs to be struck between ensuring that services are fully accessible and of the highest possible quality. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) also alluded to those concerns.
The provision of comprehensive and accessible services of the highest quality, free at the point of use, lies at the heart of the NHS and its rationale, ethos and purpose. The Government remain strongly committed to the values that underpin the NHS. The NHS plan offers what I believe to be a good and strong framework for ensuring that those values can be reflected in a modern setting in which technology is changing quickly, advances in science occur almost daily and public expectations have risen substantially. To meet those needs, we need a broad range of provision—local and regional as well as national—that guarantees the best possible access to the full spectrum of care services.
The hon. Member for St. Ives was right about anticipating what I was going to say—he must have seen a copy of my speech. In this context, local hospitals such as West Cornwall have a very important role to play. There is, by the same token, one obvious pitfall to try to

127WH
avoid. When we think of modernising medical care, it is easy to think of sophisticated, high-tech treatments provided in large, specialised hospitals. It is true that certain complex services and high-risk conditions require a critical mass that can be found only in larger centres, but that tells only part of the story. In determining care for a new century, it is vital that, wherever possible, we place at the centre of our thinking the views of the people and patients that the NHS is here t o serve.
The public place a high value on locally available acute care; so do we. That means providing treatment as close to where people live as is practical, in hospitals that serve local communities and that are focused on meeting their needs.
When the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of acute hospital services in remote areas in March, he acknowledged the need to strike an appropriate balance between the convenience of local services and the requirement to concentrate expertise for reasons of safety and quality. He was right to do it then and right to emphasise the point again today. However, many needs can and should be met locally, close to home, by delivering care through networks of skilled providers, working together rather than in isolation and utilising the latest advances in telemedicine, to which he referred. It is a strategy based on local solutions that sets standards and quality measurements. That is what we must remain focused on.
The hon. Gentleman expressed his continuing concerns about the future of the West Cornwall hospital in his constituency. The local primary care trust, in conjunction with the acute trust—the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust—is reviewing the services provided at that hospital. He is aware, as I am, that one of the main reasons for the review has been concern to ensure that patients at the hospital receive the best possible clinical care.
There is a clear commitment on the part of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust to develop the West Cornwall hospital. In August, a major scheme to expand the day case surgery and out-patients departments was opened. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was there for that. That will mean that more patients will be seen and treated closer to home; there are extra staff and more beds than ever before. A new treatment room for endoscopies has also been created, with the ability to reduce waiting times—an important objective—by increasing the number of weekly sessions from three to five. Three years ago, capital investment of more than £250,000 saw the renal unit's capacity double. Altogether, I think that that constitutes a clear commitment to the future of the hospital. However, let me repeat again the assurances that have been given to him before. There is no intention whatever to close the West Cornwall hospital or its casualty service. Indeed, the review is looking at proposals that would increase the number of services provided and patients treated at the hospital.
Since the hon. Gentleman raised the subject in March, the review process has largely been completed. A range of models of service provision at West Cornwall hospital have been developed by local clinicians and are being tested against criteria drawn up by local people. The Royal College of Physicians has been asked to comment
128WH
on the suitability of the models, and it is the intention of the local primary care trust that formal consultation on the proposals will commence in February.
The review of services at the West Cornwall hospital is feeding into work on service and capital developments to modernise health services across the county. It is being undertaken by the entire Cornwall health community, led by the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust. The emphasis in this work to modernise health services is on achieving the closer integration of acute, community and primary care, and providing acute care as close to patients' homes as possible. Of course, the public have a right to be consulted on matters of this importance.
The review process in West Cornwall is, I understand, being carried out in as open and transparent a manner as possible, with heavy public involvement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the way in which the process is being conducted. There have been numerous local meetings, including with all the local councils and the community health councils. If he has any concerns about the detail of that process, I hope that he will raise them with me and I will pursue them on his behalf.
I shall say a few more general words about the future of acute care, which was the subject of most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks today. As I said at the start, I fully understand the desire of people to receive care as close to home as possible. It is clear in that regard that small hospitals have an important role to play, provided that safety and quality are not compromised. I hope that both hon. Members who have spoken in the debate would agree with that observation. However, there is no one model to fit all local scenarios. It is properly a matter for local consultation, taking into account as fully as possible the views of local people.
Historically, there has been a gap between care provided in hospitals and care provided in the community. The need for efficient, effective and joined-up care requires that those separate parts of the system should work more closely together. For example, cancer networks have been developed to improve linkages across hospitals and between acute and primary care. Through those networks, services can be planned across the care pathway for cancer patients, with resources targeted where they are most needed to serve the needs of the local population. Such networks have already proved very effective in many areas. The Devon and Cornwall network, for example, is participating in a national programme to educate and support district and community nurses in the general principles and practices of palliative care. That will allow more patients to be cared for at home, if that is their wish—and that is probably true of most people—and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives agrees that that is the right direction to take.
Primary care trusts will play an increasingly important role. Shifting the balance of power in the NHS means that local PCTs will have much greater influence in developing local services and will be better able to tailor services to local needs. If that is to be achieved successfully, they will need to engage front-line staff and local communities and partners in their plans for improving health services. In their role as primarily local organisations, PCTs will bring about improvements in local services, by engaging with and empowering local people, patients and staff.

129WH
Small hospitals are working hard to develop their role and to embrace new ways of working. The challenge is to deliver the right care in the right place at the right time—as the hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him—across the system. Internal organisation of hospital services can be substantially improved through a redesign process, such as that of the booked admissions programme. Some 5 million patients are expected to benefit from the national booked admissions programme by 2005.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his response thus far. My points were mainly about acute emergency admissions to local hospitals. While I appreciate that local hospitals make a significant contribution to primary care, and will continue to do so, I would appreciate it if he would address emergency admissions to small hospitals before the end of the debate.
Mr. Hutton: I certainly intend to do so, and this might be an appropriate point. One often runs out of time in these short Adjournment debates. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Nuffield report and the work of Andy Black, which are both important. We need to consider their wider implications carefully, and we are doing so. The Nuffield report considered routine emergency medical cases and how they could be treated, as opposed to traumatic cases that require a full range of surgical and intensive care procedures, which are very different. The only useful point that I can add to the ground that the hon. Gentleman and I covered earlier is that it is a difficult balancing act.
Local hospitals have huge amounts of expertise available and we will not fritter that away. That would be stupid. However, we need to strike a balance between quality and good patient outcomes on the one hand and the natural desire for people to receive critical care as close to their communities as possible on the other. It is difficult to get that right, but we have had the opportunity to consider what has already been done. The Nuffield work has been piloted in several different areas, including Scotland, east Kent and Witney, so that we can look, listen and learn about the safest and best way to adapt and modernise emergency care services.
I lived in Hexham for many years, and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest often mentions that area. We need to try to ensure that services are appropriate to local needs and geography. The constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives is probably one of the most remote in the country. I know it well, because my father lived in Cornwall for many years, and he also died there. The needs of people in Cornwall differ from those of people in the north-east, in terms of geography and the spread of services.
Shifting the balance of power and moving decision making in the NHS much closer to the front line—of staff and of local communities—offers us an
130WH
opportunity to consider the issues in a different way so that the right judgments can be made. We have to make difficult judgment calls and if the hon. Gentleman ever has the chance to sit in my place, he will learn just how difficult it is. It is not possible to ensure that everyone is 100 per cent. happy with all the decisions that have to be made, but we work hard to try to ensure that the proposals are fully consulted on. We take care to ensure that we have the best clinical advice available to us to inform the decisions made locally and—if necessary—for the benefit of Ministers who make such decisions. We certainly do not take decisions on the provision of emergency medical care lightly.
Andrew George: Before the Minister returns to his prescriptive notes and while he is speaking ad lib, will he comment on the fact that the Royal College of Physicians, in its report on West Cornwall hospital, identified the need to establish one clinical community, rather than the artificial divide between the district general hospital and the small hospital as two separate clinical communities? The work done by Andy Black suggests the possibility of rotating staff. If a Minister were to welcome an environment in which rotation happened, between sites and within trusts, it would help to enable further progress to he made.
Mr. Hutton: I accept that point and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has responsibility for the development of emergency care services. At the risk of stating the obvious, the NHS is a service based around science. Unfortunately, medical science is not an exact science, but it is a science and our decisions are informed, first and foremost, by the science and what we understand about advances in technology and what they mean for the patients and services of the NHS. That will continue to be the case, and we always listen carefully to the professional advice given to the Department from different quarters about the best way to proceed.
The advice is not always one way. Sometimes, there are two or three different schools of thought and Ministers are then expected to exercise the judgment of Solomon. However, I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that our judgments are informed by the best clinical information that we have and that will remain the case.
The hon. Gentleman politely and charmingly described me as ad libbing so I had better return to my text, to reassure my officials and before any further policy is developed in a somewhat unannounced way. He talked extensively about telemedicine, which will be an exciting opportunity for us to work more collaboratively and make better use of resources in the NHS. It is one way to tackle what he described as the divide between local hospitals, trauma centres and district general hospitals—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order.

Education Funding (Stoke-on-Trent)
1.30 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: The problems associated with the standard spending assessment formula did not start at the 1997 general election. The problems and the basic unfairness of the SSA, especially as it applies to education, have been with us for a generation. I do not want to give the impression that the problems affecting education funding in Stoke-on-Trent began when the Labour Government were elected. Nevertheless, the issues—the challenges and the unfairness—are still with us, and are certainly having an increasingly serious effect in Stoke-on-Trent.
For example, in 2000–01, the education SSA in Stoke increased by 4.6 per cent. That contrasts with the lean, dark years of Conservative Government when we experienced year after year of cuts. However, that 4.6 per cent. must be compared with a national average increase in the education SSA of 6.1 per cent. In 2001–02, the education SSA in Stoke is increasing by 3.8 per cent., compared with 4.8 per cent. nationally.
The point I need to drive home to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is that, although the Government are rightly providing additional resources for education, the gap is getting wider due to the inequities of the SSA system, especially as it applies in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent. We are very much aware of that. Indeed, the SSA in the current year was so low compared with the national average that the Government agreed to provide Stoke-on-Trent with an education support grant of £140,000, which of course we welcomed. The result of that education SSA is that Stoke is, and has been for many years, rooted in the lowest third of all local education authorities.
Another example is to he found in the local schools budgets, which provide the interface between the local education authority and the schools—where the Government rightly want the money to go. One definition of local schools budgets is all expenditure relating to schools. The Government's target for 2001–02 is that the percentage of the local schools budget that should be delegated should increase from 85 per cent. to 87 per cent. in April 2002. I can report that in Stoke, 88.3 per cent. of the budget was delegated last year, so we are way ahead on the delegation. We are not dragging our feet on Government policy.
If we compare the percentage of delegated local schools budget in Stoke-on-Trent with the unitary authority average of 86.3 per cent. and the national average of 86.5 per cent., we see that Stoke-on-Trent is doing very well on the implementation of Government policy, despite the problems of its relatively low SSA.
The position on delegation continues to improve. The Government target for 2001–02 is that there should be a minimum increase of 5 per cent. per pupil in the delegated budget. That target has been more than met in Stoke-on-Trent: the figure was no less than 9.9 per cent. I realise that the Minister may question the strictness of the reference of some elements of that delegation to the SSA issue, but the figures are further evidence of the success of Stoke-on-Trent LEA's policy of maximising the delegation of resources to schools.
132WH
As far as the LEA has the capacity to do so, it ensures that money goes to the schools and is not retained by the centre. I make that point to show that Stoke-on-Trent LEA has a good record on the use of its resources, no matter which comparator is used.
If we consider the delegated budget in Stoke-on-Trent in absolute terms—the delegated funding per pupil—we see that the figure was £2,466 per pupil in 2001–02. The unitary authority average was £2,523 per pupil and the national average was £2,546 per pupil. I do not want to trip out a series of statistics, but the figures that I have given make the point vividly. If schools in Stoke-on-Trent received the national average amount of delegated funding—nothing special, just the national average—we estimate that an additional £2.9 million per year would be available to schools.
If we consider the amount of resources per pupil in the local schools budget as an inclusive figure, comprising the delegated and non-delegated resources—the funding kept by the centre to ensure that the LEA can implement its responsibilities—the situation is even starker. Using that base of comparison, the amount per pupil in Stoke is £2,793; the unitary average is £2,922 and the national average is £2,944. Using that yardstick, if Stoke-on-Trent LEA were funded at the national rate—nothing special, just the national average—it would receive an extra £5.5 million a year.
We should not think that one of the elements in this is the money held centrally by the LEA—I am sure that the Minister understands that. The central administrative costs for Stoke-on-Trent LEA are £46 per pupil. That compares with a Government target for this year of a maximum of £60 per pupil, and with an average for all unitary authorities of £50. Stoke is doing very well on central administration compared with not only the Government target, but with the unitary authority average.
That is the picture. It shows the direct result of the injustice and unfairness of the present SSA system.
I want to praise the Government, however, because much progress has been made. There has been much Government action. Despite the difficulties in Stoke-on-Trent, there has been excellent progress in educational achievement. The Minister is very much aware of that. That progress is manifest and can be illustrated by referring to two of its elements.
We have three beacon schools. Janet Worthington, the head teacher at Adderley Green infants school, and her staff do an excellent job. Weston Coyney infants school, where Janet Phillips is head teacher, is an excellent school, with excellent staff doing ground-breaking work, and the same is true of Sandon high school, where Barbara Hall is head teacher. I visit those schools regularly, as all three of them are in my constituency, and I am very happy and proud about that. Excellent work is being done—they are some of the best schools in the country, and they are all in areas of significant deprivation. That shows what can be done, with the Government's support, and we are grateful to them for that.
Stoke-on-Trent LEA met the maximum class-size target of 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds a good 12 months before the date on which it was due to do so. We have a progressive LEA. which has been groundbreaking in some respects, and the private finance

133WH
initiative for schools is one of the best in the country. We are grateful to the Government for that, but the ideas came from Stoke-on-Trent, and we are proud of that.
The Government have given us a positive response to the difficulties—it would be wrong and unfair to say otherwise. In Stoke-on-Trent, the standards fund has been increased significantly, but the Minister will know that the LEA's ability to match the standards fund resources is becoming critical simply because of the problems of the base funding of the SSA.
In conclusion, I wish to offer one or two points, to which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. First, the House was told earlier this year that the Government intended to produce a White Paper on local government finance and reform. Indeed, in a press release, dated 16 October, from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Minister for Local Government was quoted as saying that
"the forthcoming White Paper will set out measures to build on the modernisation agenda already under way."
On the same day, a parliamentary written answer referred to:
"The Local Government White Paper due to be published later this year".—[Official Report, 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1173W.]
However, I began to get worried when I read a letter, dated 5 November, from the Minister because he said:
"The work that we have done so far with external partners has shown that we need to put in more time to get the new education formula right."
On 16 October, we were told that the White Paper was imminent; on 5 November, I was told that the Government wanted more time. I hope that the Minister can not only confirm that the White Paper will be published this year, but give us some idea when it will be published.
Secondly, the Government have announced that, unfortunately, they have had to delay any change in the local government resource formula until 2003–04. That is a great disappointment, because the situation is critical in Stoke-on-Trent now. A delay until 2003–04 poses really serious problems for us, and it will mean that we shall have had almost two Labour Governments since 1997, but this important issue will not have been tackled effectively.
Thirdly, I wonder whether the Minister would care to consider rolling the standards fund into the SSA. There are precedents for that. My understanding is that, in Stoke-on-Trent, ring-fenced funding in social services has been rolled into the SSA when it had been available for two or three years. That has been enormously important. Will the Minister consider doing that, or at the very least exercising some flexibility on the need for match funding?
There is a real danger in Stoke-on-Trent that, because of the SSA, we will not be able to provide the funds to match the standards fund, which would be a tragedy. There should be no increase in the area cost adjustment. There is no reason why any increase in SSA should be reflected in the area cost adjustment, as that would simply widen the problem.
134WH
Finally, the Minister said in his letter of 5 November that he could not meet us for all sorts of diary reasons. I repeat that request today, because the issues that affect the LEA in Stoke-on-Trent are so critical that a meeting with the Minister would, I hope, prove useful. We have some concrete suggestions to make, and I hope that he will reconsider that request.
1.45 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr Stevenson) on securing this debate. I am very much aware of the strength of feeling about this issue in Stoke-on-Trent and, indeed, in Staffordshire. I am aware of it from his letters to me, and if I was in any doubt about it, he has made it very clear in this debate.
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the schools in his constituency for their achievements and those of the LEA as well. For example, he has drawn attention to the early achievement of the class-size target. That achievement is important, and I gladly join him in paying tribute to those involved.
I do not see it as my job today to defend the current system of standard spending assessments. Our commitment is that the system will be reformed. We are working on the new formula, together with others who represent local government and other education interests, such as the Local Government Association, the teacher unions, governors' organisations and other schools bodies.
Our aim is to create a new system that reflects fairly, on the basis of up-to-date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said about Stoke-on-Trent, but, of course, it is by no means the lowest funded authority under the present system. It comes 80th out of 150 authorities—about the halfway mark in terms of education funding. The national average figure for SSA per pupil is £2,911, compared with a figure of £2,845 per pupil in Stoke-on-Trent. So the figure is somewhat less, but the figure for some other areas is approximately £2,600—significantly less.
Our view is that, where differences in funding exist—there will inevitably need to be such differences—they should be considered on the basis of the educational needs of the children affected. I accept that that is not the case under the current system, but the task of devising a new system is not straightforward. It is an important priority for us, but we need to ensure that there is sufficient time to develop proposals and to consult on them before a new system can be introduced. It is not just a case of reviewing education funding; we also need to consider the impact of the proposed changes on other local government services and to look at the broader picture.
The work we have done so far shows that—my hon. Friend touched on this—we need to put in more time to get the new education formula right. That is why we have decided to introduce the new system in 2003–04, as he said. We believe that that will give us the time that we need. That decision has disappointed authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent, which had hoped for earlier reform, but it will give us more time to get the new arrangements right. We do not want to change the system every year, as has happened before, especially under the previous Government.

135WH
It is important for local authorities to have confidence in the system and for us to ensure that we do not return to the unpredictability that was a problem in the past. We have already brought about greater stability in the system, by freezing formula changes and introducing floors and ceilings. Local authorities have welcomed the additional stability, and we certainly do not want to throw it away.
My hon. Friend may also know that we tried to change the system in our first year in office. He said that there had been a Labour Government for some time now, but this is certainly not the first time that we have addressed this issue. We got everyone together—from the LGA, the counties and the urban areas, including London. He will not be surprised to know that not one local authority leader admitted to doing well under the present SSA structure. That is where the problem lies. Some people—not my hon. Friend—have argued that London is particularly well funded, but it faces many of the toughest recruitment pressures in education. London authorities can point to the especially strong challenges that they face.
Mr. Stevenson: I realise that time is short but, before the Minister moves off that point, will he confirm or otherwise that the White Paper will be published this year?
Mr. Timms: I can confirm that the local government White Paper will be published as announced. However, it will not contain the new SSA formula. The formula is being drawn up on a different timetable from the White Paper, which is going ahead.
The current SSA system has been in place for more than 10 years. My hon. Friend and others have been very assiduous on behalf of their constituents in pressing to get the formula changed, and we have accepted their case that the system needs to be altered.
We have said that the new formula will have two separate elements: one for schools and another for an LEA's central core functions. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the extent of delegation that has taken place in Stoke-on-Trent. That is to be commended. The split between schools and LEAs' core functions will be a feature of the new formula, and it will be assessed on the basis of data in authorities' budget statements for 2002–03. It will thereafter be updated annually on the basis of the most recent data.
There will need to be an element to reflect levels of deprivation in an area and an enhancement for areas that need to pay more to recruit and retain teaching staff. However, we want those enhancements to be decided on the basis of evidence in pupil characteristics, of data on costs and of achievements rather than on a regression analysis of historic spending. That is the basis on which the formula has operated in the past. I anticipate that we should have a more detailed set of proposals by next spring and we should then be able to start discussions with authorities about whether the initial proposals are right.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a major difference. Under this Government, we have substantially increased the funding going into schools. Between 1992–93 and 1997–98, average recurrent funding per pupil fell by £120 or 4 per cent. in real terms.
136WH
Since then it has risen by an average of £540 or 20 per cent. in real terms to £3,250 this year. If one considers all the funding for education—the SSA and other elements—going into Stoke-on-Trent, one sees that the figure per pupil is above the average and comes to £3,360 per pupil this year. There will be further increases during the current spending review period and following the Budget announcement last March. By 2003–04, national spending per pupil will have increased by around £750 in real terms—compared to £540 so far—since 1997–98.
There is no doubt that funding has been part of the problem for education in Britain. In 1960, we spent a higher proportion of gross domestic product on education than most comparable countries. By 1988, however, an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study of 24 members showed that our spending was the lowest of all those involved. The share of GDP committed to education fell from 6.5 per cent. in 1975–76 to 4.7 per cent. at the time we were elected. I came across the remarks of Howard Glennerster the other day. He said:
"The significance of this change should not be underestimated. No such previous reduction in education's share of the nation's resources had occurred this century … it is not to be found in the experience of any other leading nation."
That is now starting to change. We have raised the proportion to 5 per cent. already. The Prime Minister pointed out at the Labour party conference that we were the only European country to be increasing the proportion of our GDP committed to education. It will rise to 5.3 per cent. over the next three years. We are committing unprecedentedly large additional sums to education this year, next year and the year after. Schools and head teachers can see the difference.
My hon. Friend referred to the standards fund, and there have been substantial rises in that for Stoke-on-Trent in the past few years. He mentioned the difficulties of providing match funding for the standards grant, but I am pleased that Stoke-on-Trent has been able to take in full its standards fund allocation for this year. Nationally, 99.5 per cent. of standards fund grant offered has been taken up by local education authorities this year, so they have been able to provide the match funding where that has been needed. Next year, LEAs' match funding requirements will be allowed for in the national increase in education standard spending.
One of the things that has changed between the previous Government and this one is that there are a number of different routes—not just the SSA—for funding to go into schools. Stoke-on-Trent's grant for revenue costs in the standards fund this year is almost £10 million, rising with the council's contribution to just over £13 million. Standards fund grant for individual authorities has yet to be finalised for 2002–03 but, at national level, the grant is increasing by more than £85 million next year compared to this.
My hon. Friend suggested that the standards fund should be rolled into the SSA formula. He has drawn attention to some of the difficulties with that formula. Some areas and some hon. Members, including him, think that it is unfair, so if we were to roll the standards fund into it, we would increase the difficulties that some see with the present system. We expect to announce at the end of this month the provisional SSAs for individual authorities.

137WH
Let me say a word about capital investment because it is an important part of the picture. The figures for Staffordshire local authority—which included Stoke-on-Trent before it became a separate authority—show that, in 1996–97, the capital expenditure was £3.5 million. This year, in Stoke-on-Trent alone, the figure is £8.3 million and, for the rest of Staffordshire, it is £25.4 million. Adding the figures together shows that the capital allocation for the whole of Staffordshire is almost 10 times what it was in 1997.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the private finance initiative credit support from which Stoke-on-Trent has benefited. As he said, £93 million has been used creatively to provide energy, energy management and repair and maintenance work to all 120 maintained schools in the area. Although the work will be completed over a period of five years, the benefits will last for the 25 years of the contract. This is the highest level of PFI credit that has yet been awarded to any LEA in England.
In making all those points, it is no part of my intention to seek to defend the current SSA funding formula. We are committed, with all reasonable speed, to changing the system on the principle that funding differences should be based on differences in cost, and not just on a regression analysis of how things were in the past. The system will change and we have set up
138WH
consultative arrangements under which we will take those changes forward. It is important that we consult fully and carefully before we introduce the changes, so that we are as confident as we possibly can be that the new formula is right.
However, as my hon. Friend has said, children in Stoke-on-Trent receive significantly more money for their education than they have done in the past. Because of the investment that we have made, schools and buildings are certainly in better shape and are starting to look fit for education in the 21st century. What he said about the achievements of schools in his constituency reflects all that.
Of course, there is a good deal more to be done, and addressing concerns about the funding formula are an important part of that. However, I also want to draw attention to the substantial improvements from which Stoke has already benefited.
My hon. Friend has made the case for a meeting, as he did in his letter. We will shortly make announcements about the SSA, the standards grant and the capital grant. If, having seen the figures, he thinks that there is a problem of which I should be aware and which I should discuss with him and colleagues in his local authority, I shall be more than happy to accept his proposal for a meeting.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Retired Clergy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on housing provision for clergy on their retirement. [16295]

  Mr. Bell
  Clergy in office are provided with a house and are paid a stipend. In retirement, however, they must meet their own housing costs. The derivation of the formula for the pension and retirement lump sum takes this into account.

  Actual arrangement of retirement housing is a matter for the individual, who may purchase a property (if necessary with the aid of a mortgage obtained in the market) or rent. The Church offers, through the Pensions Board and supported by investment capital provided by the Church Commissioners, a scheme of housing assistance which widens the choice available. Subject to

  Summary of licensed ministers in the dioceses, 2000 Provinces of Canterbury and York

  Full-time stipendiary clergy

  Part-time stipendiary clergy

  Non-stipendiary ministers

  Ordained local ministers

  Readers

  1 Bath and Wells C

  239

  5

  38

  335

  2 Birmingham C

  203

  7

  29

  224

  3 Blackburn Y

  239

  26

  251

  4 Bradford Y

  116

  8

  10

  134

  5 Bristol C

  142

  3

  27

  6

  192

  6 Canterbury C

  178

  3

  44

  174

  7 Carlisle Y

  153

  4

  27

  174

  8 Chelmsford C

  415

  1

  72

  388

  9 Chester Y

  275

  3

  33

  495

  10 Chichester C

  338

  1

  62

  299

  11 Coventry C

  147

  6

  26

  205

  12 Derby C

  185

  38

  274

  13 Durham Y

  239

  3

  22

  168

  14 Ely C

  154

  5

  28

  167

  15 Exeter C

  251

  3

  47

  228

  16 Gloucester C

  159

  1

  37

  10

  241

  17 Guildford C

  201

  4

  46

  21

  203

  18 Hereford C

  115

  4

  23

  4

  99

  19 Leicester C

  166

  6

  34

  216

  20 Lichfield C

  350

  8

  29

  15

  416

  21 Lincoln C

  226

  1

  30

  21

  199

  22 Liverpool Y

  252

  3

  24

  8

  367

  23 London C

  557

  127

  232

  24 Manchester Y

  296

  7

  37

  46

  270

  25 Newcastle Y

  146

  2

  30

  4

  147

  26 Norwich C

  201

  7

  26

  29

  305

  27 Oxford C

  440

  3

  168

  32

  398

  28 Peterborough C

  168

  16

  133

  29 Portsmouth C

  117

  4

  56

  136

  30 Ripon and Leeds Y

  145

  2

  10

  121

  31 Rochester C

  219

  11

  33

  376

  32 St. Albans C

  276

  7

  94

  274

  33 St. Edms and Ipswich

  154

  5

  29

  46

  230

  34 Salisbury C

  229

  60

  23

  235

  35 Sheffield Y

  187

  18

  270

  280W
  the circumstances of the individual, a value-linked mortgage loan may be granted to enable accommodation to be purchased, or a property owned by the Board can be occupied in return for payment of maintenance contributions.

  The Archbishops' Council has recently conducted a review of clergy stipends and the General Synod has agreed that the report should be sent to dioceses for consultation. A copy of the review group's report "Generosity and Sacrifice" (GS 1408) is available in the House of Commons Library. It includes the recommendation that the Pensions Board, the Church Commissioners, dioceses and clergy charities consider the possibility of finding sufficient capital for loans to clergy to enable them to make provision for retirement housing in advance of retirement by lending them the money for a deposit on a house, the mortgage for which could be funded by renting out the property. The Commissioners will give consideration to this in due course.

  Ministers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many(a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) non-stipendiary ministers there are in each diocese. [16297]

  Mr. Bell
  This information is contained in Statistics of Licensed Ministers (GS Misc 638), a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. For reference see the table.
  281W

  Summary of licensed ministers in the dioceses, 2000 Provinces of Canterbury and York

  Full-time stipendiary clergy

  Part-time stipendiary clergy

  Non-stipendiary ministers

  Ordained local ministers

  Readers

  36 Sodor and Man Y

  20

  7

  3

  24

  37 Southwark C

  370

  8

  95

  32

  349

  38 Southwell Y

  170

  3

  52

  0

  313

  39 Truro C

  130

  1

  25

  10

  117

  40 Wakefield Y

  179

  2

  28

  1

  199

  41 Winchester C

  239

  1

  59

  245

  42 Worcester

  151

  1

  23

  139

  43 York Y

  275

  5

  27

  303

  44 Europe C

  126

  —

  —

  —

  43

  Totals Province of Canterbury (C)

  6,846

  106

  1,421

  243

  7,072

  Totals Province of York (Y)

  2,692

  42

  351

  68

  3,236

  Totals Church of England

  9,538

  148

  1,772

  311

  10,308

  Notes:

  1. The above figures include only those ministers who were working within the diocesan framework as at 31 December 2000.

  2. The Archbishop of Canterbury and ordained members of his staff at Lambeth are classed as extra-diocesan and are not included in these figures

  3. The figures for Readers include Readers with Permission to Officiate and active Emeriti.

  4. One part-timer works for both Bradford and Wakefield. He has been counted into the Bradford figure.

  5. Ordained clergy in Europe are all counted as full-time as it has not been possible to split them this year.

  Churchwardens Measure
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Churchwardens Measure. [16296]

  Mr. Bell
  The Churchwardens Measure 2001 provides a comprehensive set of rules about the appointment of churchwardens and their tenure of office, building on earlier legislation. Most of the Measure has caused no controversy, and the draft provisions about which the Ecclesiastical Committee expressed concern, relating to the possible suspension of a churchwarden from exercising his or her duties, were deleted by the General Synod and form no part of the Measure.

  The Measure will come into force on 1 January 2002, and will apply to the elections of churchwardens at the annual meetings held in parishes from 2002 onwards. A good deal of information about the new rules has already been published and more guidance will be issued before the Measure comes into force.

  The new rule that a churchwarden may not serve for more than six years without a break is laid down in the Measure as the norm, but the parishioners of an individual parish will be free to decide that the rule is not to apply in their case. As the six years will not start to run until the Measure comes into force, there will be ample time for every parish to consider the matter and reach its own decision.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his officials informed executives of Railtrack plc, at their 282W
  meeting on 3 October, of the reasons the payment due to be paid by the Government to the company on 1 October has not been made. [11226]

  Mr. Spellar
  One payment was legally due on 1 October. This was for £337 million and it was paid in full on that date.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the powers of the Railtrack administrator; when he expects to receive the administrator's report for approval; and who will decide what return the shareholders will receive. [16751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The principal functions of the Administrator of Railtrack plc are set out in section 59 of the Railways Act 1993 and the Insolvency Act 1986, as applied by Schedule 6 to the Railways Act 1993. The timetable of the administration process is a matter for the Administrator. Once the administration process is complete, it will be clear what value is available for disbursement to its shareholder, Railtrack Group plc. Disbursement of Railtrack Group plc's assets is a matter for the Board of that company.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what substantial investment projects Railtrack was planning; and what is(a) their current status, (b) the current timetable for their completion and (c) the current estimate of the cost. [16752]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's May 2001 Network Management Statement identifies the projects on which the company was working and expected completion dates. Government have committed to provide the Administrator with access to sufficient funding to continue on a "business as usual" basis—including investment expenditure—during the administration period.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cash needs of Railtrack plc in administration. [16381]
  283W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Administration process is at a very early stage and any estimate of the cash needs of Railtrack plc in administration would be purely speculative.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average daily rate of(a) loss (PBT) and (b) cash outflow at Railtrack plc in administration has been since 5 October. [16360]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Administrator. The premature release of unaudited financial information may prejudice the Administrator's orderly release of commercially sensitive information in detailed discussions with potential bidders for Railtrack plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what investment expenditure was planned for the period from the end of September to 31 March(a) 2002 and (b) 2002–03 by Railtrack plc prior to being placed in administration. [16359]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack's investment plans were outlines in its Network Management Statement published in May 2001.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the(a) Board and (b) auditors of Railtrack sought a letter of comfort concerning payments to Railtrack Group and plc before the directors and auditors signed the accounts for 2000–01 on a going concern basis; and if the Government granted such a request. [16377]

  Mr. Spellar
  No such request was made.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what money was budgeted to be given to Railtrack(a) Group and (b) plc in 2002–03 prior to the decision to place Railtrack plc in administration. [16363]

  Mr. Spellar
  The income to be received by Railtrack for its regulated business in 2002–03 was determined and set out in the October 2000 conclusions of the Rail Regulator's Periodic Review and in the 2 April agreement between the Government and Railtrack.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much Railtrack plc spent on investment in(a) 2000–01 and (b) between 1 April and being placed in administration. [16352]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack's investment expenditure for 2000–01 is set out in its Annual Report and Accounts. My Department does not hold audited investment expenditure data for 2001–02.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Government have paid to Railtrack Group plc(a) directly and (b) via the SRA in 2001–02; and how much it planned to pay it over the balance of the year before the company was put into administration. [16382]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have made no payments to Railtrack Group plc. This company is not in administration.
  284W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what money is available for the successor Railtrack company in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04 from (i) Government and (ii) SRA sources. [16368]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 195W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the fees of the administrator for Railtrack plc. [16372]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is not possible at this stage to make an accurate estimate.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 614W, on Railtrack, for what reason he did not comment upon the advice that he has received on the extra cost to the Government of the successor company to Railtrack achieving a credit rating of lower than A/A2; and if he will make a statement. [16075]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On the basis of advice received, we consider a long-term credit rating of A/A2 or higher to be the most appropriate rating to target in order to finance the proposed Company Limited by Guarantee in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Lower ratings than those to be targeted are considered to be less efficient and less cost-effective.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much a single share in Railtrack has earned in dividends and other payments from privatisation to 1 October. [16062]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A single share in Railtrack Group plc has received £1.40 in cash or equivalent dividends since its flotation on 20 May 1996.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average value of one Railtrack share from privatisation to 1 October. [16061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The average daily share price for Railtrack Group plc from privatisation to 1 October 2001 was 917 pence.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appointments he has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in his gift. [15491]

  Ms Keeble
  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.
  285W
  DTLR Ministers made nine appointments and eight reappointments to public bodies between 7 June and 31 October. In addition, one appointment has been made jointly with colleagues in the Department of Health and National Assembly for Wales and four further appointments made jointly with the National Assembly for Wales. This Department is responsible for making approximately 700 appointments.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the total cost to date to(a) the Treasury and (b) the National Lottery of the Millennium Dome. [14508]

  Ms Keeble
  English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, which manages the Dome sale process and owns the site, is expecting to incur, from its normal budget, some £1.9 million in relation to care and maintenance1 of the Dome, around £9.75 million for decommissioning works in preparation for the future use of the Dome and about £1.7 million on the current sale process, this year. In addition, English Partnerships spent £6.6 million on the previous competition, which began in March 1999 and ended at the beginning of 2001. These costs will be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

  In relation to the National Lottery cost, the Millennium Commission has approved a total grant of £628 million to the New Millennium Experience Company for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich and its associated national programme of events and activities.

  1 Includes rates, utilities, security, maintenance and insurance.

  Rail Services (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many miles of new track were laid in each year between 1992 and 1999 relating to new rail lines in Scotland. [15874]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Railtrack that between 1992 and 1999 a small but unquantified amount of freight-related new track has been laid.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many miles of rail track were upgraded to allow for increased capacity in Scotland in each year between 1992 and 1999. [15876]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Railtrack that there has been no significant track capacity upgrade between 1992 and 1999. Improved signalling can also increase network capacity and signalling works have been undertaken at locations where increased demand has driven the need for such improvements.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was spent in support of rail services in Scotland in each year from 1992 to 1999. [15873]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to pages 102–103 of the Strategic Rail Authority Annual Report 2000–01, which show the support for rail services provided under the ScotRail franchise in the years since it commenced on 31 March 1997. Details of support for those services before that date are available.

  Air Traffic Control
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many representations have been received by the Government on the privatisation of Air Traffic Control; and of these, how many were classed as(a) supportive of privatisation and (b) against privatisation. [15877]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No central record has been kept of the number of such representations.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what protocols have been implemented between NATS and the MOD to ensure safety between civilian and military air traffic. [16757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The system for air traffic control in UK airspace has long been based on a joint and integrated civil-military arrangement. The NATS public-private partnership provides for the continuance of this relationship and the Civil Aviation Authority is required to oversee the sustainment of efficient joint civil and military working. This oversight is carried out through the Joint Air Navigation Services Council that consists of senior representatives of NATS, Ministry of Defence and the CAA.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the partners' investment will be committed to the NATS PPP; and how much it will be; [16755]

  (2) when he expects to receive the proceeds from the NATS PPP. [16754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government received proceeds totalling almost £770 million from the sale of a minority share in NATS to the chosen strategic partner, the Airline Group, on 26 July 2001. A further £35 million is due under the sale as deferred proceeds.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the timetable is for invitations to tender for(a) Prestwick and (b) West Drayton air traffic control centres; and how these centres will be involved with European proposals on air traffic control. [16768]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In regard to the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 288W.

  The West Drayton air traffic control centre, which is the existing London Area and Control Centre (LATCC), is not subject to tender.

  All civilian air traffic control centres in the European Union would be covered by the proposals to create the Single European Sky. As these proposals are still in draft form, it is too early to say what their impact might be on individual control centres.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when EU clearance is expected for the NATS PPP. [16753]

  Mr. Jamieson
  EU merger clearance for the Airline Group's participation in the NATS PPP was obtained on 14 May 2001.
  287W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the employees' share of the NATS PPP is expected to be; and when it will be available to them. [16756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the public private partnership NATS employees are entitled to 5 per cent. of the total shareholding in NATS. The shares are held in an employee trust, the NATS Employee Share Trust Ltd. The initial allocation of shares to staff was made on 21 September and a second allocation is expected to be made by the trust early next year.

  School Buses
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers(a) the Vehicle Inspectorate and (b) the Health and Safety Executive have to investigate passenger safety and overcrowding on (i) school contract bus services and (ii) scheduled bus services; and if he will make a statement. [15801]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle Inspectorate is empowered under section 68 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, to inspect all buses in respect of both safety standards and overcrowding.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 places a general duty on employers and the self-employed to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. This duty would apply to passengers on buses.

  However, it is the general policy of the Health and Safety Executive that they will not enforce health and safety at work law where it is overlapped by other legislation which adequately protects public and worker safety by more specific and detailed law enforced by another authority, as is the case here.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations govern seating, standing and the use of seat belts on(a) school contract bus services and (b) scheduled bus services. [15800]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The regulations that govern seating, standing on all buses are the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984, the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981, as amended, and the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990. There are no regulations governing the use of seat belts in buses.

  Stagecoach
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what breaches of transport regulations have been committed by Stagecoach plc since 1997; and what action was taken by his Department against Stagecoach plc in each case. [15799]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Disproportionate cost would be involved in supplying an answer in the form requested owing to the number of companies owned by Stagecoach plc. If my hon. Friend would like to write to the Chief 288W
  Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate. specifying the company in which he has an interest, they will be able to assist him.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will be liable for any cost overruns incurred in modernising London Underground under PPP. [16190]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the Government's plans for a publicly run, privately built tube, the private sector infrastructure companies will be liable for all cost overruns that result from their acting in an uneconomic or inefficient manner.

  Road Haulage Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on skill shortages in the road haulage industry. [16189]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The road haulage industry is a wholly private sector enterprise. It is responsible for ensuring that it is able to recruit the personnel it needs. Government are helping through the Road Haulage Modernisation Fund which has earmarked £5 million for training, to help the industry meet its future labour and skills needs. A feasibility study looking at ways to protect employer investment in training will begin shortly. Two further schemes, to increase the number of young people joining the industry, are expected to begin in the spring next year.

  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, in real terms, for each year since 1979(a) the total sums of money spent directly by his Department in Scotland and (b) the total sums of money allocated by his Department for spending in Scotland through (i) the Scottish Office, (ii) the Scotland Office and (iii) the Scottish Executive. [16185]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not readily available. However, an analysis by function and country of total managed expenditure for the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000 can be found in Chapter 8 of the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02" (Cm 5101) published in April 2001 (a copy of which is available in the Library of the House) and figures for earlier years are available in previous PESA publications.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met Sir Alastair Morton, Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. [R] [16029]

  Mr. Byers
  I had meetings with Sir Alastair on 26 June and 24 July this year. He was also present at the Rail Delivery Group, which I chaired, on 27 July.

  Driving Test Centres
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  289W
  research his Department has commissioned into the connection between the closure of driving test centres and the number of unlicensed drivers on the road. [15945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 1999, the Department commissioned a three-year research project into the extent and effects of unlicensed driving. One of the research objectives was to identify reasons for unlicensed driving. The final report is expected in spring 2002. The research is not likely to identify a link between unlicensed driving and the closure of local driving test centres.

  Silverlink
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact that the PUG2 Agreement will have on the interests of South West Hertfordshire commuters who use Silverlink services into London. [15806]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority have established a Joint West Coast Forum with local authorities, user representatives and Rail Passenger Committees along the route to ensure the concerns of Silverlink County passengers are understood and taken into account during discussions about the outputs to be provided under PUG2. Earlier this year the Authority commissioned Booz, Allen and Hamilton to undertake a study to consider both the commercial and wider economic benefits of providing additional fast line capacity for use by non-Virgin services. The results have been reported to the Forum.

  Railway Sleeper Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential growth in demand for sleeper services between the north of England and(a) London and (b) the Continent. [16169]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No formal assessment has been made. We would expect the railway industry to come forward with proposals to meet demands for new services.

  East Midlands Airport
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what recent representations he has received on night flights at East Midlands Airport; and if he will make a statement; [16082]

  (2) for what reason he has not extended environmental powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to East Midlands Airport. [16083]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have recently received representations from or on behalf of: my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor); People Against Intrusive Noise (PAIN); East Midlands Airport Ltd.; the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES); and North West Leicestershire district council. The district council and others have requested that the Secretary of State designate the airport under s.80 for the purposes of s.78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, under which he could impose certain operational noise controls (including night restrictions).
  290W
  The Government's preference is for appropriate noise controls to be discussed and agreed locally, in consultation with representatives of local people and of airport users; but requests to designate are considered on their merits. The airport, the district council and other interested parties are, at my invitation, currently engaged in discussions on this issue. Following these discussions, the Secretary of State will decide whether to designate the airport for the purposes of s.78 of the 1982 Act.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  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 the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [15735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department conducted a study of the regeneration benefits of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and, to supplement the extensive research carried out by the various promoters and opponents of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, has commissioned some further research to assess:

  (i) Economic impacts: Eurostar passenger and revenue forecasts

  (ii) Social impacts: property consultants advised on the regeneration impact of the Link

  (iii) Environmental impacts: research to determine the noise characteristics of Eurostar trains.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the likely effect the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link will have on(a) passenger numbers and (b) financial returns for (i) each train operating company and (ii) Eurostar. [15734]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is assessing the passenger and financial returns of high speed domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the consequential impacts on Connex South Eastern services. Details depend on the service pattern assumed and will be the subject of commercial negotiations.

  Consultants Booz Allen and Hamilton were employed by the Department to forecast passenger numbers and financial returns for Eurostar. These forecasts informed commercial negotiations undertaken earlier this year with Railtrack Group plc and LCR concerning Section 2 of the Link.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what track access charges will be paid by Eurostar for use of tracks(a) on the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link and (b) on tracks between Waterloo and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link becomes operational. [15736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Track Access Charges are set out in the Track Access Agreements between Railtrack, Eurostar, and London and Continental Railways. These agreements, between private companies, are commercially sensitive and cannot therefore be made public.

  Chainsaws
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  291W
  assessment he has made of the impact on the environment of exhaust fumes produced by the use of chainsaws. [16148]

  Mr. Jamieson
  UK emissions modelling suggests that small petrol-powered off-road equipment accounts for 2.1 per cent. of UK hydrocarbon emissions with chainsaws accounting for only a small part of this. However, the European Commission estimates the significance of emissions from these machines to be much greater. The Commission estimates small off-road petrol engines to produce 6.5 per cent. of EU hydrocarbon emissions with chainsaws accounting for approximately half of this figure.

  Hydrocarbons contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, which is harmful to human health and, in addition, certain hydrocarbons are carcinogenic. Despite the low significance of total hydrocarbon emissions from this sector of machinery, individual machines are high emitters. It is therefore desirable to reduce emissions from them as far as practical, not only to benefit the environment, but also to reduce operator exposure to carcinogenic emissions.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of draft EU regulations relating to catalytic converters on chainsaws; and if he will make a statement on the impact of such regulations on the arboricultural industry. [16149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The amendment would regulate, for the first time, emissions from small, off-road petrol engines, such as those used in lawnmowers, chainsaws etc, by means of two stages of emissions limits. Compliance with the Stage 2 limits may require adoption of oxidation catalysts on two-stroke engines (typically used in handheld equipment such as chainsaws). Where machines must be compact and lightweight it may be difficult to accommodate catalysts; 'tree-service' or 'top-handled' chainsaws as used by arboriculturists are a case in point.

  The UK has campaigned vigorously for derogations for these machines to give industry the time they need to develop alternative emissions control technology. At their first readings of the proposal, both the European Parliament and the Council adopted a clause requiring the Commission to review whether all applications of handheld engines could meet Stage 2 limits and, if not, set derogations of up to five years where appropriate. The Commission have made a written declarations that this review will specifically consider chainsaws.

  Windfarms
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reduce the delay in planning affecting on-shore windfarms; and if he will make a statement. [15720]

  Ms Keeble
  We already promote a positive approach to planning for renewable energy as part of the UK's climate change strategy. Last year we initiated the preparation of regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision (including on-shore windfarms) to encourage a more strategic approach to planning at regional and local levels. More positive planning at regional and local levels will contribute to greater public familiarity with, and acceptance of, prospective renewable energy developments 292W
  and will help to facilitate planning permission for individual proposals. It remains important for operators to prepare the ground with local authorities, environmental groups and local people before submitting formal planning applications by developing proposals in consultation with them.

  The forthcoming planning Green Paper will include proposals intended to speed up the planning process.

  Brit Disc
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to introduce the Brit disc for foreign trucks; and if he will make a statement. [16424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are continuing to look at the options for some form of user charging for lorries, and will make a statement in due course.

  Aviation Emissions
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the United Kingdom's Government's policy for reducing emissions from international aviation was approved at the 33 International Civil Aviation Organisation Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [16269]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Assembly endorsed further work to improve technology standards and operating procedures. It approved the goal of participating in an emission permit trading system, and it confirmed its policy on emissions charging. We are following up this outcome in consultation with our European partners, taking account of the impact of recent events on the aviation industry.

  Waverley Line
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current status of the Waverley Line railway proposals between Edinburgh and Carlisle. [16521]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The "Waverley Line" or "Borders Line" as it is also known is a longer-term project which will have to be considered against competing priorities. However, it will be studied to see if it is a viable proposal and whether or not it offers value for money.

  Special Advisers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what procedure is followed when concerns are communicated to his Department about the propriety of the conduct of his special advisers in respect of their professional relationship with civil servants. [16386]

  Mr. Byers
  In line with the Civil Service Code, the Department's staff handbook sets out the procedures to be followed in the event of any complaint, problem or grievance in relation to any employment-related matter.

  Departmental Staff
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to
  293W
  his answer of 22 October 2001, Official Report, columns 93–94W, on departmental staff (1) if he will list (a) the departments and (b) the Ministers that were consulted prior to the transfer of Mr. Alun Evans from his Department to the Cabinet Office; and if he will give the dates on which each of the consultations took place; [16525]

  (2) if he will list the dates on which (a) Mr. Alun Evans' transfer from his Department was agreed with the Permanent Secretary McIntosh, (b) Mr. Alun Evans left his former post as Director of Communications in his Department and (c) Mr. Alun Evans commenced work in his current post. [16526]

  Mr. Byers
  Mr. Evans commenced work in his current post on 1 October 2001. He was DTLR's Director of Communication until that time.

  The remaining issues are exempted from disclosure under Part 8 of Section II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Statutory Off-road Notification
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fines have been imposed for failure to make a statutory off-road notification since the scheme's inception. [16310]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the agency started enforcement action for failing to make a statutory off-road notification declaration in April 1999, a total of 207,397 people have settled the matter out of court and a further 1,263 have been prosecuted at court. The total revenue paid in fines and penalties amounts to £6,071,847.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of the statutory off-road notification scheme in reducing vehicle excise duty evasion. [16311]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statutory off-road notification (SORN) came into force in 1998. Keepers who take their vehicles off the public road unlicensed are required to make a declaration to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and if the vehicle remains off the road to confirm its status each year. Failure to do so is a criminal offence which carries a maximum fine on conviction of £1,000. Offenders are given the opportunity to settle out of court on payment of a penalty.

  Since introduction over 2.5 million SORN declarations have been received. Automated enforcement action has been introduced and over £6 million raised in fines and penalties. The indications are that the SORN procedures are fulfilling their objectives and achieving a higher compliance with the registration and licensing requirements.

  Air Travel (Deep Vein Thrombosis)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contribution his Department will make to the World Health Organisation study into deep vein thrombosis and air travel. [16318]
  294W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, is planning to make a contribution to the World Health Organisation study in terms of financial support and the provision of advice, the details of which are presently under consideration.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Ordnance Survey towards anticipating and meeting the needs of customers through partnerships and adherence to service first principles. [16709]

  Ms Keeble
  As a Trading Fund, Ordnance Survey can sustain its business and fund its investments only if it meets the needs of its customers in a timely and effective way.

  Ordnance Survey consults extensively with its customers and partners in a variety of ways, including:

  one to one discussions at business and technical levels;

  focus groups;

  meeting with representative user bodies;

  seminars, and;

  market research.

  Working with partners is a central element of the Ordnance Survey corporate strategy.

  British Midlands Flights
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what slots have been offered to British Midland to fly from Heathrow following the withdrawal of services by other carriers. [16729]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Slots at co-ordinated airports such as Heathrow are allocated to airlines under European Regulation 95/93. Bmi British Midland are entitled to apply to the airport co-ordinator for slots. No slots at Heathrow have been offered to them as a result of a withdrawal of service by other carriers.

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to encourage the availability of biodiesel for motorists. [16281]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: In the November 2000 pre Budget report the Chancellor announced the Green Fuels Challenge, which invited industry and environmental groups to develop proposals for practical alternative fuels. More than 60 proposals were submitted covering a range of potential options. In response to the data submitted on biofuels the Chancellor announced, subject to EU agreement, a 20p per litre duty incentive on biodiesel would be introduced in Budget 2002.

  Nitrogen Emissions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to fund research into using urea in diesel vehicles to reduce nitrogen emissions; [16733]
  295W
  (2) what steps her Department is taking to back research into using urea in catalytic converters on diesel engines to reduce nitrogen emissions. [16737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. Research and development of exhaust after-treatment systems, including the possible use of urea, is already well under way on a commercial basis so that manufacturers will be in a position to meet mandatory EU NOx emission limits for heavy diesel vehicles which come into force from 2008.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the M4 bus lane. [17730]

  Mr. Spellar
  The effectiveness of the bus lane is closely monitored by the Highways Agency. They report that it continues to alleviate peak congestion on this busy section of the motorway but they recommend that the scheme could be improved by raising the speed limit between junction 4 and the elevated section to 60mph and the use by motorcycles of the lane designated for buses and taxis. I have agreed that the Highways Agency should consult on these changes and this consultation will be launched today.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Retirement)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men have retired from the armed forces in each of the last five years. [15165]

  Mr. Ingram
  For the last five financial years the trained outflow from UK regular forces (men and women) is as follows:

  Trained outflow

  PVR1

  Retirements2

  Other3

  Total

  1996–97

  9,953

  6,447

  10,279

  26,679

  1997–98

  9,898

  5,465

  2,924

  18,287

  1998–99

  10,312

  5,541

  3,012

  18,865

  1999–2000

  9,640

  5,105

  3,145

  17,890

  2000–01

  9,267

  4,965

  3,247

  17,479

  1 For military service personnel figures are quoted for the number leaving early on Premature Voluntary Retirement (Officers), and Premature Voluntary Release (Other Ranks). This results from the open engagement system which means service men can serve for 22 years. As these are not engagement periods as such, those who leave earlier do so on Premature Voluntary Retirement/Release.

  2 Defined as personnel leaving at the end of an agreed period of service.

  3 All other outflow of trained personnel. This includes redundancy, medical, death. disciplinary and services no longer required.

  Mineseeker
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the managing director of the Mineseeker organisation to discuss the removal of landmines. [15142]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: I have no plans to do so at present. However, should the managing director of Mineseeker wish to discuss his organisation's activities with the Ministry of Defence, appropriate arrangements could be made.
  296W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will respond to the letter he received recently from the managing director of the Mineseeker organisation. [15130]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: We have no record of having received this letter.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on the Mineseeker operation with its patrons. [15222]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Defence Academy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Defence Academy's budget is allocated for administration. [15344]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: 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 the administrative element is expected to be about 23 per cent.

  Gurkhas
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve recruitment to Gurkha regiments. [16203]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1371W. There is no requirement to improve recruiting levels to meet the numbers needed.

  Afghanistan
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the roulement of the British forces deployed to Afghanistan. [15944]

  Mr. Hoon
  UK forces deployed to Afghanistan will remain there for as long as necessary. In the event that a roulement of the current force deployed is required, detailed plans will be made in co-ordination with our coalition allies and taking account of the political and security situation on the ground.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom ships are tasked to assist the international coalition in Afghanistan; and where they are situated. [16293]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Illustrious, HMS Fearless, HMS Cornwall, HMS Southampton and HMS Trafalgar and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Sir Tristram, Sir Percival, Fort Victoria, Fort Rosalie, Brambleleaf and Diligence are tasked to assist the international coalition. All ships are currently operating in the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties have been flown by aircraft of the international coalition in Afghanistan and for what purpose since the beginning of November. [16292]

  Mr. Ingram
  UK aircraft have flown over 150 sorties since the beginning of November. These have been for the purposes of air-to-air refuelling, reconnaissance and
  297W
  airborne early warning. I cannot provide details of other coalition members' sorties (either in total numbers flown or by purpose), which are a matter for them.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the UK military presence in Afghanistan includes women personnel. [16279]

  Mr. Hoon
  The composition of any forces deployed on Operation Veritas will be determined by the operational requirements. Depending on these requirements, women may be included in forces to be deployed.

  Exercise Saif Sareea 2
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects environmental conditions had on Army and Fleet Air Arm helicopters during Exercise Saif Sareea 2; and if he will make a statement. [16556]

  Mr. Ingram
  Equipment reliability and availability during Saif Sareea 2 was affected by the desert environment, particularly the hot temperatures and flying dust. A number of equipment enhancement measures were implemented, such as sand filters and polyurethane self-adhesive tape on rotor blades which, together with an upgraded maintenance programme, combined to ensure that the helicopter fleet performed well in the environment.

  Electronic Data Services
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the contract between his Department and EDS for army payroll services was rewritten; and if he will make a statement. [16591]

  Mr. Ingram
  The contract between the Ministry of Defence and Electronic Data Services relates not only to Army payroll services, but includes the delivery of information systems and information technology in support of the personnel administration, and pay of all armed forces personnel. The reconstructed contract was signed on 29 June 2001.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which risks that his Department considered transferred in the contract between his Department and EDS are disputed by EDS; and if he will make a statement. [16592]

  Mr. Ingram
  None of the risks transferred to Electronic Data Services under the reconstructed Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency PFI contract signed on 29 June 2001 are a matter of dispute.

  Warships
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) type 22 frigates, (b) type 42 destroyers, (c) type 23 frigates, (d) aircraft carriers and (e) fleet submarines are (i) operational, (ii) in refit and (iii) in maintenance or repair. [16550]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows, as at 19 November 2001, the vessels within each of the categories requested. Those vessels undergoing routine maintenance and repair (column iii) are within the operational control of the Royal Navy and can be made ready within agreed timescales.
  298W

  (i) Operational

  (ii) Refit1

  (iii) Maintenance and repair

  (a) Type 22 Frigates

  Chatham

  Cumberland2

  Sheffield

  Cornwall

  Cambeltown

  Coventry

  (b) Type 42 Destroyers

  Edinburgh

  Cardiff

  Gloucester

  Exeter

  Liverpool

  York

  Glasgow

  Manchester

  Nottingham

  Southampton

  Newcastle

  (c) Type 23 Frigates

  Argyll

  Grafton

  Richmond

  Kent

  Iron Duke

  Lancaster

  Somerset

  Marlborough

  Monmouth

  Montrose

  Norfolk

  Northumberland

  Portland

  Sutherland

  Westminster

  (d) CVS

  Illustrious

  Invincible

  —

  Ark Royal

  (e) Fleet submarines

  Splendid

  Sceptre

  Tireless

  Superb

  Spartan

  Sovereign

  Talent

  Torbay

  Trafalgar

  Trenchant

  Triumph

  Turbulent

  1 Including docking periods

  2 Undergoing post docking period sea trials

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on the(a) STOVL and (b) CV variant of the Joint Strike Fighter; and if he will make a statement. [16557]

  Dr. Moonie
  We expect a decision on which variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, Carrier Version or Short Take Off and Vertical Landing, best meets our requirement for a Future Joint Combat Aircraft to be made by the autumn of next year.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which helicopters are under consideration for the SABR programme. [16551]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Support Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft programme is in its concept stage. It is too early, therefore, to say with certainty which rotorcraft will be the principal contenders.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which firms are providing his Department with(a) expertise and (b) advice with respect to the flotation of QinetiQ. [16405]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence is being advised on the QinetiQ transaction by PricewaterhouseCoopers and UBS Warburg (financial advice), Simmons & Simmons (legal), Arthur Andersen (reporting accountants) and Willis (insurance). QinetiQ also has its own advisers.
  299W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's budget is for professional advice on the flotation of QinetiQ. [16406]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no fixed budget for external advice in relation to the flotation of QinetiQ. Continuous scrutiny of costs ensures that the services of advisers offer value for money.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to employ more civilians in the Defence Fire Service; and if he will make a statement. [15137]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no immediate plans to change the normal process of recruitment for Defence Fire Service (DFS) firefighters at locations where a requirement to fill vacancies has been identified. Currently, vacancies are managed at unit level and are filled either by internal level transfer, or where this is not possible, by external recruitment. Although temporary recruitment restrictions may occur from time to time under certain circumstances, the MOD intends to continue recruiting as normal until the outcome of the Airfield Support Services Project (ASSP) is known. The matter will then be reviewed at that stage. I refer the hon. Member to the statement on the future of MOD Fire Services made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 13 November 2001,Official Report, columns 231–34WH.

  Fast-track NHS Treatment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the fast-tracking of treatment for service personnel within the NHS; [14279]

  (2) how many armed forces personnel have had their treatment fast-tracked within the NHS in the last 12 months. [14280]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no arrangements for the fast-tracking of clinical treatment for Service personnel within the NHS. However, special arrangements exist, principally with the NHS Trusts hosting our Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHU), for Service personnel to receive expedited out-patient opinions within the NHS. These latter arrangements apply particularly, but not exclusively, to those required for operational deployments.

  Our arrangements with the MDHU host Trusts also include financial arrangements to encourage the Trusts to achieve the waiting time targets, both for out-patient and in-patient appointments, set by the Defence Secondary Care Agency.

  11 September
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had since 11 September with his counterparts in the EU. [17205]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have met my EU counterparts at an informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers on 11–12 October and at the EU Capabilities Improvement Conference on 19–20 November.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the Assessment Phase of the Future Aircraft Carrier procurement programme. [17400]

  Mr. Hoon
  Assessment work on the new carrier project began in November 1999 when contracts were awarded to two competing consortia headed by BAE Systems and Thales Naval Ltd. The first stage of the assessment was completed in June this year.

  Since then officials have been working to determine the most efficient and cost effective way forward for the remainder of the Assessment Phase, taking into account the views of both consortia about the amount of work required to minimise the level of risk in the CVF programme.

  On the basis of that work, contracts have been signed today for both BAE Systems and Thales Naval Ltd. to proceed to Stage 2 of the CVF Assessment Phase.

  For the next 12 months, until November 2002, the competing consortiums will concentrate on refining their designs and on taking key trade-off decisions. During this period, there will be a continuous assessment of the two consortiums' work leading to an announcement of a single preferred prime contractor in early 2003.

  The preferred consortium will then continue assessment work through the summer of 2003 in order to provide the robust cost, time and performance information needed to make the main investment decision. This will allow us to make a decision to place a formal build contract in early 2004. The selected prime contractor will be expected to maintain the time, cost and performance proposals agreed at the end of the Assessment phase. Following the announcement of a preferred contractor, there will be maximum competition at the sub-contractor level to ensure that robust prices are achieved.

  This approach reflects a sensible revision to the original procurement approach envisaged for the future carrier project. By applying Smart Procurement principles, it will help to ensure the maximum potential for competition throughout the remainder of the Assessment Phase. It will ensure that we achieve best value for money for the taxpayer. As part of the new approach, we will make around a further £20 million available to the contractors during the Assessment Phase.

  The In Service Dates of the two new carriers remain unchanged at 2012 and 2015.

  Both BAE Systems and Thales have welcomed this new approach which demonstrates innovative thinking to deliver value for money. It re-affirms in the strongest possible terms this Government's commitment to ensuring that our armed forces are equipped with battle-winning equipment. Combined with the Future Joint Combat Aircraft, the carriers will provide the UK with a formidable force projection capability.

  EU Capabilities Improvement Conference
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he attended the EU Capabilities Improvement Conference in Brussels on 19 November; and if he will make a statement. [17398]
  301W
  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I attended the Capabilities Improvement Conference along with colleagues from other EU nations.

  Good progress has been made towards the Headline Goal target for a European pool of forces. Offers were made by EU member states at last year's Capability Commitments Conference for 94 of the 144 identified capability areas underpinning the Headline Goal. The new offers made on Monday enhance our capabilities in a number of these areas and provide solutions for a further 10. We also agreed an Action Plan to address the remaining shortfalls: there are already identified initiatives addressing 20 of the 21 most significant capability areas. This process also reinforces NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative.

  EU nations have offered substantial contributions, as set out in the Compendium of national Contributions prepared by the EU Presidency. In addition to the UK commitments made at last year's conference, I have identified further capabilities targeted specifically at the remaining shortfall areas. Some will be available before 2003 for the Headline Goal target; others later.

  I will place a copy of the Compendium in the Library of the House.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Key Targets have been set for the Defence Housing Executive for the financial year 2001–02. [17399]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Defence Housing Executive for 2001–02.Key Target 1—To house at least 72 per cent. of families in accommodation that matches their entitlement by posting date or on return to GB from overseas, and at least 93 per cent. within 28 days of their required date.
  Key Target 2—Less than 5 per cent. of occupants should experience significant defects within 14 days of moving in.
  Key Target 3—To complete the planned upgrade of 2,400 properties by 31 March 2002.
  Key Target 4—To complete:

  At least 95 per cent. of emergency repairs within 24 hours of notification;

  At least 90 per cent. of urgent repairs within five working days of notification;

  At least 95 per cent. of routine repairs within two months of notification.

  Key Target 5—To reduce the management margin progressively towards 10 per cent. by November 2005, to better balance supply and demand while delivering other key targets. (The DHE's interim target for 31 March 2002 is to have a management margin of 12.8 per cent.).

  Copies of the DHE's Corporate Plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10
  302W
  parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13330]

  Mr. Ingram
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 November 2001, c. 958W]: The information contained in the table was incorrect. The questions which received a substantive reply, or where an undertaking to write to hon. Members was given, is set out in the table:

  Number of parliamentary days

  Answers

  Within 3

  51

  Between 4 and 7

  1

  Between 8 and 10

  0

  Between 11 and 15

  0

  Over 15

  1

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Older People (Discrimination)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department has taken to tackle discrimination against older people. [16326]

  Ms Hewitt
  We shall introduce legislation to combat age discrimination in employment and training by 2006. That is the deadline set out in the EU's Employment Directive, and it will give us the necessary time to resolve the complexities surrounding this issue. We shall be issuing a consultation document shortly. This will cover key questions to be considered on discrimination on grounds of age, along with the other grounds covered by the Directive: sexual orientation, religion, disability and race. We expect to bring forward a second consultation on age in 2002.

  Methane
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate she has made of the potential benefits of the use of coalmine methane to generate energy. [15722]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is recognised that there are significant environmental benefits from using coal mine methane for power generation and the Department is currently working with the Association of Coal Mine Methane Operators to quantify more precisely the benefits to be gained from using this fuel.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many appointments she has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in her. gift. [15485]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Libraries of the Houses and the report is published on the Cabinet Office 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.
  303W
  In the period between 7 June and 31 October 2001 a total of 154 ministerial appointments were made to DTI public bodies of which 90 were re-appointments of serving members. The total number of ministerial appointments for which I am responsible is 3,279.

  Tropical Fruit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she had with the Philippines authorities(a) at the last World Trade Organisation Conference and (b) recently elsewhere on encouraging trade between Muslim areas of Central Mindanao and the UK, with particular reference to tropical fruit. [14282]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer to my answer during the debate in the House on 15 November 2001 about the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference,Official Report, column 996–1008.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to link more closely the work of the RDAs and that of the Government offices, with particular reference to the Government Office of the north-east. [16448]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The Government Office for the north-east and the regional development agency, One North-East, already work very closely together on a wide range of issues and I have no plans to change that. The implementation of the new Single Programme Budget for RDAs next year is likely to lead to even closer working, with the Government office having a key role in monitoring One North-East's performance against the demanding targets for that budget. The Government office was fully involved in the production of the Regional Strategy, and will be working closely with One North-East in the coming months on the review of the Agency's Regional Strategy for the North East which is now under way.

  Miners' Compensation (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Amber Valley have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [15815]

  Mr. Wilson
  To date, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 1,583 claims in respect of respiratory disease in the constituency of Amber Valley. 516 individual payments have been made in this region totalling £2.0 million.

  Constituency statistics will shortly be available on the Department's website, www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Amber Valley have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for vibration white finger. [15816]
  304W
  Mr. Wilson
  To date, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 1,026 claims in respect of vibration white finger in the constituency of Amber Valley. 507 individual payments have been made in this region, totalling £2.7 million.

  Constituency statistics will shortly be available on the Department's website, www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Petrol Retailers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives of the Petrol Retailers Association to discuss wholesaler and retailer relations; what the outcome was of the meeting; and if she will make a statement. [13254]

  Mr. Wilson
  My officials and I meet representatives of the Petrol Retailers Association from time to time. Most recently I met the association on 19 September 2001 and my officials met them on 1 and 13 November 2001. We have had a useful discussion of developments in petrol retailing and the implication for small petrol retailers.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date her Department established a working group of officials to prepare her Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14765]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not established a working group of officials to prepare for implementation of the FOI Act. However, the task of preparing the Department has been assigned to the Open Government and Data Protection Unit, with particular responsibilities assigned to relevant officials within the Department. We already have in place a network of Open Government Liaison Officers to support our preparations for and eventual administration of the Act. Arrangements we are setting in place are overseen by the Departmental Board.

  Equal Pay
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its sponsored bodies have made with the production of equal pay action plans. [16139]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department itself, its agencies and sponsored bodies are at various stages of reviewing their pay systems. Some have recently designed pay systems with equal pay issues in mind. In a number of cases equal pay action plans have already been developed and initial action has been taken. In others, action plans will be produced to address equal pay issues that emerge.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many like work equal pay cases have been considered by employment tribunals in the period between 1995 and 2000; and what was the outcome of each case. [16138]

  Alan Johnson
  The table sets out the information requested.
  305W

  Equal pay cases

  Year

  Number of cases registered

  Settled by ACAS

  Withdrawn

  Successful at hearing

  Dismissed at hearing (out of scope)

  Dismissed at hearing (other)

  Disposed of (other)

  Total number disposed of

  1995–96

  1,482

  128

  456

  36

  15

  31

  28

  694

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  1,845

  253

  1069

  18

  73

  70

  1,483

  —

  1998–99

  5,018

  517

  650

  7

  309

  47

  1,530

  —

  1999–2000

  2,391

  229

  233

  9

  26

  75

  18

  590

  2000–01

  6,586

  208

  936

  11

  9

  35

  89

  1,288

  1 Due to changes to the database system of the ETS in 1996, statistics for 1996–97 are not available.

  Note:

  The figures for 1997–2001 include a large proportion of part-time worker pension cases that are extant.

  Source:

  Employment Tribunals Service

  Ukraine
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government carry any liability for potential damage in respect of investments they support in Ukraine. [16323]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has not provided Overseas Investment Insurance cover for any investments in the Ukraine.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Ukraine is off cover for official UK export credits. [16322]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGDs website advertises the Ukraine as a country for which it is only able to consider export credit cover on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the UK has indicated to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development that it is interested in the financing of a nuclear power station in Ukraine. [16325]

  Ms Hewitt
  Under the terms of the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding aimed at bringing about the closure of the Chernobyl Nuclear facility, the EU and G7 Governments agreed to work on the provision of loan finance to complete the Ukrainian nuclear plants known as K2/R4. The EBRD was nominated to lead in arranging a US$1.4 billion package of loans which, it was indicated, could include UK export credits for up to £20 million.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been received for export credit support in respect of the KZR4 nuclear power station in Ukraine; and if she will provide details. [16324]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department has received an outline application in respect of the K2R4 project. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, under Exemption 13—Third Party's commercial confidences—of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is unable to disclose details of the application.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total level of Government financial support to the renewable energy sector in each 306W
  year since 1990, broken down by (a) research grants, (b) renewables obligation, (c) non-fossil fuel levy and (d) other sources. [12790]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: The information is set out in the table.

  The new Renewables Obligation, to be introduced next year, together with the exemption of renewables from the Climate Change Levy, will create a long-term market for renewables which will be worth over £1 billion per year by 2010.

  The obligation will be underpinned by direct Government funding for renewables worth over £260 million between 2001 and 2004. This will include an extensive capital grants programme for the early development of offshore wind and energy crops, the initial stage of a major photovoltaics demonstration programme and a boost for research and development.

  Support for the renewables sector

  £ million

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Research grants1

  Renewables obligation2

  Non fossil fuel levy3

  Other (capital grants)4

  1990–91

  21.3

  —

  6.1

  —

  1991–92

  24.8

  —

  11.7

  —

  1992–93

  26.6

  —

  28.9

  —

  1993–94

  26.8

  —

  68.1

  —

  1994–95

  20.5

  —

  96.4

  —

  1995–96

  21.6

  —

  94.5

  —

  1996–97

  18.5

  —

  112.8

  —

  1997–98

  15.9

  —

  126.5

  —

  1998–99

  14.4

  —

  127.0

  —

  1999–2000

  14.9

  —

  656.4

  —

  2000–01

  15.9

  —

  664.9

  —

  2001–02

  524.0

  —

  6,754

  —

  2002–035

  27.6

  2282.0

  8—

  460

  2003–045

  29.0

  2405.0

  8—

  4131

  1 Direct Government funding for research and development on renewable energy through the DTI's own Sustainable Energy Programme and through the Research Councils via the Science Budget.

  2 Estimated maximum payments available under the Renewables Obligation for England and Wales and the corresponding Renewables Obligation (Scotland). Actual payments will depend on how much renewable energy capacity comes forward at any time. The costs will be met by licensed electricity suppliers who are expected to pass them on to consumers. Proposals for introducing the Obligation are shortly to be placed before Parliament. There

  307W
  may be some payments under the Obligation in the last quarter of 2001–02 depending on the precise date of implementation of the Obligation.

  3 Expenditure through NFFO, SRO and NI-NFFO funded by the electricity consumer through the Fossil Fuel Levy in Great Britain and variant arrangements in Northern Ireland.

  4 Provisional commitment profile for capital grants for offshore wind, energy crops and other areas highlighted in the Prime Minister's announcement of 5 November 2001. Actual spend will depend on the rate at which capacity comes forward.

  5 Estimates.

  6 Expenditure through NFFO falls from 1999–2000 on because NFFO 1 and 2 contracts came to an end in December 1998.

  7 Actual to 30 September 2001.

  8 Up to date estimates not available. Non Fossil Fuel Levy spend in future years is highly dependent on the impact of the introduction of Renewables obligation and of proposed new NFFO flexibility provisions. We anticipate that the costs of the Fossil Fuel Levy following the introduction of the Renewables Obligation will decline substantially.

  Note:

  Renewable energy also benefits from exemption from the Climate Change Levy which came into force from April 2001.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date her Department began to record the basic facts of meetings between Ministers in her Department and outside interest groups as required under paragraph 63 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and Guidance on procedures for Ministers; and in what form this information is recorded. [14746]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI Ministers meet a wide range of outside interest groups and individuals in the course of their official duties and I can confirm that the facts of such meetings are recorded in accordance with the Ministerial Code. This is a long established practice.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases were heard by employment tribunals in each of the last 10 years. [16656]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table shows the information requested.

  Number of cases heard by employment tribunals 1991–20011

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  13,778

  1992–93

  17,836

  1993–94

  23,327

  1994–95

  21,749

  1995–96

  21,484

  1996–97

  2—

  1997–98

  20,067

  1998–99

  20,924

  1999–2000

  21,049

  2000–01

  25,106

  1 Defined as a case which was either successful or dismissed at a hearing (either for being out of scope or other reasons).

  2 Due to changes to the ETS database of case records, no statistical information is available for this period.

  Note:

  Cases with multiple jurisdictions are only counted once.

  Source:

  Employment Tribunals Service

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases are awaiting a hearing before an employment tribunal. [16655]
  308W
  Ms Hewitt
  Due to the different ways in which tribunal applications proceed through the system, it is not possible to determine at any one time how many cases are waiting for a hearing date.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average time before a case is heard by an employment tribunal over the last 12 months. [16635]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Employment Tribunals Service, the government agency that provides the administrative support to the Employment Tribunals, seeks to ensure that 75 per cent. of single tribunal applications reach a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt. However, due to the complexity of individual cases and the need to ensure proper judicial consideration it is not possible to ensure specific periods of time are achieved in individual cases if justice is to be done.

  In previous years, the ETS target was 85 per cent. and this was exceeded in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The ETS achieved 77 per cent. in 2000–01.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [14153]

  Clare Short
  Twenty-four counties have now qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, the latest being Ethiopia which qualified last week. Three countries have completed the process. More than $54 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe about $75 billion, so a major part of their debt has been written off. The money released is being spent on poverty reduction. Social expenditure in these countries is projected to rise by some $1.7 billion per year, on average.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's work in Sierra Leone. [14154]

  Clare Short
  In Sierra Leone the UK is the leading player in providing humanitarian aid and help to reconstruct the institutions of government. We are supporting a wide range of reforms including better policing, the anti-corruption commission and preparations for elections due in May 2002.

  Expatriate Remittances
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the(a) actual and (b) potential value of remittances from expatriates working in the UK as a contribution to aid to developing countries. [14155]
  309W
  Clare Short
  Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that declared remittances from expatriates in the UK to developing countries in 2000 were £1.25 billion. This represents an increase of about 50 per cent. on 1996 figures.

  World Trade Organisation
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the World Trade Organisation's response to the proposal in paragraph 229 of her White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty: making globalisation work for the poor". [14156]

  Clare Short
  The ministerial declaration from the WTO meeting in Doha made strong commitments to the interests of developing countries. The ministerial declaration resulted in agreement on the need to reduce subsidies and barriers to trade in agriculture, manufacturing and services, which could potentially produce enormous benefits for developing countries. The agreement on TRIPS recognised the need for a flexible interpretation of TRIPS to enable developing countries to protect public health. The challenge now is to ensure that these commitments become a reality.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her priorities in the latest WTO round regarding the reduction of world poverty. [14157]

  Clare Short
  Our priorities were set out in the White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: making globalisation work for the poor". Many of these were fulfilled, in particular:Agreement on TRIPS and public health, recognising the need for a flexible interpretation of TRIPS to enable developing countries to protect public health.
  Action on some 50 measures form the developing countries' Implementation agenda from the Uruguay Round.
  On agriculture, commitment to real progress on market access and action on export subsidies.
  Continuing negotiations on services, which offer real prospects for developing countries to make substantial benefits through liberalisation and economic growth.
  Commitment to tackle tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation as well as non-tariff barriers.
  A commitment to a work programme on trade, debt and finance.
  Systematic attention throughout the text to the issue of capacity building.
  A comprehensive set of commitments on the particular needs of the least-developed countries, including a commitment to the objective of duty and quota free market access plus a commitment to make their accession process faster.
  A review of Special and Differential treatment—across all WTO business areas—to strengthen these provisions and make them more precise, operational and effective.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the implications of the outcome of the WTO 4 ministerial conference for developing countries. [14159]

  Clare Short
  The UK is committed to negotiations which bring real benefits to developing countries. The ministerial declaration includes a number of commitments in areas of vital importance to developing countries 310W
  including, agricultural liberalisation and action on tariff peaks for industrial goods. Of particular importance is the agreement on TRIPS and public health.

  The ministerial declaration also places a heavy requirement on donor countries to meet the trade-related technical assistance requirements, both in terms of financial resources but also to ensure effective delivery. This will require changes in working practices by both bilateral and multilateral agencies. The UK has taken the lead in this area and has pledged £20 million over the next three years for trade-related technical assistance. We hope other countries will make corresponding pledges.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to implement resolutions of the WTO meeting at Doha to promote fairer terms of trade for developing countries. [14162]

  Clare Short
  The UK has been working for many years to support a round which will benefit developing countries. The ministerial declaration includes a number of commitments in areas of vital importance to developing countries including, for example, agricultural liberalisation and action on tariff peaks for industrial goods. Of particular importance is the agreement on TRIPS and public health.

  The ministerial declaration also places a heavy requirement on donor countries to meet the trade-related technical assistance requirements, both in terms of financial resources but also to ensure effective delivery. This will require changes in working practices by both bilateral and multilateral agencies. The UK has taken the lead in this area and has pledged £20 million over the next three years for trade-related technical assistance. We hope other donor countries will make corresponding pledges.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the implications of the Doha ministerial meeting on trade for her Department. [14175]

  Clare Short
  The ministerial declaration represents a welcome development agenda for multilateral trade talks for which we have worked for a number of years. But this is only the beginning of negotiations. To achieve Development round we will continue to work to try to ensure that these commitments become a reality.

  East and Central Africa
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on UK aid to east and central Africa. [14158]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of UK development assistance is to help the countries of the region to reduce poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Where possible we support countries' own poverty reduction strategies, for example by financing work to help them to design and implement pro-poor economic and social policies, improve the quality of governance and tackle HIV/AIDS. In countries affected by conflict we support initiatives to reduce the threat and impact of conflict, and provide emergency and rehabilitation assistance. Total UK assistance to the region in
  311W
  2000–01 amounted to £516 million. Figures for the UK share of multilateral assistance are not yet available, but in 1999 this totalled £75 million.

  Serbia
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to promote development and poverty reduction in Serbia. [14160]

  Clare Short
  Following the resumption of our bilateral programme in October 2000, we moved quickly to support economic and social reform in Serbia, and to help safeguard the well-being of the poorest people in Serbia. During the winter of 2000 we provided £10 million of emergency aid. We also provided a grant totalling £8.4 million to pay arrears of welfare benefits for the poorest families. We are assisting the Serbian authorities to make key economic, social and governance reforms that are necessary for sustainable and equitable development and poverty reduction. We have supported the development of strategies for reform in privatisation, banking rehabilitation and health care. We have worked closely with the World Bank, with whom we are discussing a joint programme of support to social policy reform. We are funding the work of the Serbian Development Aid Coordination Unit, which is helping the government and donors to use aid effectively.

  Our share of the EU's programme in Serbia in 2001 is £25 million. This is additional to the EU emergency programme, started before the fall of Milosevic, of which our share was £20 million.

  We will shortly publish a Country Strategy Paper for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which describes our future plans for Serbia and Montenegro.

  Afghanistan
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to the UN to enable the co-ordination of humanitarian relief to Afghanistan. [14161]

  Clare Short
  We have set aside £40 million to respond to the current crisis affecting Afghans in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. About £37 million has already been allocated to agencies for their work in the region to fulfil their humanitarian goals. This includes £24 million to UN agencies. Our financial assistance is complemented by the provision of technical personnel, logistical, material and other practical support.

  Co-ordination of humanitarian assistance is the responsibility of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which has appointed a Regional Humanitarian Co-ordinator based in Islamabad. We have allocated £2 million to OCHA in response to the current crisis to support these efforts. This includes the provision of technical personnel who have set up a humanitarian information centre (HIC) to collate and communicate humanitarian information on the needs and programmes to all concerned agencies. This contribution is also being used to increase the capacity of the offices of the UN resident co-ordinators in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan and Tajikistan; and to deploy personnel and equipment to support the UN in re-establishing its presence in Afghanistan.
  312W
  We have also provided £1 million to support the work of Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan, who is working to develop a consensus among Afghans and the international community on the future governance of Afghanistan.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [14164]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation remains fragile. However, UN agencies, particularly the World Food Programme, and the Red Cross Movement continue to make good and steady progress in the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Afghanistan.

  The World Food Programme met its target for October of delivering 53,000 tonnes of food into Afghanistan and Afghan staff have managed to keep supplies moving inside the country. The situation inside Afghanistan is changing rapidly. We will work with the World Food Programme to try to ensure that supplies continue to be delivered into Afghanistan and within the country.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to ensure that aid going to Afghanistan is reaching Afghan refugees. [14171]

  Clare Short
  My Department is channelling its humanitarian assistance to Afghans through international humanitarian organisations and non-governmental organisations with experience in the region and a track record to deliver. Our best assessment, based on information from a range of humanitarian agencies suggests that distribution systems inside Afghanistan have by and large continued to deliver to those in need.

  There are good prospects for opening additional routes into the country, particularly with the changing political situation. We hope that the international organisations, particularly the UN and Red Cross, will be able to improve delivery of food, healthcare, and other assistance and that some of the internally displaced will be able to return home before the winter gets worse. Plans are now being made for their international staff to return as soon as possible. In addition, we hope that it will be possible to accelerate deliveries so that winter stockpiles can be built closer to the people who need them. However, such progress is dependant on improved security.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her oral statement of 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 1100, what proposals she has for the collection of unexploded cluster bomb ordnance by (a) the Halo Trust and (b) other organisations in the next 10 years. [14172]

  Clare Short
  I announced an allocation of £2 million for immediate humanitarian mine action assistance to Afghanistan on 15 November. We expect this to include the clearance of unexploded cluster bomb ordnance. Our assistance will be channelled through the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) with whom we will discuss appropriate requirements including projects with UK demining organisations, including the Halo Trust.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the Government are planning to provide to de-mining operations in Afghanistan. [14174]
  313W
  Clare Short
  I announced an allocation of £2 million for immediate humanitarian mine action assistance to Afghanistan on 15 November. Our assistance will be channelled through the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) with whom we will discuss appropriate requirements.

  Poor Counties
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the connection between poverty and poor governance. [14163]

  Clare Short
  Poor countries frequently suffer weak administrative systems, badly managed security sectors, corruption and weak economic management.

  Without effective government, poor countries will not be able to achieve the millennium development goals. This argument is set out in our White Paper "Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" and has recently been elaborated in a strategy paper, "Making Government Work for Poor People". This describes the governance capabilities developing and transitional countries require to reduce poverty. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library and on DFID's website.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her recent meeting with the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda. [14165]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my oral answer earlier today to the question asked by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) at columns 305–6.

  UN Humanitarian Aid
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next expects to meet the Secretary-General of the UN to discuss the effectiveness of UN humanitarian aid. [14166]

  Clare Short
  I have no specific plans at the moment to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations, but expect our paths will cross at one of the many forthcoming high level meetings. My Department is in regular contact with colleagues at the United Nations on a wide range of issues, including the effectiveness of UN humanitarian aid.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to tackle high levels of infant mortality in poorer countries. [14167]

  Clare Short
  We are strongly committed to mobilising the international development system to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing child and infant mortality by two thirds by 2015. Two million child deaths could be averted by improving routine immunisation coverage and introducing appropriate new vaccines in poor countries. We are providing substantial support to this work through the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI) and work closely in 314W
  partnership with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF. This must be underpinned by strengthened health systems, better health worker skills and better caring practices within the home and community, and we have committed over £1 billion since 1997 to help governments with this task.

  As two thirds of all infant deaths occur in the first month of life, DFID is taking an active role in promoting newborn and maternal health as a priority within the international health agenda. We work in a range of sectors, in particular water and sanitation and female education which also impact on mortality rates.

  EU Aid
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to improve the quality and transparency of EU aid programmes. [14168]

  Clare Short
  We have worked hard, and with some success, to promote reform of the Community's aid programmes and policies. There have been a number of important steps forward, in particular a new Development Policy focused on the overall objective of poverty elimination and the Commission's management reforms. Early next year the Commission will publish the first Annual Report on Community External Assistance. While the content of this report is likely to reflect the weaknesses of existing programmes, we believe this improved transparency and accountability will help all concerned to drive forward the implementation of the reform agenda.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her Department's spending on humanitarian and other reliefs in Afghanistan and Pakistan is(a) new additional spending and (b) diverted from other budgets. [14169]

  Clare Short
  Since 11 September, we have set aside £40 million in additional funds for immediate humanitarian assistance to Afghans in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. £25 million came from DFID's reserve and £15 million from the Treasury central reserve.

  I have also allocated an additional £26 million for Pakistan, which is supplementary to the annual £15 million programme for poverty reduction in Pakistan. £4 million was allocated from my department's Asia performance fund, £7 million came from DFID's reserve, and £15 million came from Treasury central reserve.

  Funding has not been diverted from other DFID programmes.

  Trade (Developing Countries)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to enhance developing countries' capacity to trade. [14170]

  Clare Short
  We are at the forefront of efforts to enhance developing countries' capacity to trade. In the White Paper on Globalisation we undertook to double our commitment over the next three years. We have recently pledged a £20 million package of trade related capacity
  315W
  building which will take us towards this goal. The capacity of developing countries to trade can be enhanced through five distinct forms of support: policy research and trade strategy development, participatory policy formulation processes, co-ordination of trade policy with national development strategies, participation in international trade negotiations and implementation of trade agreements.

  We are providing trade related technical assistance through three main channels. The first is institutional support—for example. the advisory centre on WTO law, which provides legal support to developing countries pursuing cases in the dispute settlement mechanism. The second is support through multilateral institutions—for example, working with the World Bank, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Development Programme, World Trade Organisation and International Trade Centre to prioritise trade within development programmes and strategies. The third is bilateral and regional support, for example, DFID' s Africa Trade and Poverty programme which aims to help developing countries analyse the linkages between trade, poverty and sustainable economic and social development.

  Subsidised Food Dumping
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which developing countries' domestic agricultural systems are threatened by subsidised food dumping from the industrial world; which countries bear responsibility for such dumping; and what representations she has made on this matter. [14173]

  Clare Short
  Many developing countries suffer from subsidised food being dumped on their markets. Owing to the complexity of subsidies and the widespread use of subsidies in industrialised nations, it is difficult to determine exactly which developing countries are being harmed by dumped subsidised food and to what extent. However, the EU is one of the principal users of subsidies. For this and other reasons the Government are strongly committed to fundamental reform of the CAP.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives of(a) each of the national museums and galleries sponsored by her Department, (b) the British Hospitality Association, (c) the Football Association (d) the Rugby Football Union, (e) the British Weight Lifters' Association, (f) the Lawn Tennis Association, (g) Theatres in Trust, (h) Equity, (i) PACT, (j) regional arts boards, (k) regional tourist boards, (l) the BBC, (m) ITV, (n) ITN, (o) the British Tourist Authority, (p) the English Tourism Council, (q) the Football Foundation, (r) the New Opportunities Fund, (s) English Heritage, (t) the Communities Fund, (u) UK Sport, (v) Sport England, (w) the Arts Council for England, (x) the Film Council, (y) Wembley National Stadium Ltd., (z) the National Campaign for the Arts and (aa) Sky Television. [7566]
  316W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: My ministerial team and I have met representatives of virtually all the organisations listed here, at meetings at the Department or elsewhere.

  Those I have met in person and at the Department are (a) each of the national museums and galleries sponsored by my Department (18 July), (b) the British Hospitality Association (10 October), (c) the Football Association (25 September), (j) regional arts boards (16 June), (k) regional tourist boards (10 October), (l) the BBC (13 September), (n) ITN Network (30 October), (o) the British Tourist Authority (10 October), (p) the English Tourism Council (10 October), (r) the New Opportunities Fund (21 June), (t) the Communities Fund (21 June), (u) UK Sport (31 October), (v) Sport England (4 October), (w) the Arts Council for England (19 June), (x) The Film Council (28 June) and (aa) Sky Television (23 July).

  Other Ministers in my Department have also met many of these organisations on various occasions. They have also met representatives of the other organisations listed. In addition I have met representatives of many of these bodies at events outside my Department.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many appointments she has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in her gift. [15492]

  Tessa Jowell
  Information about the number 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.

  I am directly responsible for 395 appointments to public bodies. Since 7 June, I have made 60 such appointments. These figures do not include those appointments to public bodies sponsored by my Department where my role is to advise on appointments made by the Prime Minister or through him by Her Majesty The Queen.

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the funds made available by(a) her Department and (b) other agencies for the marketing of England as a tourist destination. [15754]

  Dr. Howells
  No provision was made in the Public Expenditure Plans for the marketing of England as a tourist destination by any agency. We did, however, provide £3.8 million of additional resources to the English Tourism Council this spring to provide information services and promotion to British people about England as a tourism destination. This was part of the Government's response to the Foot and Mouth outbreak. £2.6 million of this money was spent on marketing and promotion at England or regional level.
  317W
  £49.7 million in total has been provided to the British Tourist Authority this year to market Britain, including England, abroad to tourists. Regional Development Agencies and local government also direct public funding towards marketing their parts of England.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Minister in her Department has Ministerial responsibility for the hosting of the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [16650]

  Tessa Jowell
  As Secretary of State, I have overall responsibility for the hosting of the 2005 World Athletics Championships and I am supported in this by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what venues were considered by her Department as possible venues for the hosting of the 2005 World Athletics Championships after the decision was taken not to host the games at Lee Valley; [16653]

  (2) on what date the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), was removed from decision-making regarding the staging of the 2005 World Athletics Championships; and if she will make a statement on the nature of that removal; [16649]

  (3) on what date Sheffield became a potential contender for hosting the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [16648]

  Tessa Jowell
  Patrick Carter's report on the Lee Valley Stadium project identified the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield and the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Manchester as the two most promising alternative venues for hosting the 2005 World Athletics Championships.

  When I received and read Patrick Carter's report I issued an instruction that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport should not see the report and any associated papers in view of the fact that Patrick Carter discussed Sheffield as a possible alternative venue and my right hon. Friend's possible constituency interest. I agreed with my right hon. Friend that once a decision had been made on the future of the Lee Valley project or, if the decision was not to proceed, a decision had been taken on an alternative venue for the World Athletics Championships, that he would be brought into the discussions and papers would be circulated to him in the normal way. An instruction to this effect was issued in accordance with the Ministerial code on 3 September.

  An evaluation of the Sheffield and Manchester options was carried out by Sport England and my officials following my meeting with Trevor Brooking, Chairman of Sport England, on 24 September to discuss the Lee Valley project and Patrick Carter's report.

  Girls' Rugby and Football Teams
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she has taken to encourage schools to set up girls' rugby and football teams with trained coaches. [16266]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have initiated a number of programmes aimed at encouraging and enabling schools to offer a wider range of sporting opportunities 318W
  for their pupils. They give all pupils the opportunity to achieve high standards and those with the greatest potential the opportunity to excel at their chosen sport. The 1,000 School Sport Co-ordinators who will be in place by 2004 will have funding for, among other things, bringing sport specific coaches into schools to coach pupils and for building school-club links. Also, Specialist Sports Colleges are funded to provide the lead in innovative practice sharing resources and expertise to achieve high standards. Coaching for Teachers is a joint initiative funded by Sport England and coordinated by sports coach UK, it provides teachers involved in out-of-school-hours activities with low-cost coaching courses. Coaching for Teachers delivers governing body courses in both rugby union and football. Awards for All is a lottery-funded programme focused at four priority groups, one of those being girls and women and provides awards of up to £5,000. These awards can be used to develop out-of-hour learning opportunities. eg training courses for coaches or the hiring of coaches, in schools that preferably link with the local community.

  Stadium Projects Review
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will publish the dates of all telephone conversations her Department has had with Patrick Carter since 1 January; and if she will state the nature of what was discussed and place a note of each conversation in the Library; [16668]

  (2) if she will publish the dates of all written communication her Department has had with Patrick Carter since 1 January; what the nature of the communication was; and if she will place a copy of each communication in the Library; [16669]

  (3) when her Department had meetings with Patrick Carter since 1 January; and if she will state the nature of what was discussed; and if she will place a note of each meeting in the Library; [16667]

  (4) if she will publish the (a) instructions and (b) guidelines that she has given to (i) Patrick Carter and (ii) others about aspects of his reviews into (A) the National Stadium project and (B) the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre. [16670]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The terms of reference for Patrick Carter's review of the English National Stadium were published on 25 June 2001, Official Report, column 37W. They were:
  "In the light of the FA's announcement on 1 May 2001 about the project to develop a new English National Stadium at Wembley for Football and Rugby League, to examine if the project can be funded and managed at Wembley, or if that proved impractical. at another location in England. The review should report to the Government within eight weeks."

  The terms of reference for the review which Patrick Carter carried out for Sport England into the Lee Valley Stadium were published on 2 July 2001, Official Report, columns 79–80W. They were:
  "In light of the Government's manifesto commitment to ensure that a first-class athletics stadium is available for the World Athletics Championships in 2005, Sport England needs to assess whether the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre project can be funded and managed in its current format and if not, what alternatives might be feasible. The review should report its findings within seven weeks."
  319W
  Following the receipt of Patrick Carter's report of his initial work on the National Stadium I asked him to undertake follow-up discussions with the Football Association about the options which he had examined in his report. That work continues.

  Patrick Carter has been assisted in his reviews by officials from my Department as well as others and has therefore had frequent contact with them since the English National Stadium and Lee Valley National Athletics Centre reviews began. He has also been in contact with Ministers and Sport England on a number of occasions during the course of his work. The disclosure of the nature and content of discussions and meetings with Ministers, officials and Sport England, would fall within the exemptions on internal discussion and advice and commercial confidences that are set out in Part ii of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will publish the criteria by which Patrick Carter's appointment to conduct a review of(a) the National Stadium project and (b) the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre was made; [16672]

  (2) how many names were considered at each stage of the process to find a person to conduct a review of (a) the National Stadium project and (b) the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre. [16671]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The Government announced on 8 May that Patrick Carter had been asked to lead a review of the National Stadium project. That decision was taken in the light of his thorough review of the Commonwealth Games which Ministers had recently considered. No other candidates were considered to lead such a review.

  The decision to appoint Patrick Carter to carry out a review of the Lee Valley project was taken by Sport England and endorsed by me.

  Supporters Direct
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will extend Government funding to Supporters Direct to enable them to assist supporters of Rugby League clubs, and if she will make a statement. [16289]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met the Chairman of Supporters Direct on 4 September to discuss a range of issues including possible assistance to supporters of Rugby League clubs. Discussions are continuing.

  Gaming Board
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she will take to implement the recommendations by the Gaming Board for Great Britain on the maximum stakes and prizes in gaming machines. [17357]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have considered the Board's recommendations very carefully. We are grateful to them and to the industry associations for the work which has gone into their proposals.
  320W
  We have also had to bear in mind the report of the Gambling Review, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, which has also made recommendations about the maximum stakes and prizes in gaming machines. These recommendations of the Gambling Review differed from those made by the Gaming Board in a number of important respects.

  Having considered both sets of recommendations in detail—and in the light of the period of public consultation on the Gambling Review, which ended on 31 October—we have decided to place before Parliament an Order under the Gaming Act 1968 which would increase the maximum prize from an all-cash Amusements with Prizes gaming machine to £25 and the maximum prize from a jackpot gaming machine in a casino to £2,000. That Order will be laid before both Houses shortly.

  We have decided to propose no further changes to the stakes and prizes in gaming machines for the present.

  The changes which we are proposing are supported both by the Gaming Board and the report of the Gambling Review. The Review concluded however that increases in the amounts which can be paid out by gaming machines should be accompanied by changes in the law to make it an offence for people under 18 to play them or to allow people under 18 to play them. It also recommended significant strengthening of industry agreements on preventing under-age play.

  We shall be considering possible changes to the law. In the meantime, we look to the industry to play the fullest and most active part in improving the present arrangements to prevent under-age play of gaming machines. I am asking the Gaming Board for Great Britain to assess whether there are practical improvements in this area, and we will take close account of their conclusions before reaching any conclusions as to further changes in the regulation of gaming machines.

  Cultural Exchanges (Argentina)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions her Department has had to develop cultural exchanges between the United Kingdom and Argentina; and if she will make a statement. [15857]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Cultural Convention of 1990 with Argentina the British Council is designated as the principal agent of HMG for pursuing bilateral cultural relations. In the last year it has organised arts events mostly through partnerships with local managers, helping major festivals to identify artists from the United Kingdom; it has helped United Kingdom educational providers to exploit opportunities in Argentina, in particular for MBA courses; it has reached out to young audiences through the Buenos Aires Book Fair and book and poster exhibitions and it is developing information services via the internet. It is developing its programme of partnerships between schools in the United Kingdom and Argentina.

  The next meeting of the regular Anglo-Argentina Mixed Commission to decide on the next phase of implementation of the Cultural Convention is scheduled for March 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to compensate farmers whose cattle reached over 30 months of age as a direct result of the restriction on cattle movements imposed during the foot and mouth crisis. [11075]

  Mr. Morley: The Government have considered very carefully whether it would be appropriate to pay compensation for losses incurred on cattle which went beyond the 30 month age limit because of movement restrictions imposed during the earlier part of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. We have concluded that it would not. Statutory compensation for losses incurred as a result of the FMD outbreak is only paid on animals which have been slaughtered as a result of FMD, or on property, including animals which have been seized and destroyed in order to prevent the spread of FMD. The Government do not compensate farmers, or businesses, for other, indirect losses.

  Illegal Waste Dumping
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the problem of illegal waste dumping; and what co-ordination there is with the National Assembly of Wales on controlling illegal waste dumping. [12064]

  Mr. Meacher
  The most recent assessment of the levels of the illegal disposal of waste was carried out by the Tidy Britain Group. The report, "Effects Of Landfill Tax: Reduced Disposal of Inert Waste To Landfill", explored the impact of the landfill tax on fly-tipping, and it confirmed that the type of waste most frequently fly-tipped is household waste. The Fly-tipping Stakeholder's Forum is also currently conducting a study on the scale of fly-tipping on agricultural land.

  My Department maintains close contact with the National Assembly of Wales on all relevant policy issues including on fly-tipping. The National Assembly voted additional funds to support the Environment Agency's targeted waste enforcement project in Wales, now in its second year. This has resulted in an increase in successful prosecutions of offenders.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13825]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Liddell) on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

  Smog Levels
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment 322W
  she has made of the recent European Environment Agency analysis of smog levels in Europe; and if she will make a statement. [13909]

  Mr. Meacher
  Peak ozone levels in episodes of "summer smog" are declining as a result of significant emission reductions of ozone precursors in the UK and Europe over the past ten years or so Peak ozone levels should continue to decline as a result of the further measures which the UK and other European countries will take in accordance with the EC National Emission Ceilings Directive and the UNECE Gothenburg Protocol. There has not been as yet a decline in average ozone levels. The significance of this for public health is still under investigation.

  Pollution
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce comprehensive pollution inventories. [14528]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are strongly committed to the public's right to know about polluting emissions. The Environment Agency has a comprehensive Pollution Inventory that provides easy access to annual emissions data on 150 pollutants from over 2,000 of the most potentially polluting industrial processes in England and Wales. The public can access this information through the Environment Agency's website www.environmentagency.gov.uk and from local Environment Agency offices (general line: 0845 9333 111).

  The Environment Agency is working on improving the scope of the Inventory. This year the Inventory has been expanded to include emissions from nuclear sites and large sewage treatment works. Over the next year more sectors will be added including major landfill sites, more sewage treatment works, and radioactive emissions from non-nuclear sites.

  The number of sites reporting will increase to around 7,000 in 2003 as a result of the implementation of the European Union Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). The IPPC Directive requires member states to report emission levels to the European Commission so that an inventory of principal emissions and their sources, known as the European Pollutant Emissions Register (EPER), can be produced. The EPER will initially require reporting on 50 pollutants released to air and water every three years with the first year of reporting commencing in 2003.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff at her Department's office in Worcester performing comparable duties are on different rates of pay; what is the reason for such discrepancy; and if she will make a statement. [15633]

  Mr. Morley
  There are around 300 permanent and casual staff working at my Department's offices in Worcester. Some of these staff have transferred to the newly created Rural Payments Agency but have retained their existing terms and conditions. All permanent staff are employed under the same pay arrangements and conditions of employment. Variations in individual levels
  323W
  of pay of staff doing work of equal value occur because of a number of factors but principally because pay is linked to individual performance.

  The foot and mouth disease (FMD) emergency has necessitated staff from other Government Departments being temporarily seconded to DEFRA. These staff have retained the pay, terms and conditions of their parent department. During the FMD emergency, others at Worcester have been employed temporarily on specific contractual terms (ie fee-paid temporary veterinary inspectors, consultants).

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the employees in(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. [16105]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The number of permanent civil servants employed by DEFRA and its agencies as at 1 October 2001 is given below. The figure for DEFRA includes staff who were in the process of transferring to the Rural Payments Agency. The information on the number of staff working in areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 and Objective 2 status is unavailable due to the disproportionate cost of collection.

  London

  Elsewhere

  Total

  DEFRA

  2,535

  6,092

  8,627

  Agencies

  0

  2,642

  2,642

  Total

  2,535

  8,734

  11,269

  Organic Farms
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish a comprehensive breakdown of the numbers of certified

  Total liabilities of UK agriculture

  £ million at current prices

  Liabilities

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Long and medium term:

  AMC, SASC, and LIC

  1,168

  1,215

  1,288

  1,321

  1,381

  Building Societies and Institutions

  255

  317

  305

  370

  365

  Bank loans

  1,602

  1,859

  1,882

  2,268

  2,199

  Family loans

  326

  357

  326

  409

  461

  Other

  157

  167

  185

  210

  143

  Total long and medium term

  3,508

  3,914

  3,986

  4,579

  4,550

  Short term:

  Hire purchase

  656

  744

  662

  546

  457

  Leasing

  265

  195

  179

  186

  136

  Trade Credit

  1,283

  1,378

  1,175

  1,214

  1,155

  Bank overdrafts

  2,591

  2,408

  2,598

  2,787

  2,923

  Other

  137

  152

  166

  176

  146

  Total short term

  4,932

  4,876

  4,780

  4,910

  4,819

  Total Liabilities

  8,440

  8,790

  8,767

  9,488

  9,368

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000
  324W
  organic farms by (a) county and (b) borough in England and Wales, in the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [16046]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not available in the form requested, but I shall make available to my hon. Friend lists of organic producers and processors of organic food registered with organic certifiers.

  White Goods Disposal
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements she has made for the disposal of unwanted fridges and freezers from 1 January 2002 under European Directive 2037/2000. [15595]

  Mr. Meacher
  EC Regulation No. 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances will require "controlled substances" (including CFCs) in coolants and in insulating foam to be removed before recycling or reclamation of refrigeration units. 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. My Department is finalising measures to manage waste refrigeration equipment in the interim. Advice on storage of waste refrigeration equipment will issue shortly. We are currently considering funding options for local authorities.

  Food Borrowing
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the level of borrowing in the agricultural industry. [16039]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest available information is that published in Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000 and is given in the table. Estimates for 2000 will be published in March 2002.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to improve co-ordination between public bodies with special reference to local councils, over meeting the Government's waste recycling targets. [15523]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: We provided guidance to local authorities on producing Municipal Waste Management Strategies published in March this year, which encouraged partnership working, as a key means for delivering the statutory targets on recycling.

  Today, we are publishing a Consultation Paper on the distribution of £140 million of additional funding for local authority waste minimisation and recycling. In that Paper we suggest that partnership working between authorities to deliver higher recycling might be one of the funding priorities.

  The Consultation Paper also consults on a mechanism for allowing local authorities to 'pool' their statutory performance standards for recycling and composting of household waste. In doing so we are responding to those local authorities who have told us that this will help to deliver partnership working.

  Copies of the consultation paper are available in Libraries of the House.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being used to assess the programme of protecting and enhancing the countryside as set out in Objective 11 of Table 14.1 of the Rural White Paper in relation to(a) biodiversity, (b) tranquillity, (c) heritage and (d) landscape character. [15911]

  Alun Michael
  The Department is working with the Countryside Agency, English Nature, English Heritage and the Natural Environment Research Council's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology to develop proposals for an indicator of change in countryside quality. Further research to develop the indicator is currently being commissioned. The research will use existing national datasets about changing countryside character, including agriculture, forestry and land use change statistics and, from Countryside Survey 2000, information on landscape features and biodiversity. New data on traditional farm buildings are being collated by English Heritage and the Countryside Agency. The research will consider tranquillity as an aspect of countryside character. It is intended that the indicator will be available for publication in 2004.

  In addition we have an extensive programme for monitoring the effects of our agri-environment schemes, on biodiversity in particular.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total income from farming and (b) total off-fanning income was in rural areas in the United Kingdom in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000 and (vi) 2001. [15910]
  326W
  Alun Michael
  The table provides total income from farming for the years 1996 to 2000 in real terms at 2000 prices in absolute terms and on a per head basis

  Year

  UK total income from farming (TIFF) (£ million)

  UK total income from farming per whole time person equivalent (£)

  1996

  5,612

  23,279

  1997

  3,434

  14,352

  1998

  2,510

  10,612

  1999

  2,578

  11,274

  20001

  2,578

  8,492

  1 Provisional.

  The forecast of UK total income from farming for 2001 will be published on 29 November 2001.

  The table shows the United Kingdom off-farm income for farms where off-farm income covers income from employment or self employment away from the farm, and unearned income from investments, pensions and social payments.

  Year

  Total off-farm income (£ million)

  Total off-farm income (£ per farm)

  1996

  659

  5,100

  1997

  630

  4,900

  1998

  669

  5,300

  1999

  624

  5,000

  Note:

  Figures for 2000 and 2001 are not yet available.

  Rural Parishes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the latest date for which figures are available, what proportion of parishes in the countryside were classified as(a) vibrant, (b) active, (c) barely active and (d) sleeping, stating in each case the measures used. [15912]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency's State of the Countryside Report 2001 set out indicators for community vibrancy using a selection of community activities such as contested parish council elections and annual events. Building on from this information preliminary work to re-evaluate the full database of parishes suggests that: 27 per cent. of parishes were vibrant, 38 per cent. Active, 26 per cent. barely active and 9 per cent. sleeping.

  Rural Deprivation
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of people living in rural wards in the United Kingdom were in low income bands compared to the national average in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [15906]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency is planning to establish a baseline for low incomes for the 2002 State of the Countryside Report. This will use the 1998 classification of rural wards and from late 2002 will use data on low income from the Office for National Statistics (this is the first time that data of this nature will be available). Reliable time series data for low income bands are not available for wards.

  Business Start-Ups
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many new business start-ups there were in rural areas in the United Kingdom in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, 2000 and (f) 2001. [15909]

  Alun Michael
  Data on business start-ups in rural areas are not readily available. Information on VAT registrations for the year ending April 2000 indicates that there were 41,540 registrations in rural England. Information on earlier years is not available.

  Rural Crime
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of reported crime by category there were in rural areas in the United Kingdom in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [15903]

  Alun Michael
  Home Office data on recorded crime in rural England for the 12 months to March 2001 are taken from the Crime Reduction Partnership Areas linked to all local authorities. Data collected in previous years cannot be directly compared as they used Basic Command Units (Police Force Administration Units) whose boundaries do not all coincide with local authority ones.

  Population weighted figures—number of offences per 1,000 population were: violence 6.54, sexual 0.45, robbery 0.31, burglary (dwelling) 4.06, theft of vehicle 2.91, theft from vehicle 7.61.

  Local Education Authorities
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which local education authorities in England and Wales are classified as rural. [15904]

  Alun Michael
  There is no classification of local education authorities. Most local education authorities which cover rural areas also contain urban areas.

  Rural Employment
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of people between 16 and 60 years old in rural areas in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001 were active in (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) seasonal work. [15902]

  Alun Michael
  The percentage of people aged 16 and over in rural areas in England in full-time and part-time employment was as follows:

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1996

  73.11

  28.02

  1997

  73.58

  26.96

  1998

  73.49

  27.31

  1999

  73.44

  27.67

  2000

  72.99

  27.79

  2001

  73.13

  28.16

  Reliable information on seasonal employment is not readily available.

  Market Towns
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of market towns are classified as(a) thriving, (b) stable and (c) declining at the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the measures used. [15901]

  Alun Michael
  No classification is available at present. However, The Countryside Agency has embarked on a research project to look into the health and viability of Market Towns. The project will inform on the development economic and social indicators. It is expected to report by February 2003.

  Civic Amenities
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of households in the United Kingdom were within 4 km of(a) food shops, (b) post offices, (c) cash points, (d) child nurseries, (e) primary schools and (f) GP surgeries in (i) 2000 and (ii) for the latest date for which figures are available. [15905]

  Alun Michael
  In 2000 the percentage of rural households in England living within 4 km of services was as follows:

  Foodshops (supermarkets) 79 per cent., post offices 99 per cent., cash points 79 per cent., primary schools 99 per cent., GP surgeries 86 per cent. Data are not available for child nurseries.

  It should be noted that 22 per cent. of rural settlement have a general store (selling a range of household goods including basic foodstuffs) and 28 per cent. have a small village shop (a sole shop selling mainly food).

  This is the latest date for which figures are available. The figures for 2001 will be reported on by the Countryside Agency in April 2002. They have a research project for child care in preparation.

  Fishing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the progress of the hake recovery programme in(a) area VII arid (b) area VIII. [15871]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission adopted an emergency Regulation in June for a hake recovery plan. Some of these measures came into force on 30 June and others on 1 September. It is too early to assess their effectiveness.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects to introduce a shellfish licensing scheme for those fishing areas under her authority; [15745]

  (2) what assessment she has made of responses to her Department's proposed shellfish licensing scheme. [15746]

  Mr. Morley
  The vast majority of the 250 English and Welsh responses to the Department's consultation document supported the proposed UK restrictive licensing scheme for certain vulnerable species of shellfish, but
  329W
  there was a great diversity of views on its practical implementation. In the light of this, DEFRA officials are currently discussing the various elements with the other Fisheries Departments in the UK, with a view to an announcement on an appropriate way forward before the end of the year.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of(a) fishing stock health and

  DEFRA interpretation of ACFM advice for TACs for 2002

  Stock (species and ICES area)

  2001 TAC (tonnes)

  2002 TAC1

  TAC change from 2001 to 2002 (percentage)

  a

  b

  c

  d

  Sandeels IIa NS

  1,020,000

  No advice

  —

  Herring I, II

  851,500

  853,000

  +0.2

  Herring IVa, b

  265,000

  265,000 to 303,000

  Rollover to +14.3

  Herring IVc, VIId

  —

  —

  —

  Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb

  36,360

  30,000

  -17.5

  Herring VIa (Clyde)

  1,000

  1,000

  Rollover

  Herring VIIa

  6,900

  6,500

  -5.8

  Herring Vile, f

  1,000

  No advice

  —

  Herring VIIg-k

  20,000

  26,000

  2-40.0

  Herring Ha NS Ind. by-catch

  36,000

  23,000 to 50,000

  -36.1 to +38.9

  Cod IIa, NS

  48,600

  LPL

  —

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  3,700

  LPL

  —

  Cod VIIa

  2,100

  LPL

  —

  Cod VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X

  10,500

  7,300

  -30.5

  Megrim IIa NS

  2,700

  No advice

  —

  Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  4,360

  4,360

  Rollover

  Megrim VII

  15,000

  13,000

  -13.3

  Dab and Flounder IIa NS

  27,060

  No advice

  —

  Anglers IIa NS

  14,130

  10,000

  -51.3

  Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  6,400

  —

  —

  Anglers VII

  21,700

  15,520

  -28.5

  Haddock IIa, IV

  61,000

  112,000

  +83.6

  Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  13,900

  15,400

  +10.8

  Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X

  12,000

  8,000

  -33.3

  Haddock VIIa

  2,700

  1,200

  -55.6

  Whiting IIa, NS

  29,700

  45,000

  +51.5

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  4,000

  2,000

  +50.0

  Whiting VIIa

  1,390

  LPL

  —

  Whiting VIIb-k

  21,000

  32,200

  +53.3

  Hake IIa, NS

  870

  LPL

  —

  Hake Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  13,920

  LPL

  —

  Blue whiting IIa NS

  90,000

  3—

  —

  Blue whiting Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  407,000

  —

  —

  Blue whiting VIIIabde

  26,500

  —

  —

  Lemon sole and witch IIa NS

  10,800

  No advice

  —

  Nephrops IIa, NS

  15,480

  18,470

  +19.3

  Nephrops Vb, VI

  11,340

  11,300

  -0.4

  Nephrops VII

  18,900

  17,790

  -5.9

  Northern prawn IIa, NS

  6,504

  No advice

  —

  Plaice IIa, NS

  78,000

  77,000

  -1.3

  Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,920

  No advice

  —

  Plaice VIIa

  2,000

  2,800

  -40.0

  Plaice VIId, e

  6,000

  6,690

  +11.5

  Plaice VIIf, g

  760

  680

  -10.5

  Plaice VIIh, j, k

  1,215

  No advice

  —

  Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,100

  No advice

  —

  Pollack VII

  17,000

  No advice

  —

  Saithe IIa, IIIb, c, d, NS

  87,000

  135,000

  +55.2

  Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  9,000

  13,000

  +44.4

  Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X

  5,600

  No advice

  —

  Turbot and brill IIa NS

  7,200

  No advice

  —

  Skate and rays IIa NS

  4,848

  No advice

  —

  Mackerel IIa(EC), III, IV

  625,000

  652,000

  +4.3

  Mackerel Ha (nonEC), Vb. VI, VII, VIIIabde, XII, XIV

  —

  —

  2DIV/0

  Sole II, NS

  19,000

  14,300

  -24.7

  Sole Vb, VI, XII, VIX

  140

  No advice

  —

  Sole VIIa

  1,100

  1,100

  Rollover

  Sole VIId

  4,600

  5,200

  +13.0

  Sole VIIe

  600

  450

  -25.0

  330W
  viability and (b) indicative quota for 2002 by (i) species and (ii) fishing area or zone. [15867]

  Mr. Morley
  In October the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) produced its latest assessment of the state of fish stocks in the north east Atlantic. A summary of the assessment and its possible implications for quota levels for 2002 of stocks of interest to the United Kingdom follows:
  331W

  DEFRA interpretation of ACFM advice for TACs for 2002

  Stock (species and ICES area)

  2001 TAC (tonnes)

  2002 TAC1

  TAC change from 2001 to 2002 (percentage)

  a

  b

  c

  d

  Sole VIIf g

  1,020

  1,000

  -2.0

  Sole VIIh, j, k

  650

  No advice

  —

  Sprat IIa, NS

  232,000

  225,000

  -3.0

  Sprat VIId, e

  12,000

  12,000

  Rollover

  Spurdog IIa, NS

  9,070

  No advice

  —

  Horse mackerel IIa, NS

  51,000

  18,000

  -64.7

  Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII, Villa, b, d, e, XII, XIV

  240,000

  98,000

  -59.2

  1 As recommended by ACFM (tonnes)

  2 TAC recommendation for first half of 2002 only. ICES will provide a

  3 Closure until a rebuilding plan is agreed

  Note:

  LPL—Lowest Possible Limit

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of progress in meeting the objectives of the cod recovery programme in the North sea. [15870]

  Mr. Morley
  Good progress has been made. Commission Regulation 259/2001 established areas which are closed to most types of fishing between 14 February and 30 April 2001 to allow the maximum possible number of cod to spawn. We will not be able to asses how successful this has been before spring 2003 when the cod spawned should be large enough to be found in significant numbers in ground fish surveys.

  The second part of the cod recovery plan puts in place a package of longer term technical conservation measures to promote recovery of North sea cod. These measures come into effect on 1 January 2002.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to extend the work of the(a) Irish Sea Management Committee, (b) cod recovery programme and (c) hake recovery programme. [15868]

  Mr. Morley
  We are not aware of an Irish Sea Management Committee. Fisheries are managed at European Union level under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

  The Government, with UK fishermen, played a significant role in reaching agreement within the EU on packages of measures to promote recovery of Irish sea, North sea and West of Scotland cod and Northern hake.

  We expect proposals shortly from the Commission for further measures on recovery of hake and cod and stand ready to play a full part in negotiating them.

  Rural Task Force
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the remit of the Rural Task Force. [16527]

  Alun Michael
  The Prime Minister gave the Task Force the following terms of reference when it was established in March 2001.
  332W

  "To consider the implications of outbreak of foot and mouth disease for rural economy, both immediately and in the longer term, and to report to the Prime Minister on appropriate measures. In particular to:

  identify the problems that the FMD outbreak is causing for the wider rural economy;

  draw up specific guidance for the public and businesses in accordance with veterinary advice;

  identify any initiatives—eg, from the Rural White Paper—whose implementation might be brought forward to help those caught up in the crises;

  identify potential new actions which would help to kick-start the rural economy again once the outbreak had been eradicated."

  These remain unchanged.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 306W, if she will make it her policy to send a copy of the Code of Practice on relationships between supermarkets and suppliers to all farmers and growers in Worcestershire after the agreement of the four major retailers to the code has been obtained. [16244]

  Mr. Morley
  As I noted in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 306W, the Code of Practice is available on the DTI website. Copies may also be obtained from the Department of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET. We have no plans to send copies to all farmers and growers in Worcestershire, relatively few of whom are likely to sell their produce directly to the supermarkets who will be bound by it.

  Dangerous Wild Animals Act
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent guidance she has issued to local authorities in respect of their powers and duties under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; [15391]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the (a) effectiveness and (b) use by the local authorities of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 in relation to the sale of animals subject to the Act. [15392]
  333W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]No recent guidance has been issued to local authorities in respect of their powers under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. However, my Department recently commissioned an independent review of the Act.

  A copy of the review report is on the Department's website and comments on it have been invited by 31 January 2002. Once this consultation exercise has been completed, we will publish a paper setting out how we intend to take forward the report's recommendations, which include proposals that additional guidance should be provided for local authorities, and that it should be an offence to sell, give or otherwise transfer responsibility for a dangerous wild animal to an unlicensed keeper.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government's CHP strategy will be published. [5186]

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government's CHP strategy will be published. [5765]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: We will be issuing a draft Government strategy for consultation by the end of this year.

  UK Fuel Poverty Strategy
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the final version of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy will be published. [17432]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy has been published today and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to provide door-to-door public transport services for those unable to walk to rural bus stops. [16584]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are specifically supporting the development of demand responsive, door-to-door transport services in rural areas, especially through DTLR's Rural Bus Challenge and the Countryside Agency's Rural Transport Partnership programme. The Rural White Paper published last year announced £92 million would be made available over the next three years to fund these two initiatives. Many of these services will also benefit as a result of the Government's intention to extend eligibility to receive fuel duty rebate to a wide range of community transport services. Following consultation earlier this year, regulations implementing this change will be introduced later this financial year.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of households in rural areas lived within 10 minutes walk of at least hourly bus services in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [15908]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.
  334W
  The proportion of households in rural areas within Great Britain living within about 10 minutes walk of a bus stop with at least an hourly service was:

  Year

  Percentage

  1992–94

  44

  1995–97

  41

  1998–2000

  50

  Trends should be treated with caution as sample sizes for rural areas are small, despite aggregation of data over a three year period.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received from residents of the Buckingham constituency(a) supporting and (b) opposing military action in Afghanistan. [16168]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since 11 September the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received over 6,000 letters about the terrorist attacks against the US and the subsequent situation in Afghanistan. Of these some 400 letters were addressed to the Foreign Secretary. The letters have addressed a wide range of different themes related to the current crisis. Each letter has received a reply.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown by constituency without incurring disproportionate cost.

  European Union
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a pan-Union referendum following the next Intergovernmental Conference. [14807]

  Peter Hain
  Treaty change is a matter for member states to decide by unanimity in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. In the United Kingdom, this involves a ratification procedure requiring legislation. It is right that Parliament should decide on the results the Government achieve at Intergovernmental Conferences.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the European Women's Lobby concerning(a) its campaign and (b) receiving EU funding. [14817]

  Peter Hain
  I have not received representations from the European Women's Lobby.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards a second chamber of the European Parliament. [14820]

  Peter Hain
  The Prime Minister has proposed that representatives of national parliaments be more involved in European matters through a Second Chamber of the
  335W
  European Parliament which could review the EU' s work and provide democratic oversight at a European level of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  The role of national parliaments in the European architecture is one of the agenda items for the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [14768]

  Mr. MacShane
  A steering group of senior officials was set up in August 2000 to oversee implementation of the FOI Act and a dedicated unit has been working on preparations to implement the Act.

  FCO officials meet regularly to review progress.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what powers individuals can be(a) prosecuted and (b) extradited for activities involving biological weapons. [13954]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: Individuals can be prosecuted under Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974. It is an offence for any person to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire or retain any biological agent or toxin where there is no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes. A person in possession of a biological weapon for terrorist purposes would also commit an offence under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The United Kingdom has extradition arrangements with well over 100 countries. In most cases, a crime is extraditable if the available prison sentence in the United Kingdom and in the requesting jurisdiction is 12 months or more.

  EU Documents (Security Classification)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the requirements for EU documents to receive security classification, broken down by security grade. [15172]

  Peter Hain
  EU information may be classified at the following levels:

  TRES SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET

  SECRET UE

  CONFIDENTIEL UE

  RESTREINT UE.

  The criteria for classification are laid down in the Council Decision concerning the adoption of the Council Security Regulations (Council Decision No. 2001/264/EU adopted on 19 March 2001).

  The criteria are:

  1. TRES SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET: This classification shall be applied only to information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could cause exceptionally grave prejudice to the essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its member states.

  336W

  2. SECRET UE: This classification shall be applied only to information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could seriously harm the essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its member states.

  3. CONFIDENTIEL UE: This classification shall be applied to information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could harm the essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its member states.

  4. RESTREINT UE: This classification shall be applied to information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which could be disadvantageous to the interests of the European Union or of one or more of its member states.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made regarding the role of an elite police unit in Trebos, Macedonia, during its recent deployment. [15609]

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the deaths of three Macedonian soldiers near the village of Trebos, Macedonia, on 11 November. [15405]

  Mr. MacShane
  Three Macedonian policemen were killed near Trebos, Macedonia, on 11 November. This incident shows that the security situation remains delicate. We continue to urge all parties to show restraint, not to return to violence, and to co-ordinate and co-operate fully with the OSCE and NATO to ensure successful and peaceful redeployment of Macedonian security forces.

  International War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been charged with offences before the International War Crimes Tribunal; and how many have been(a) convicted and (b) acquitted. [15335]

  Peter Hain
  There are two International Criminal Tribunals, that for former Yugoslavia in The Hague (ICTY), and that for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania (ICTR).

  At ICTY, 61 indictees have appeared in proceedings before the tribunal. Twenty-five have been convicted, two acquitted, three have had convictions overturned on appeal, 17 are at pre-trial stage, seven on trial, three awaiting sentencing judgment and one awaiting judgment.

  At ICTR, 52 indictees have appeared in proceedings before the tribunal. Nine have been convicted, none have been acquitted or had convictions overturned on appeal, 26 are at the pre-trial stage and 17 currently on trial.

  These statistics and further information are available on the Tribunals' websites at www.un.org.icty and www.ictr.org.

  The United Kingdom ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in New York, on 4 October 2001, being the 42nd state to do so. Forty-six states have now ratified. The court will be established immediately following the 60th ratification. It will not have retrospective jurisdiction.

  Solomon Islands
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he
  337W
  has made of preparations for the forthcoming elections in the Solomon Islands; and if he will make a statement on relations with the Solomon Islands. [15603]

  Mr. MacShane
  Preparations for the elections scheduled for 5 December are being co-ordinated by the Solomon Islands Electoral Commission and are progressing well. International donors (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan and the EU) have contributed SI$18.2 million towards the costs of holding the elections, of which the UK has provided £60,000. Our contribution has included providing a co-ordinator to assist the Electoral Commission, deploying international peace monitors/observers, and funding an educational group to tour the country to explain voting procedures. After the election we plan to fund parliamentary workshops for the new MPs.

  Bilateral relations with the Solomon Islands are good. In addition to electoral assistance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assistance to the Solomon Islands has included projects to strengthen the judiciary, the police, promote good governance, and protect the environment.

  Tuvalu
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Tuvalu. [15605]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Pacific Island state of Tuvalu has been an independent realm within the Commonwealth since October 1978. Our relations with Tuvalu, which stretch back well over a hundred years, are warm and friendly.

  Tuvalu consists of a small group of low-lying coral atolls. Potential rises in sea-levels around the world are therefore of considerable concern to the people of Tuvalu.

  The United Kingdom shares Tuvalu's concerns about climate change and the effect that this is having on sea levels. We have played a leading role in encouraging a global response to climate change, and final agreement was reached on 10 November in Marrakech on a set of detailed rules for implementing the Kyoto Protocol. This gives countries the certainty they need to ratify Kyoto, and start making real reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made by(a) Hungary, (b) Poland, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Cyprus, (e) Slovenia, (f) Malta, (g) Lithuania, (h) Estonia, (i) Latvia, (j) Slovakia, (k) Romania and (l) Bulgaria in their respective accession processes to the European Union. [15396]

  Peter Hain
  All candidates in negotiations have made steady progress towards accession. Of the 31 chapters into which the acquis are divided, Cyprus has closed the most (23) and Romania the least (8). Overall, since the beginning of the year, the candidates in negotiations have provisionally closed 74 chapters. This year's Commission Regular Reports, detailing the candidates' progress 338W
  towards meeting the obligations of EU membership, were published on 13 November. They can be accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index.htm.

  Conflict Diamonds (al-Qaeda)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on links between Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the conflict diamonds trade in Sub-Saharan Africa. [15406]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of al-Qaeda in the illicit trade in diamonds in Sierra Leone. [16232]

  Peter Hain
  Two stories have recently appeared in the media alleging links between Osama Bin Laden and the trade in illicit diamonds. There is little doubt that terrorist organisations, like other criminal groups, have over the years, traded in illicit diamonds to generate funds for their activities. The Kimberley Process was designed to devise a way to break the link between the illicit diamond trade and armed conflict. Urgent completion of its work on an international certification scheme for rough diamonds would also help curb other illegal sales, including those which fund terrorists.

  11 September (British Victims)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list known British victims of the terrorist attacks of 11 September. [15664]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To date, four British nationals, and one foreign national with a close connection to the United Kingdom, have been positively identified as among the dead.

  A further 72 people are on our list of possible victims of the terrorist attacks. This number includes 54 British nationals, five dual nationals and 13 foreign nationals with close links to the United Kingdom. The police are checking meticulously all reports of missing people and the final number of victims could still change.

  It would be an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the families of the victims to list the names here. We must respect the wish of the families for privacy in their time of grief.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) number and (b) impact of refugees from Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the situation in Tanzania. [16154]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At the end of October, the number of refugees in camps in Tanzania under the aegis of UNHCR totalled 481,000. Of these 346,000 were from Burundi; 110,000 from the Democratic Republic of Congo; and 25,000 from Rwanda. A further 170,000 Burundian refugees are assimilated into the local community and living in villages in Tanzania.
  339W
  The main impact on Tanzania of these refugees has been instability and increased criminality in border areas (where most of the camps are located), increased pressure on Tanzania's infrastructure and resources, and environmental degradation (especially deforestation).

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to encourage the Government of Sudan to promote human rights for all its citizens. [15855]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned about the human rights of all in Sudan and we regularly urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. 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. We make representations about our human rights concerns both bilaterally and with our EU colleagues through the renewed EU/Sudan dialogue. The dialogue provides a forum for strong criticism of the Sudanese Government, and allows for a co-ordinated EU assessment of the human rights situation. We also work with our EU colleagues in the UN fora to keep our concerns on the international agenda. For example, the EU sponsored a resolution on Sudan at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Mrs. Nawani, Bombay, case reference AP/01/05/158. [16043]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I understand that the Joint Entry Clearance Unit wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 November.

  British Dependent Territories
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 744W, if he will list the British Dependent Territories whose citizens (a) already enjoy the grant of British citizenship, (b) qualify to enjoy the grant of British citizenship and also enjoy the rights to reside and work in the United Kingdom and (c) do not qualify for the grant of British citizenship; and what the population of each of the British Dependent Overseas Territories is. [16750]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs) of the Falkland Islands (pop. 2,200) have already been granted British citizenship, and those of Gibraltar (pop. 27,200) have the right to apply for British citizenship. The British Overseas Territories Bill will not affect the position of Falkland Islanders. It will make automatic the grant of British citizenship to BDTCs from Gibraltar.

  The Bill will confer British citizenship on all other BDTCs except those who owe their status solely to their connection with the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus. Apart from the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, the qualifying Territories are Anguilla (pop. 11,900), Bermuda (pop. 61,500) British Antarctic Territory (no permanent population), British Indian Ocean Territory (no permanent population), British Virgin Islands
  340W
  (pop. 19,100), Cayman Islands (pop. 36,600), Montserrat (pop. 4,500), Pitcairn Islands (pop. 54), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (no permanent population), St. Helena and Dependencies (pop. 6,400), Turks and Caicos Islands (pop. 20,000). All those who become British citizens under the provisions of the Bill will enjoy the rights of abode and employment in the United Kingdom which flow from British citizenship.

  All population figures taken from the 1999 White Paper "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity".

  Trade Liberalisation
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work has been undertaken by Government officials with the LOTIS Committee and the LOTIS Group on NGO objections to the liberalisation of trade in services. [15653]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The LOTIS Committee of International Financial Services, London, an independent private sector body, earlier this year produced a public response to NGO concerns about liberalisation of trade in services and the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services. Government officials, in their capacity as invited observers, offered the Committee comments, as they have to other NGOs on their work on this and other issues.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [17163]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit will be working with DEFRA and other Departments to review the Government's strategy for waste. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be the Sponsor Minister. The study will commence in December this year and report in the summer of 2002.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister how many appointments to public bodies he has made(a) between 1 May 1997 and 7 June 2001 and (b) since 7 June 2001; and how many are in his gift. [15478]

  The Prime Minister
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are 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.

  Between 1 May 1997 and 7 June 2001 I made 249 appointments, including re-appointments, to public bodies. Since 7 June 2001 I have made 12 appointments, including re-appointments, to public bodies.
  341W
  There are approximately 315 appointments within the Prime Minister's gift to public bodies.

  Chemical Weapons
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to(a) India, (b) Russia, (c) South Korea and (d) the USA on reducing their declared stockpiles of chemical weapons. [16688]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chemical Weapons Convention requires states which have declared possession of chemical weapons to submit plans on ratification for the total destruction of their stockpiles, by 29 April 2007, in accordance with Article 3 of the convention. These plans are subject to review and approval by the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), of which the UK is a member. The UK takes every opportunity, both through the OPCW Executive Council and on a bilateral basis, to maintain pressure on the declared possessors to meet their CW destruction obligations.

  Lord Birt and Lord Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to improve the public accountability of(a) Lord Birt and (b) Lord Levy; if he will take steps to enable them to answer parliamentary questions in relation to their duties; and if he will make a statement. [15887]

  The Prime Minister
  For details of Lord Birt's role, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, columns 313–14W. For details of Lord Levy's role, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 9 July 2001, Official Report, column 350W. Both advisers are accountable to Ministers who are accountable to Parliament. I have no plans to change this practice.

  Delivery Unit
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the targets selected from current departmental public service agreements which are being monitored by the Delivery Unit in(a) health, (b) education, (c) transport and (d) law and order, stating in each case (i) relevant performance measures and (ii) the date by which the target is to be met. [15136]

  The Prime Minister
  The Delivery Unit works closely with HMT to help Departments deliver PSAs on crime, health, education and transport which are already in the public domain.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many meetings of the British-Irish Council there have been since December 1999, broken down by meeting format; and what subjects were discussed at each meeting. [14525]
  342W
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  British-Irish Council meetings have taken placed on the following occasions:

  17 December 1999, British-Irish Council Summit. London

  2 October 2000, British-Irish Council ministerial meeting on the environment, London

  6 October 2000, officials meeting on drugs, Dublin

  16 November 2000, officials meeting on social inclusion, London

  16 November 2000, officials meeting on the knowledge economy

  4 December 2000, officials meeting on transport, Belfast

  19 December 2000, British-Irish Council ministerial meeting on transport. Belfast

  23 January 2001, officials meeting on the environment (climate change), London

  28–29 March 2001, officials meeting on the environment (climate change), Oxford

  29 March 2001, officials meeting on the knowledge economy, Jersey

  13 September, officials meeting on drugs, Dublin.

  Ministerial meetings

  The inaugural summit adopted an initial list of issues which would be suitable for the council to work together. These were provided on 12 January 2000, Official Report, columns 200–01W.

  The meeting of Environment Ministers on 2 October 2000 discussed ways in which the administrations could work together on environmental issues. The council considered the conclusions of the OSPAR Regional Quality Status Report on the Celtic Seas and reviewed the arrangements already in place for inter-governmental action to follow up those conclusions.

  The meeting of Transport Ministers on 19 December 2000 had a wide-ranging discussion covering various aspects of transport. The council identified a list of transport issues where members of the council could share their knowledge and experience, including public-private partnerships, the size and pattern of future transport demand, the development of sustainable transport policies, and programmes to improve road and rail safety. The on-going review of the implementation of the Transport Trans European Network was also identified as an area where they could work together. They also considered practical measures which could be taken to increase co-operation in relation to the road transport industry.

  Officials' meetings

  The officials' meetings dealt with the substantive business in relevant sectoral areas for forthcoming ministerial meetings including drafting papers and pursuing individual work topics. In addition senior officials form all of the Administrations have met from time to time to discuss British-Irish Council progress and procedures.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6905]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not held in the form requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  343W
  All special advisers are appointed under the terms of the model contract for special advisers. At 1 November 2001, there were 81 special advisers in post across all Departments. Figures for the years since 1995–96 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  38

  1996–97

  38

  1997–98

  70

  1998–99

  74

  1999–2000

  78

  2000–01

  79

  Information about the number of press officers working in the Cabinet Office Press Office for the period from 1996–97 to 1998–99 is contained in Appendix 10 of the Report on the Government Information and Communication Service by the Public Administration Select Committee dated 29 July 1998. Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of the House. On 1 January 2000, there were 20 press officers in the Cabinet Office Press Office; at 1 January 2001, there were 16, and there are currently 18.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children and Young People Strategy
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the consultation document on the Government's new strategy for children and young people. [16829]

  Mr. Denham
  When the Prime Minister set up the Children and Young People's Unit last year he asked it to develop and articulate a new overarching strategy for all children and young people.

  Today, the Government are launching "Building a Strategy for Children and Young People: A consultation document" which sets out the Government's plans for a new vision and principles for the development of services for all children and young people, on which future Government investments will be based.

  Full copies of the consultation pack are available in the Library.

  Investors in People (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which companies located in the Buckingham constituency received Investors in People awards in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [14909]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis.

  Companies recognised as Investors in People in the town of Buckingham are as follows.
  344W

  Year

  Company

  1997–98

  Royal Latin School Hempton Fields, Nursing Home

  1998–99

  Fraser Associates plc Buckingham Middle School Buckingham School (London Road)

  1999–2000

  Assembly Technology and Test Ltd. Royal Latin School Hempton Fields, Nursing Home

  2000–01

  Page Hall Infants School

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on average class sizes in secondary schools in Buckinghamshire local education authority in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [15768]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average class sizes 1: maintained secondary schools

  Average class size

  January each year

  Buckinghamshire LEA

  England

  1998

  21.0

  21.7

  1999

  21.6

  21.9

  2000

  22.2

  22.0

  2001

  21.6

  22.0

  1 Classes taught by one teacher.

  The average size of a secondary class in Buckinghamshire is below the national average and improved in January 2001 after rising for the last two years.

  Statemented Pupils
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the expenditure on statemented pupils in the last five years was in(a) Durham and (b) England excluding pupils in special schools. [16257]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the guidance for schools advising them how to apply for specialist school status in maths and computing; and what the core aims at such specialist schools will be. [16561]

  Mr. Timms
  Guidance setting out the criteria for specialist school applications in mathematics and computing has been published and is available to interested schools on request or by accessing the DfES website at http://www.dfee.gov.uk/specschl/. As for other specialist schools, the aims of Mathematics and Computing Colleges are to: raise standards of achievement, particularly in the specialist subjects, for all pupils; extend the range of opportunities available to students which best meet their needs and interests; raise standards of teaching and learning
  345W
  in the specialist subjects; develop within the schools characteristics which signal their changed ethos; benefit other schools and the wider community and strengthen the links between schools and private or charitable sector sponsors.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) name, (b) character, (c) date of designation, (d) agreed targets for each year within the period of designation and (e) unmet targets to date are of each designated specialist school or college in

  Specialist schools in specified local education authorities as at 20 November 2001

  LEA/name

  Specialism

  Character

  Designated September

  (i) West Berkshire

  Denefield School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Kennet School

  Technology

  Community

  2000

  Park House School

  Sports

  Community

  1998

  Theale Green Community School

  Arts

  Community

  1997

  Trinity School

  Arts

  Community

  2001

  Willink School (The)

  Language

  Community

  1996

  (ii) Hounslow, London borough of

  Cranford Community High School

  Language

  Community

  1997

  St. Mark's Catholic School

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  1998

  (iii) Oxfordshire

  Bicester Community College

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Didcot Girls' High School

  Language

  Community

  1997

  Henry Box School (The)

  Language

  Community

  2001

  King Alfred's School

  Sports

  Community

  1999

  Lord Williams's School

  Sports

  Voluntary Controlled

  2001

  Peers School

  Technology

  Community

  1995

  St. Birinus School

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Wheatley Park School

  Arts

  Community

  2000

  (iv) Wandsworth

  Chestnut Grove School

  Arts

  Community

  1997

  Elliott School

  Language

  Foundation

  1997

  Ernest Bevin School

  Sports

  Community

  2000

  Graveney School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1995

  Southfields Community College

  Sports

  Foundation

  2000

  (v) Hillingdon

  Bishopshalt School

  Arts

  Foundation

  1998

  Haydon School

  Language

  Foundation

  1997

  Queensmead School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1999

  (vi) Cornwall

  Callington School

  Sports

  Community

  2000

  Fowey Community School

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Hayle Community School

  Language

  Community

  2001

  Helston School and Community College

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Launceston College

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Newquay Tretherras School

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Penrice Community School

  Language

  Community

  1997

  Penryn College

  Sports

  Community

  1998

  Poltair Community School

  Sports

  Community

  1997

  Redruth Comprehensive School

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Richard Lander School

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  St. Ives School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  (vii) Camden, London borough of

  Acland Burghley School

  Arts

  Community

  2000

  Hampstead School

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Parliament Hill School

  Technology

  Community

  1999

  William Ellis School

  Language

  Voluntary Aided

  1997

  346W
  (i) West Berkshire, (ii) Hounslow, (iii) Oxfordshire, (iv) Wandsworth, (v) Hillingdon, (vi) Cornwall, (vii) Camden, (viii) Milton Keynes, (ix) Wokingham, (x) Hackney, (xi) Dorset and (xii) Bournemouth. [16759]

  Mr. Timms
  The information on the names of specialist schools, their character and the year in which they were designated as specialist schools in each of the named authorities is given in the following table. Information on the targets agreed with each school and targets which have not been met cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.
  347W

  Specialist schools in specified local education authorities as at 20 November 2001

  LEA/name

  Specialism

  Character

  Designated September

  (viii) Milton Keynes

  Denbigh School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1997

  Leon School

  Sports

  Community

  1998

  Lord Grey School

  Language

  Foundation

  1998

  Stantonbury Campus North

  Arts

  Foundation

  1999

  (ix) Wokingham

  Holt School (The)

  Language

  Community

  1999

  Piggott School (The)

  Language

  Voluntary Controlled

  2001

  (x) Hackney, London borough of

  Clapton Girls' Technology College

  Technology

  Community

  1999

  Haggerston School

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Homerton College of Technology

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Our Lady's Convent High School

  Language

  Voluntary Aided

  1999

  Stoke Newington School

  Arts

  Community

  2001

  (xi) Dorset

  Beaminster School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Budmouth Technology College

  Technology

  Foundation

  1995

  Highcliffe School

  Language

  Foundation

  2000

  Lytchett Minister School

  Arts

  Community

  2001

  Shaftesbury School

  Sports

  Voluntary Controlled

  1999

  Sir John Colfox School

  Language

  Community

  1999

  Twynham School

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Westfield School

  Technology

  Foundation Special

  2000

  (xii) Bournemouth

  Bournemouth School

  Language

  Foundation

  2000

  Oakmead School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  St. Peter's School

  Arts

  Voluntary Aided

  2000

  Early Years Excellence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, (1) pursuant to her answer of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 539W, what criteria were used in deciding which new early excellence centres should be designated; [16600]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 12 November 2001, Official Report, column 539W, if she will consider the proposal from Somerford Infant School as part of the next batch of early excellence centres designated; [16601]

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 12 November 2001, Official Report, column 539W, if she will list those applicants who have been invited to develop their plans further; [16602]

  (4) pursuant to her answer of 12 November 2001, Official Report, column 539W, on early years excellence, on what grounds the proposal for a centre at Somerford Infant School was considered not yet ready to join the programme; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the proposal and details of its invitation to the school to develop its plans further; [16603]

  (5) pursuant to her answer of 12 November 2001, Official Report, column 539W, on early years excellence, how many expressions of interest there were in joining the early excellence centres programme. [16604]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: Criteria and detailed requirements for joining the Early Excellence Centre (EEC) programme are set out in guidance issued by the Department. Guidance issued in
  348W
  February provided the framework for designations made so far this year. Additional guidance was issued on 5 October. The core activities of the programme which all centres are expected to deliver, or have well advanced and convincing plans to develop, remain unchanged and are as follows:
  good quality integrated early education and daycare for children 0 to five requiring centre-based extended-day and extended-year provision;
  parental and carer involvement in the education and care of children, eg schemes for family learning, developing parenting skills, raising parents' expectations and in other ways;
  support services for children and parents and carers of children, eg health, counselling and information services, home support, drop-in facilities;
  effective early identification and intervention for children in need and children with special educational needs, with a view to improving children's prospects and, wherever appropriate, achieving inclusion in mainstream provision;
  access to adult education and training by parents of young children and other adults, including those seeking skills and qualifications for employment;
  raising standards of integrated early years provision among other early years providers, including voluntary and private providers, childminders and other carers, by contributing to the training and development strategy of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership and through the development and dissemination of good practice.

  Decisions on designations also take into account links with other Government programmes, geographical coverage, support of key partners, especially the local Early Years and Childcare Development Partnership (EYCDP), and commitment to multi-agency working.
  349W
  The Department received 135 expressions of interest following the issue of the February guidance and 14 new centres were announced on 1 October. Officials are continuing to work closely with a further nine centres in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Wigan, Peterborough, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire and Bury, on the basis of expressions of interest received in response to the February guidance. A further 93 expressions of interest in joining the programme have been received since additional guidance was issued in October.

  Somerford Infant School's expression of interest in the EEC programme was submitted in response to the guidance issued in February. It was closely linked to emerging local proposals for the development of a Neighbourhood Nursery, but did not meet the requirements set out in the guidance for joint Neighbourhood Nursery/Early Excellence Centre schemes. Neither did it provide sufficient coverage of the core activities or relate them sufficiently well to the wider strategy of the EYCDP.

  The Department wrote to the school inviting it to develop its plans further. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library. The additional guidance issued in October indicates that those invited to do further development work should submit a fresh expression of interest taking into account feedback received. The guidance included full contact details for relevant officials at the Department and encouraged partners to make contact with them for further information.

  The Department has not received a further expression of interest from Somerford Infant School. To continue to develop its interest in the programme the school should contact officials at the Department who will be most willing to discuss it with them.

  Fast-Track Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which company was awarded the contract to run the Fast-Track Teacher Recruitment Scheme; what the cost and duration of the contract is; what the agreed recruitment targets for each year of the contract were; how the company was chosen; and what the criteria are for success and best value. [16698]

  Mr. Timms
  Following a competitive tender exercise the contract for assessing Fast-Track applicants was let to a consortium headed by Interactive Skills on 2 October 2000. The cost of the contract in Financial Year 2000–01 was £2,375,081. The contract covers a three-year period, with an option for a two-year extension. Selection is done against standards and not to quota. Main criteria for success are delivery to time and within budget of: (i) a high quality multi-stage selection process which will successfully identify those applicants who meet the competencies and values laid down in the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No.7) Order 2001; (ii) relevant application brochures, website, forms and guidance to a high professional standard; (iii) a cycle of continuous review and improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of the activities of the consortium.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost was for each existing fast-track student of recruiting them to the Fast-Track Teacher Recruitment scheme; and what the total cost was for students recruited through the programme. [16697]
  350W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department for Education and Skills spent £4.6 million on the Fast-Track Programme in the last financial year 2000–01, the first year of its existence. This long-term investment supported (i) a national recruitment campaign which raised public awareness of the programme, established a credible presence at the upper end of the highly competitive graduate recruitment market, and attracted 1,574 applications; (ii) the design, development and implementation of a very high quality assessment and selection process which resulted in the offer of 135 places in the first round to potential future leaders of the profession; and (iii) the initial cost of setting-up enhanced Fast-Track Initial Teacher Training.

  Online Centres
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many UK online centres in each constituency are to be funded by level 3 Capital Modernisation Fund; [10757]

  (2) when she will provide an answer to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge on 24 October about the number of UK online centres in each constituency. [16838]

  John Healey
  A table showing the UK online centres to be funded by the third phase of the Capital Modernisation Fund by constituency has been placed in the Library.

  The total of UK online centres funded by the third phase will produce a further 1,116 centres across England, covering 63 per cent. of constituencies throughout England.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Attendance Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has held with the Scottish Executive concerning continued payment of attendance allowance to those recipients who will become eligible for free personal care in Scotland from April 2002. [9742]

  Maria Eagle
  My right hon. Friend discussed this matter with the Scottish First Minister on a number of occasions.

  ONE Pilot Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of cases of violence against staff working in the ONE pilot offices. [14039]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From June 1999 to date, there were five cases of physical assault on members of our staff.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many payments by absent parents have been written off as irrecoverable in the last 12 months; what the average and upper decile value of such payments are; and how many payments are in the upper decile. [14360]
  351W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 20 November 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Child Support Agency.
  Mr. Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  You asked how many payments by Non resident parents have been written off as irrecoverable by the Child Support Agency in the last 12 months.
  The Child Support Agency does not write off child support maintenance debt. Section 30 of the Child Support Act 1991 allows the Secretary of State to decide when and how to collect and enforce maintenance but it does not allow him to dissolve that debt.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which organisations have responded to the consultation documents on(a) the pension credit and (b) invalid care allowance. [15145]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 400 responses were received to the Pension Credit formal consultation exercise "The Pension Credit: a consultation paper", Cm4900, November 2000, many welcoming our proposals. We continue to consider views and work closely with groups representing older people to deliver a modernised and dedicated service to meet pensioner needs. We will be announcing our response to the Pension Credit consultation in due course.

  40 responses were received to the formal consultation exercise on Invalid Care Allowance which took place between 23 July and 15 October. The majority welcomed our proposals. A summary of the responses will be published on our website and the cabinet office website at the same time as the proposals are introduced into Parliament for Scrutiny.

  Pensions (British Citizens Overseas)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many British citizens living abroad are in receipt of the British state retirement pension. [15338]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are about 866,300 pensioners living abroad in receipt of a UK state retirement pension.

  Notes:

  1. 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2001

  2. Figures have been rounded to nearest hundred.

  3. Figure is not confined to British nationals. UK retirement pension is paid to those who satisfy the relevant conditions

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) in the start of the financial year and (b) to date. [16764]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At the start of the financial year the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Expenditure Limit included £322 million awaiting allocation from the Welfare Modernisation Fund and a352W
  Departmental Unallocated Provision of £56.088 million. To date there has been no change to these unallocated amounts.

SCOTLAND

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on putting before the Scottish Parliament the changes proposed in the confiscation provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill in so far as they relate to Scotland. [16789]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None. This is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on proposed changes to the Proceeds of Crime Bill. [16787]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have liaised with the Deputy First Minister and the Lord Advocate on the Scottish provisions in the Bill, including the changes being considered for Part III.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken by her Department to ascertain the views of the Scottish Parliament on the changes proposed to the confiscation provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill in so far as they relate to Scotland. [16788]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have liaised closely with the Scottish Executive Ministers and officials, but liaison with the Scottish Parliament is clearly a matter for the Scottish Executive to consider.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  GHB
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reclassify gamma hydroxy butyrate as a drug; and what recent representations he has received on this issue. [14289]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Following the decision of the United Nations to control gamma hydroxy butyrate (GHB) under Schedule IV of the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) met on 8 November to consider the drug's classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I await their advice.

  I have received a number of letters from members of the public, and some from hon. Members, expressing concern about the misuse of GHB.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his timetable is for the implementation of the recommendations of his Department's consultation paper entitled, "Setting the boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences". [14453]
  353W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The recommendations of the Sex Offences Review to Government on reforming the law on sex offences were published in "Setting the Boundaries" in July 2000. We are currently considering the recommendations in the light of the over 700 responses to that consultation document. We will announce our conclusions and proposals for legislation once we have completed our consideration.

  Passports (Confiscation)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 315W, on passports, whether clear evidence of a proposed intention to go to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban or al-Qaeda is sufficient to demonstrate the undesirability of the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities on grounds of public interest; and if he will make a statement. [14818]

  Angela Eagle
  As indicated in my answer of 7 November, a passport may be withdrawn from a person whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest. On the face of it, a clearly stated intention to fight directly against British interests would justify withdrawal of passport facilities on public interest grounds. Any case would be carefully considered on its individual merits.

  Gulf War (Detentions)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Iraqis and (b) other persons of middle eastern origin were detained during the Gulf war as potential threats to national security; and how many were subsequently (i) deported, (ii) charged with any offence, (iii) released without charge and (iv) compensated. [14296]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Sixty-eight Iraqis and nine Palestinians were detained as threats to national security during the Gulf war. No Iraqis or "people of middle-eastern origin" were deported, although a number of Iraqis left of their own accord on receipt of the Home Secretary's notice of intention to deport. None was charged with an offence. All were released without charge following the conclusion of the war.

  Riot Policing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on establishing closer co-operation across the European Union in the field of riot policing. [15158]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  During the Belgian Presidency, officials of European Union member states (EU), including the European Police Chiefs Task Force, have held meetings to take forward the Conclusions of the Special Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 July. This Council had considered security at European Summits and other major European Union events, following the disorder at the Gothenburg European Summit.
  354W
  Discussions centred around building on existing police and judicial co-operation in this area, through the establishment of national contact points, to ensure enhanced exchange of information and effective co-operation before major events at which public order problems are anticipated.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are being followed in respect of awarding the contract for smart cards for asylum seekers. [16054]

  Angela Eagle
  There is no new contract for the Application Registration Card application. This will be an expansion of the existing Immigration and Asylum Fingerprint System as allowed under the original terms of the associated Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC) Notice of 30 November 1999. Compatibility with this system is essential, as existing equipment will be used to check the cards. Procurement will be effected by way of a Change Control Notice to the existing contract.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the value of the contract for providing smart cards for asylum seekers. [16053]

  Angela Eagle
  The price for changing the existing Immigration and Asylum Fingerprint System contract has yet to be fixed. Budgetary estimates do exist but these could not be published without compromising our negotiating position with suppliers.

  It is not normal practice to place budgetary estimates in the public domain.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have been returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1 May 1997. [15821]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The available information relates to the nationality of persons removed. Published statistics show that 60 nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo who had sought asylum at some stage were removed from the United Kingdom in 1997 and 20 in 1998. A breakdown of the nationality of persons removed in 1999 to 2001 is not available due to data recording problems; these problems are being investigated and it is hoped that nationality information will be available at some stage in the future.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum were waiting to be heard on 1 February 2000. [15749]

  Angela Eagle
  There were 121,700 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision on 31 January 2000. This figure has been revised from 103,495 after a manual count of all asylum cases, and is rounded to the nearest hundred. A physical count was ordered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure the reliability of the statistics. Problems with the backlog figures had arisen from an accumulation of errors since
  355W
  the last manual count of outstanding asylum applications in 1996. The comparable figure for 31 August 2001 was 43,100.

  Information on the number of cases awaiting an initial decision is published regularly on the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.htm.

  Heroin
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places are available in(a) residential and (b) other centres for the treatment of heroin addiction. [16022]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are approximately 3,100 residential places available across England for those requiring treatment for substance misuse problems. Although the majority of these places will be taken up by opiate users, they are also for those addicted to other drugs. It is therefore not possible to estimate how many of these places are taken up by heroin addicts.

  As far as non-residential centres are concerned there are approximately 450 drug services across the country. As these centres respond to different levels of demand at different times it is not possible to put a figure on the number of places they provide.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many addicts are receiving methadone replacement treatment for heroin addiction. [16023]

  Figures on the number of heroin users by area and data source

  Area

  Year

  Data source

  Estimate

  Great Britain

  2000

  DMD1

  25,000 new episodes of treatment in 6 months

  Northern Ireland

  2000–01

  DMD2

  47 users reporting to agencies in 12 months

  Northern Ireland

  2000

  Addicts Index3

  233 users registered

  England and Wales

  2000

  BCS4

  46,000 users in the past year and 18,000 in the last month (by 16-to 24-year-olds)

  United Kingdom

  1996

  Research report5

  162, 544 to 243, 820 problematic users

  1 Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for six months ending September 2000. National Statistics/Department of Health Statistical Bulletin 2001 18 June.

  2 Northern Ireland Drug Misuse Database. Progress Report and Initial Findings 2000–01. Drug and Alcohol Information and Research Unit, September 2001.

  3 Northern Ireland Drug Addicts' Statistical Information Bulletin, 31 December 2000.

  4 Drug misuse declared in 2000: results from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study 224.

  5 Frishcer M, Hickman M, Kraus L, Mariani F and Wiessing L (2001) A comparison of different methods for estimating the prevalence of problematic drug misuse in Great Britain. Addiction, 96, 1465–1476.

  Overseas Adoption
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries from which young children up to the age of five years were allowed entry into the United Kingdom for legal adoption by citizens of the United Kingdom in the last three years. [15750]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the number of children admitted to the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption is not currently available.

  The information that is available covers the number of children up to the age of five years given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of adoption. This number excludes those children given limited leave to remain and who are subsequently adopted through the United Kingdom courts, becoming British citizens on the date that the final adoption order is made.
  356W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Since the Home Office Addicts Index closed in 1997, the Regional Drug Misuse Databases (RDMDs) have been the main source of information on people presenting to drug treatment services with a drug problem. During the six month period ending 30 September 2000, around 21,200 people were reported to the RDMDs in England as presenting for treatment with heroin recorded as their main drug of misuse. Around 6,200 of these people were reported as being prescribed methadone for treatment at the time they presented; other heroin users may subsequently have been prescribed methadone.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the number of heroin users in the UK. [16202]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drug misuse databases (DMDs) are the main source of information on the number of heroin users. These databases report on the number of persons presenting to drug treatment services. Data are not available for the whole of the United Kingdom, but separate figures for Great Britain and Northern Ireland are provided here. In addition, the British Crime Survey (BCS) 2000 calculated a population estimate for 16 to 24-year-old heroin users in England and Wales. There has also been a recent research report published by academics that estimates the number of problematic opiate users in the United Kingdom.

  The table provides a summary of estimates from different parts of the United Kingdom by various methods.

  A total of around 20 adopted children up to the age of five were given indefinite leave to remain in 2000. The corresponding totals for 1999 and 1998 were 10 and 20 respectively. The nationalities of the children were:

  Brazil

  Chile

  China

  Guatemala

  Hong Kong

  India

  Jamaica

  Kenya

  Lebanon

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  St. Lucia

  357W

  South Africa

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Ukraine

  United States of America

  Vietnam

  Zimbabwe.

  There were fewer than 10 cases for each nationality.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 25 September from the hon. Member for Putney with regard to his constituent Mrs. Kulsoom Begum Gill (Refs. G339000 and B523773). [14938]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 November 2001. I am sorry I did not send an earlier reply.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to secure a substantive reply from the National Asylum Support Service reference IMG/01247/1385/587 in relation to the letters of 18 October and 8 November from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central regarding his constituent Mrs. H. A. F. [16317]

  Angela Eagle
  An official from the National Asylum Support Service responded to my hon. Friend on 16 November.

  Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with work on the perimeter fencing at Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution. [16316]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest position is that the work is scheduled to begin in March 2002, and will take approximately one year to complete. In the meantime, young prisoners requiring the highest level of physical security are not being held at Aylesbury.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the healthcare centre at Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution. [16312]

  Beverley Hughes
  The health care centre is under used because of the success of the strategy for treating prisoners on the wings. The Governor is examining a range of options for converting part of the health care centre for other accommodation or activity uses.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his response to the annual report for 2000–01 of the board of visitors of Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution. [16314]

  Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the Chair of the Board on 13 November 2001 and I am placing a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Sentencing Review
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results of the public consultation on the review of sentencing. [15021]
  358W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  "Making Punishments Work", the report of a review of the sentencing framework undertaken by John Halliday—and known as the Halliday report—was published on 5 July and responses were invited by 31 October. The report was sent to a large number of individuals and organisations and a series of meetings were held with members of the public and representatives of the judiciary and other bodies to encourage consideration of the report and obtain views.

  In order to encourage wider public involvement in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, launched the Fairer Sentencing website which contained a quiz, a facility to e-mail views and an on-line debating provision. In addition debate was stimulated in local, regional and national media and hon. Members were encouraged to initiate discussion in their constituencies. A number of conferences have also been convened.

  The level of interest and response has been considerable. Over 120 detailed responses have been received from individuals or organisations with connections to the criminal justice system and even more from members of the public by letter or e-mail or through the debating channel. In addition, the website received 33,482 page hits, the home page was visited 5,831 times, 2,839 copies of the layman's summary of the Halliday review were downloaded, 1,171 copies of the Home Secretary's speech on sentencing reform were downloaded and 1,226 people completed the quiz on the website. This has been a unique opportunity to hold a public consultation on the point of sentencing and many members of the public have offered their own suggestions and alternatives.

  There has been almost unanimous support for the need for change to the present sentencing framework, accompanied by a strong message that the change should be done well, properly resourced and then allowed to stand the test of time. There has also been broad support for the general thrust of the proposals, in particular the need for radical changes in the approach to short prison sentences. There is widespread recognition that it is unacceptable to have no supervision for an individual leaving a short prison sentence and that there are many opportunities for improving the effectiveness of both a prison sentence and a community sentence.

  There has also been considerable support for greater transparency in sentencing.

  There has been mixed support for the greater involvement of the courts in the management of sentences through review hearings. Many commentators have seen the strength of the arguments in terms of principle but have expressed doubts about whether the enormous practical difficulties could be overcome sufficiently well to justify that intervention in every case.

  Officials are now analysing the responses in greater detail and a summary of the responses will be published, with copies in the Library, towards the end of January 2002. I then anticipate publishing a White Paper in spring 2002.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many reported incidents of injuries to(a) domestic pets and (b) other animals due to the sale of fireworks have been reported (i) prior to 5 November,

  359W
  (ii) on 5 November and (iii) after 5 November in each of the last five years in (A) Scotland and (B) the United Kingdom; [13179]

  (2) how many reported incidents of damage to property with fireworks in each of the last five years have involved (a) minors and (b) adults as alleged perpetrators of the incidents in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK; [13191]

  (3) how many incidents of damage to property with fireworks in the last five years have occurred (a) prior to 5 November, (b) on 5 November and (c) after 5 November in each year in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK; [13192]

  (4) how many incidents of injuries to (a) domestic pets and (b) other animals have been reported due to the sale of fireworks in each of the last five years in (i) Scotland and (ii) the United Kingdom. [13183]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answers 8 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply because of my Department's responsibility for consumer and product safety which includes fireworks.

  I regret that the information requested is not held by my Department.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilian and uniformed staff of the Royal Parks constabulary have left employment in police service on grounds of ill health or disability in the last five years. [15654]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  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 Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 21 November 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of RPC officers who have left on health grounds, because this is an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency.
  Fifteen civilian and uniformed staff of the Royal Parks Constabulary have left employment in police service on the grounds of ill health or disability in the last five years.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the financial years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to the most recent date for which information is available to him (i) the number of VAT returns received by HM Customs and Excise, (ii) the number of trader visits made by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and (iii) the additional net tax found on visits. [11372]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows.
  360W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Number of VAT Returns

  7,330,747

  7,344,453

  3,566,462

  Number of visits made

  170,718

  166,305

  82,653

  Additional tax found (£ billion)

  1.9

  2.3

  1.0

  1 September 2001

  Regulation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many regulations were introduced by his Department in each year since May 1997. [14427]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Regulatory Impact Assessments (Compliance Cost Assessments for measures introduced before August 1998) have been completed in respect of all measures which have significantly imposed or reduced costs on businesses, charities or voluntary bodies. These are available from the House Libraries.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in introducing zero rates of stamp duty in deprived areas. [15942]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have been considering how best to implement this exemption and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform stamp duty on shares. [15920]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government keep the whole tax system under regular review in order to meet their objectives for a fair and efficient tax system.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of stamp duty on shares on financial exclusion. [15921]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is no evidence that stamp duty on shares has any impact on financial exclusion.

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on the status of friendly societies of the coming into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [15916]

  Ruth Kelly
  The constitutional status of friendly societies as member-owned mutual societies will be unchanged by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). That Act will harmonise the regulation of friendly societies and other insurance business under a single regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

  EU Moneys (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1979 in(a) cash terms, (b) real terms and (c) as a percentage of the UK total, the total value of EU moneys spent in Scotland. [16178]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of all EC receipts which have been paid in Scotland are not held centrally for this period. However, table 14d of the Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments (Cm 5116) contains information on receipts from the EC budget, by Department, and fund, since 1995–96 including for the Scottish Office (now Scottish Executive)
  361W
  (the UK's EAGGF Guarantee receipts are shown in the table under the Intervention Board). Similar information for earlier years was published in previous reports.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what involvement his Department has had with the renegotiation of the Ministry of Defence contract with EDS for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency; and if he will make a statement. [16590]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Ministry of Defence was responsible for the reconstruction of the Armed Forces Personnel and Administration Agency (AFPAA) contract with EDS and HM Treasury was not involved. The Ministry of Defence required my approval as Chief Secretary to the Treasury to proceed with reconstructing the contract. This approval was given following discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the Office of Government Commerce, who are represented on the AFPAA Owner's Board.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [16112]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Deportment/Agency

  London

  Objective 1

  Objective 2

  Other

  HM Treasury

  1,049

  0

  0

  0

  Office for National Statistics

  919

  614

  1,026

  911

  Customs and Excise

  5,984

  2,837

  1,941

  12,694

  Inland Revenue

  6,517

  8,134

  36,885

  16,519

  Valuation Office Agency

  766

  194

  1,197

  2,000

  Royal Mint

  10

  1,007

  0

  0

  National Savings

  101

  0

  15

  0

  Government Actuary's Department

  104

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  15,450

  12,786

  41,064

  32,124

  Earnings Statistics
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the hourly earnings of women as a proportion of the earnings of men for graduates who graduated in the years(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995 at the latest available date. [16136]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Julie Morgan, dated 21 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the hourly earnings of graduates by year of graduation. I am replying in his absence (16136).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of average gross hourly earnings for graduates of working age, ie men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59. However, the LFS does not ask people what year they graduated. Therefore, it does not provide estimates of graduates' earnings by year of graduation.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average loss to private shareholders as a result of the administration of Railtrack. [16027]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The administrator will be seeking to obtain the best value he can for the assets in Railtrack plc. If there is a surplus value, net of liabilities, this will be made available to Railtrack Group plc and its shareholders.

  International Tax Recoveries
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 374W, on international tax recoveries, if the two recoveries of over £100 million were from companies linked as sisters or subsidiaries; if they were over £200 million; and what the largest sum recovered was. [15135]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The two cases involving recoveries in excess of £100 million in the year 2000 are unrelated. The amount recovered from each taxpayer exceeded £200 million. Because of the Inland Revenue's duty to maintain taxpayer confidentiality it is not possible to disclose precisely how much was recovered from any single taxpayer.

  Clergy (Working Families Tax Credit)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of clergy claiming working families tax credits. [16294]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit Quarterly Enquiry shows the number of recipient families in which the main earner has a professional occupation. It is not known how many of these main earners are clergy.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals have been made for the settlement of the BCCI action against the Bank of England; [15915]

  (2) what the cost is of the litigation by the liquidators of BCCI against the Bank of England. [15913]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are not a party to this litigation.

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special purpose vehicles to facilitate public-private finance the Treasury has approved in the last 12 months. [15803]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury does not approve individual special purpose vehicles.

  The term special purpose vehicle is often used to describe the corporate body created when private sector companies join together to provide services under a specific public-private partnership. It will be the contractual counterparty to the public sector partner.
  363W
  Individual Departments will evaluate special purpose vehicles bidding for contracts against standards set for capability, technical capacity, and financial and economic standing. Departments may also have concerns about changes in the special purpose vehicle's shareholders during the life of the contract. Office of Government Commerce guidance on Standardisation of PFI contracts contains advice to Departments on this subject.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if changes in the status of friendly societies arising from the coming into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will affect the liability of friendly societies for particular taxes; and if he will estimate for each particular tax liability change the impact on revenues which will arise over the first year in which the changes are implemented. [15917]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are no changes to the tax liabilities of friendly societies as a result of the coming into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Public and Commercial Services Union on his Department's proposal to privatise the Inland Revenue's distraint work in England and Wales; for what reasons his Department has introduced the proposal; and if he will make a statement. [16355]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of representations from members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, and will be taking into account their comments as further consideration is given to this proposal.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the quality of public service which would result from the privatisation of the Inland Revenue's distraint work in England and Wales; what plans he has to introduce a regulatory framework for bailiffs working on behalf of the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [16356]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The implications of the proposed change are still under consideration.

HEALTH

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of coronary heart disease among women and men, broken down by UK standard region, was(a) in the last 12 months and (b) (i) 10, (ii) 20 and (iii) 30 years ago. [9853]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures for the incidence of coronary heart disease across the United Kingdom are not available on a consistent basis over 30 years.

  The table shows the number of finished consultant episodes for hospital in-patients in England (this is not the same as incidence data) where the main diagnosis was ischaemic heart disease. Hospital episode statistics (HES)
  364W
  data only go back as 1989–90. Prior to this, information is not available in the format requested. Until 1985, data were collected via the hospital in-patient inquiry, which is not directly comparable with HES data due to a number of changes in the methods of collection. Changes in the boundaries between regional health authorities which existed in 1989–90 and the regional offices which are in place now mean it is not possible to make direct comparisons by region over the 10 years.

  Finished consultant episodes where the main diagnosis was ischaemic heart disease, by Regional Office (Regional Health Authority) area of residence NHS Hospitals, England 1989–90 and 1999–2000

  Male

  Female

  Not known/not specified

  1999–2000

  Northern & Yorkshire Region

  32,951

  20,455

  8

  Trent Regional Office

  26,693

  16,420

  2

  West Midlands Regional Office

  24,125

  12,855

  8

  North West Regional Office

  35,639

  22,098

  2

  Eastern Regional Office

  25,423

  12,492

  8

  London Regional Office

  28,432

  14,039

  28

  South East Regional Office

  34,698

  18,039

  130

  South West Regional Office

  23,815

  12,690

  5

  Other

  3,238

  1,309

  1

  Not known

  221

  79

  0

  Total

  235,235

  130,494

  192

  1989–90

  Northern RHA

  10,348

  6.647

  0

  Yorkshire RHA

  12,862

  7,610

  0

  Trent RHA

  14,647

  8,373

  0

  East Anglian RHA

  5,711

  2,538

  0

  North West Thames RHA

  11,069

  5,090

  2

  North East Thames RHA

  13,236

  6,926

  11

  South East Thames RHA

  11,723

  5,681

  0

  South West Thames RHA

  7,703

  3,976

  0

  Wessex RHA

  6,950

  3,733

  2

  Oxford RHA

  6,292

  2,988

  9

  South Western RHA

  8,959

  4,658

  0

  West Midlands RHA

  14,612

  7,593

  0

  Mersey RHA

  8,235

  5,324

  1

  North Western RHA

  14,468

  9,529

  1

  Other

  5,496

  2,510

  4

  Not known

  3,431

  1,812

  0

  Total

  155,742

  84,988

  30

  Notes

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

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

  3. Regional Health Authority/Regional office boundaries have changed since 1989–90, but the HES database system does not have the facility to present earlier years in terms of 1999–2000 RO boundaries.

  4. Data for 1989–90 are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, 1999–2000 figures are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Fire-safe Cigarettes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of fire-safe cigarettes. [11864]
  365W
  Jacqui Smith
  Officials have had discussions with representatives of the main manufacturers in the United Kingdom on the possible effects of certain additives on the burning rates of cigarettes.

  One manufacturer is engaged on the development of a cigarette paper modified to control the burn rate.

  Officials are aware of the development of standards governing ignition propensity and at least one branch conforming to these standards has been introduced in the United States.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether proposals to raise the level of fluoride in drinking water involve the use of hexafluorosilic acid. [13685]

  Jacqui Smith
  Hexaflurosilicic acid (also called hydrofluorosilicic acid) is approved for use in artificial fluoridation schemes under the Water Industry Act 1991 and is subject to compliance with a Code of Practice on the Technical Aspects of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies published by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  The code covers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of fluoridation plant to ensure that the correct level of fluoride is added and there are fail-safe precautions against overdosing. The code includes a detailed specification for added chemicals with advice to water companies on how to check the purity of the chemicals against the specification.

  All substances used in the treatment of water supplies are approved by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, acting on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for DEFRA.

  Social Workers (North-East)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to recruit additional(a) psychiatric and (b) approved social workers in the north-east. [15024]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 19 October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced a £1.5 million recruitment campaign, which is designed to increase the number of people interested in careers in social work and social care work. As well as this action to tackle recruitment problems, the Department is also working with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services to help employers implement policies to improve recruitment and retention of staff.

  Children At Risk
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the reasons that children's names are removed from the at risk register; and if he will make a statement. [16760]
  366W
  Jacqui Smith
  A child's name may be removed from the register if:It is judged that the child is no longer at continuing risk of significant harm requiring safeguarding by means of a child protection plan (for example, the risk of harm has been reduced by action taken through the child protection plan; the child and family's circumstances have changed; or re-assessment of the child and family indicates that a child protection plan is not necessary). Under these circumstances, only a child protection review conference can decide that registration is no longer necessary;
  The child and family have moved permanently to another local authority area. In such cases, the receiving local authority should convene a child protection conference within 15 days of being notified of the move, only after which event may de-registration take place in respect of the original local authority's child protection register;
  The child has reached 18 years of age, has died or has permanently left the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reduction in the number of children added to the at risk register between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001. [16761]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of additions and deletions to child protection registers during the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2001 are given in the table:

  Registrations to and de-registrations from child protection registers during the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2001, and children on registers at 31 March of each years

  England

  Numbers

  All children1

  Boys

  Girls

  On the register at 31 March

  2000

  30,300

  15,400

  14,600

  2001

  26,800

  13,700

  12,900

  Registrations

  2000

  29,300

  14,500

  13,900

  2001

  27,000

  13,300

  12,700

  De-registrations

  2000

  30,500

  15,300

  15,100

  2001

  30,200

  15,400

  14,700

  1 Includes unborn children

  The decrease in the number of registrations during 2000–01 (and the consequent fall in numbers on the registers at 31 March 2001) is largely due to the majority of local councils excluding temporary registrations from their figures (children who are on the register in one authority but located in another and are simultaneously on the register of both councils). The year ending 31 March 2001 was the first year in which the Department of Health has requested that only the council with the original responsibility for the child should include the child in its figures until the receiving council has held a child protection conference to determine whether the child should instead be registered by that council. There has been some element of double counting of these children in previous years.

  Bed Blocking
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made to the calculation of bed blocking since 1997. [15319]

  Jacqui Smith
  A blocked bed occurs when a patient is ready for transfer from an acute hospital bed but is still occupying that bed. That definition has not altered since 1997. Until recently, published statistics have been based on the number of beds occupied by people aged 75 years or more. Current and future statistics on bed blocking will include all blocked beds.

  Cane Hill Secure Unit
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the security at the disused Medium Secure Unit at Cane Hill, Coulsdon, Croydon; and if he will make a statement. [15494]

  Jacqui Smith
  As a result of recent incidents on the Cane Hill site a range of additional security measures have been agreed. These include the erection of steel palisade fencing around all redundant buildings and an increased security presence.

  Nursing Accommodation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are in hospital in England awaiting nursing accommodation at the latest available time. [15385]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Information on delayed discharges of patients of all ages in England is collected centrally on a quarterly basis. Information on delays of patients awaiting nursing home placements is not separately identified.

  In September 2001 the number of all patients whose discharge was delayed due to awaiting nursing and residential placement was 1,442.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [14770]

  Mr. Wills
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced on 13 November that the publication scheme provisions of the Freedom of Information Act will be implemented for central Government in November 2002 at the start of a rolling programme across the public sector and that the right of access provisions of the Act will be implemented for all public authorities in January 2005.

  No such working group has yet been set up. We have a project plan outlining how FOI will be successfully implemented throughout the Department. We have already appointed an FOI champion at Board level and a full-time implementation project manager. Awareness training has already been held and more is planned. As part of the plan we will be setting up a working group of key officials and a network of staff to consider and advise on implementation issues for the Department.

  Asset-freezing Order
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many requests for legal aid have been received from persons disputing through the courts an asset-freezing order relating to the terrorist activities; and, what assessment she has made of the likely sums involved. [16025]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission's Special Cases Unit, which would receive any request for funding in cases involving asset-freezing orders based on allegations of terrorist activities, has no record of receiving any such requests.

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 Northfield—Made the Solemn Affirmation.

Animal Health Bill
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the contents of the Animal Health Bill were agreed prior to the Statement by the Lord Whitty on 22nd October that tests for BSE had been made on the brains of cows and not of sheep [Official Report, 22/10/01; cols. 826–30.]
The parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, yes, they were. The Bill was prepared over the summer and had been drafted prior to my Statement of 22nd October. As I said then, the Bill provides enabling powers for the compulsory genotyping of sheep so as to accelerate the development of a national flock resistant to scrapie. It also contains powers to deal with the slaughter and orderly disposal of sheep in the event that BSE were found to be present in the national flock, and provisions relating to the control of foot and mouth disease.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he assure the House that the Government have full confidence in the ability of the three special inquiry teams to produce meaningful reports? If he can, what is the hurry? Why must the Bill be rushed through in advance of their findings? If not, is he afraid that the reports will not endorse the Bill's main provisions?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, the Bill's provisions are broadly in two parts. The provisions relating to TSE and BSE arise from the Phillips inquiry report, which recommended that we have a contingency plan in case BSE were found in sheep. The contingency plan was produced at the end of September, and the Bill would provide the means by which the plan could be carried out.
On foot and mouth disease, the present need for the Bill is not to pre-empt the inquiries, which may well lead to other measures, but in case the disease reappears and to overcome some inhibitions in dealing with the disease under existing controls. Should the inquiries require further measures, we will deal with the matter then.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to my noble friend's Question, the Bill, which has been debated in another place, deals with only part of the problem with
1124
animal health in this country. Does the Minister agree that the failure to include regulations providing for constant rigorous inspection of imported meat renders the whole Bill worthless? The Bill should deal with both sides of the problem. I beg your Lordships' pardon; I remind the House of my family farming interests.
What has happened to the short audit report that the Minister promised us on 22nd October, which he said would be with us in "a week or so"? It is now a month later and we do not have the report.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the second question, the audit has been drafted. It is now being checked with the Institute for Animal Health, which should have the opportunity to comment on it before it is published in final form. That is now happening, so the report will be available shortly—I accept that it has taken somewhat longer than I had hoped for at the time of the debate. Both audits will be available shortly.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, but what was her first question?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, let me help the Minister. My first question concerned the importation of other meat that is not covered by the Bill.
Lord Whitty: Indeed, my Lords. The issue of import checks is important, and we are currently considering it interdepartmentally. However, it is important to stress that import checks will never be 100 per cent effective, so the prime concern for disease control must be to control its spread. As I have said before, disease occasionally enters even Australia, which has draconian import checks and controls. The point is that it is rapidly stamped out; that is the main control.
At present, our view is that any changes in import control regulations could be made by secondary legislation, and so would not need to be included in the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister give us an assurance that rare breeds of sheep will be protected? Does he agree that there is a problem with the scrapie situation and immunity in some rare breeds of sheep?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly such issues will have to be discussed with the sheep industry in general and pedigree farmers in particular. It appears that every breed, including most of the pedigree breeds, contains scrapie-resistant strains, but that must be established. It may be that progress in that regard may be slower in some pedigree breeds than in the general flock. All such issues must be addressed in developing the scrapie plan in co-operation with farmers.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister expect the two inquiries, dealing with lessons to be learnt from the foot and mouth outbreak and the transmission and prevention of the disease, to report before the Bill completes its passage through this House? If so, will the Government

1125
consider amending the Bill at that stage, if that appears necessary as a result of the inquiries? If not, surely the case for a public inquiry is strengthened.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not expect the inquiries to complete their work by then. Both inquiries will take about six months, so their reports will not be available until the middle of next year. I suspect that, were we to go for a full, quasi-judicial public inquiry, it would take much longer. The foot and mouth-related measures in the Bill relate to any further outbreak that might occur early next year. As I have said, if the inquiries require further measures, we will take them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how scientists, who are, after all, supposed to be knowledgeable about these matters, can be engaged on work not knowing whether it is the brains of cows or sheep upon which they are working? Is that not a monumental bog?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can say, without necessarily endorsing the noble Earl's vocabulary, that clearly a serious error was made at some point. The purpose of the two audits, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred, is to find out how that mistake was made.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how much money has been spent on research on BSE and related diseases up to now?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the research in this area by all publicly funded bodies probably totals about £100 million. About £17 million of this year's expenditure is funded by DEFRA, £3 million is funded by the FSA and further money is spent by the research council and other public bodies. A couple of weeks ago my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to 140 projects involved in this area, many of which, inevitably, are long term. The failure of the particular research project to which reference has been made has to be seen in that wider context.

The Monarchy
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will call a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): No, my Lords.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that unambiguous Answer. However, has he taken into consideration that opinion polls in recent years have consistently
1126
shown decreasing support for an hereditary monarchy? Does he accept that most people now believe that an elected head of state is more relevant to the 21st century?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am glad of all the support that I am receiving. In view of those and other factors is it not necessary in a democracy such as ours to ascertain the views of the electorate on such a fundamental issue?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government believe that the national interest and desire is for the country to remain a constitutional monarchy in its present form. The Sovereign personifies national cohesion, Commonwealth unity and political stability. We believe that support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom is rock solid. In surveys over the past 30 years it has been consistently above 70 per cent, while support for a republic has varied between a mere 15 and 20 per cent. The noble Lord mentioned opinion polls. The Queen's approval rating in opinion polls is a very substantial distance beyond that to which politicians and other groups might reasonably aspire.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's totally unambiguous Answer is widely welcomed throughout the House and by this party in particular. But what does the noble and learned Lord think the general public will make of a senior Back-Bencher and former chairman of the parliamentary Labour Party asking a Question such as this?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord is well entitled to ask the Question which he has asked, and the Government's position has been clearly stated by me.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend is considering the issue of a referendum, will he use whatever influence he may feel he has with the Government to try to persuade them to hold a referendum on the siting of the national football stadium so that football fans and other citizens can be given the opportunity to back the superb bid by Birmingham and Solihull, made on the back of their international airport, their railway station and their motorway network, to place the home of the national sport at the heart of the nation?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have ruled out a referendum on the subject matter of the Question, but I have noted the support for the noble Lord's observations on the different subject which he addressed.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, would it not be singularly inappropriate, and, indeed, curmudgeonly, to hold a referendum at the same time as we celebrate

1127
the Queen's Golden Jubilee? Would it not be more appropriate for the Government to organise a national vote of thanks to Her Majesty for the way in which over 50 years she has discharged her duties with skill, dedication and diplomacy?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord speaks for almost everyone in the House. His question gives me the opportunity to say that the timing of the Question is not of the best on the eve of Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee, marking 50 years of dedicated service by the Queen to the nation and the Commonwealth.
Lord Paul: My Lords, the monarchy is such a tremendous asset to this country. Why do we want to confuse the public by a referendum?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my belief is that the public have no interest in a referendum on this subject.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord use his professional knowledge to instruct the House whether the presidential style assumed by Mr Tony Blair is lese-majesty?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have a strong Prime Minister; we do not have a president.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does not the Question of my noble friend Lord Dormand illustrate the vigorous independence of Back-Benchers in your Lordships' House which the Leader of the Opposition claims to espouse?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Members of this House are independent as well as some being affiliated to parties.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, in conducting its duties and commitments to the voluntary and charitable sector, the Royal Family provides an invaluable service to the nation and to the people who sometimes get left out of the statutory services net?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can agree with that question wholeheartedly. The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal are well known as supporters of voluntary causes. I mention, for example, the Save the Children Fund, of which the Princess Royal has been president since 1970, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme, the World Wildlife Fund, Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Outward Bound Trust. Last, and certainly not least, I mention the Prince's Trust, through which the Prince of Wales has made a difference to the lives of tens of thousands of young people, including many of the most disadvantaged.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that I agree entirely with what he said about the monarchy
1128
but that I deplore, and believe it to have been entirely reprehensible, that my noble friend should have been shouted down in the manner that he was in asking a perfectly pertinent and legitimate question?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already said that the noble Lord was well entitled to ask the Question that he did.

Human Cloning
2.51 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to lay primary legislation before Parliament to prohibit human cloning. and, if so, when.
The parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on Friday last our intention to introduce legislation this week 10 ban human reproductive cloning.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he recall the justification that he gave to the House on 22nd January last for the use of unamendable orders rather than primary legislation? On that occasion he said that no new fundamental issues arose and that the use of cell nuclear replacement was lawful.
In the light of those assurances and of the High Court ruling of last week, will he confirm that the Bill which is to be rushed through all its stages in your Lordships' House next week will not outlaw cell nuclear replacement? Will he say whether he is able to issue a compatibility statement under Articles 2 and 14 of the European convention in the light of that failure to deal with cell nuclear replacement? Will he also say how public confidence in our parliamentary processes will be enhanced when the public see a Bill that has been designed to prohibit the use of amendments. if that is at all possible, and when that Bill is to be rushed through all its stages in this House on one day next week and in another place on one day next week') Will that not further confuse public opinion on an issue which should command much graver interest and which should be dealt with in a much more sober and reflective manner?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, although I recognise his deeply felt views on this question. I believe that, in the light of the judgment of last week, the Government had no option but to bring forward urgent legislation to outlaw human reproductive cloning. The noble Lord is right that that does not cover the question of therapeutic cloning. I believe that that issue is of a different order. We consider that it is right to aw a it the outcome of the appeal and the end of the legal process.

1129
Of course, if at the end of that process therapeutic cloning were not to be regulated, we would seek to bring forward proposals to ensure that it was so regulated.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, will the Minister say why the Government have been so unresponsive to very widespread public concern on this matter, as reflected, for example, in today's editorial in the Daily Telegraph? Will he say why legislation of such momentous ethical and human significance has been rushed through and why statutory regulation that is deemed unamendable is about to be rushed through? Why is the Parliament of the United Kingdom not being given the same opportunity as the United States Congress to look at all the available relevant research and evidence before passing momentous legislation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. The fact is that the regulations passed at the beginning of this year received a thorough airing in your Lordships' House as well as three full debates in the other place. In addition to that, as a result of the debate on those regulations in January, your Lordships agreed to the establishment of a Select Committee chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Surely it is right to await the outcome of that Select Committee's deliberations but, in the meantime, move as quickly as we can to outlaw human reproductive cloning, which I believe no Member of this House can possibly support.
Lord Patel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the potential benefits for future healthcare of research following therapeutic cloning are enormous? Does he also agree that in a well regulated environment, research of this nature can be controlled?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do agree. That is why we have supported developments in therapeutic cloning. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that appropriate regulation exists. That is why we are appealing against the judgment delivered last week. As I said earlier in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, if, at the end of the day, the Government lose the case, when parliamentary time allows we shall seek to bring back to Parliament proposals for the regulation of therapeutic cloning.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from the issue on which there is a difference of opinion, I agree with the noble Lord that we had a very full discussion earlier in the year. However, was it not somewhat careless of the Government to have drafted the regulations in such a way that they suddenly had to be amended in this manner?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the issue of whether the 1990 Act covered cell nuclear replacement was discussed fully in our debate on the regulations. We relied on the advice that we received from counsel
1130
and, of course, that has turned out not to be correct in terms of the judgment that we received last week. However, in his conclusions, the judge said that the argument put forward by the department was a powerful one, and we are appealing on that basis.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in relation to the original Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Alton, does it not depend, as the late C.E.M. Joad used to say in the "Brains Trust", on what one means by the word "cloning"? I am sure that every Member of this House would abhor any mechanism by which it was possible to create identical human beings by reproductive cloning. I trust that the legislation which is coming forward will outlaw that particular process. At the same time, perhaps I may urge the Minister and all those involved to ensure that the whole issue of therapeutic cloning for the production of stem cells by nuclear transplantation is not outlawed by the legislation, pending the outcome of the appeal and the report of the Select Committee chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords; I could not describe the position better. We shall of course have to await the outcome of the appeal and shall pay very careful attention to the report of your Lordships' Select Committee.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we had a good and full debate on this matter in January. However, the Minister promised during that debate to bring forward legislation on human reproductive cloning in response to the recommendations of the Donaldson report. Is it not unfortunate that the Government did not use the opportunity to bring forward such legislation in June, and has that not laid them open to having to bring forward this emergency legislation now?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree. I believe that, in any event, there was a very good case for awaiting the outcome of the House's Select Committee on this matter. It was in the election manifesto of the Labour Party that we would bring forward legislation. We are doing so. However, the promises made in a manifesto last for the lifetime of a Parliament. At present there is very great demand on the legislative timetable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that all the most significant breakthroughs in stem cell technology in recent months have resulted from work on adult and not embryonic cells? Is not the answer to the problem to restrict ourselves to the use of adult cells so as to avoid altogether this difficult ethical question?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not accept that. The noble Lord may be right in relation to the potential of adult stem cells. The Chief Medical Officer's expert working group acknowledges that.

1131
I refer the noble Lord to the comment made by the president of the Royal Society, Sir Robert May, in January of this year when he said:
"Parliament should not be mislead into believing that adult cells at present offer anything like the same prospects as embryonic stem cells for treating serious degenerative diseases".
I also refer him to Professor Richard Hynes, president of the American Society for Cell Biology, who is carrying out research into adult stem cells. He said:
"We are dismayed that our research … is being used as a justification to hinder or prohibit research using embryonic stem cells".
I believe that the broad body of scientific opinion would say that we should develop research in a number of ways and that the outcome of that is likely to be more successful.

Executive Agencies
3 p.m.
Lord Smith of Cliftonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the specific terms of reference of the review of public bodies announced on 16th November and to be headed by Ms Pam Alexander; and when it will be expected to report.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Question is based on a misapprehension. Ms Alexander is not leading a review of public bodies. She is leading a review of policy on executive agencies. The terms of reference of that review were announced to Parliament on 7th March 2001, and are lengthy. I am sure your Lordships will excuse me from reading them out as they are already to be found in Hansard for March of this year. In respect of the last part of the Question, the review is expected to report to Ministers around the turn of the year.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Perhaps I may be forgiven for not being fully aware of the distinction between non-executive bodies, quangos, task forces and the whole range of denizens that dwell in the demi-monde. Does the Minister agree that there is a case for looking at the vast plethora of unconstitutional mutations? I was concerned that the lady who is to chair the review has had experience of English Heritage. I hope that that is not a portent that some of these denizens will become part of the English constitutional heritage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is nothing mutative and there is nothing unconstitutional about the use of task forces, ad hoc advisory groups or reviews. They are sensible tools when properly used for the efficient conduct of public business.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that in the lengthy terms of reference for this inquiry the word "accountability" occurs? Can he confirm that all the executive agencies
1132
to which he has referred can be called to appear before the Public Accounts Committee in the other place to account for their cost to public funds?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the last sentence of the terms of reference is:
"how best to secure transparency and thoroughness in reporting on agency matters including performance to the public"
The penultimate sentence is:
"how to ensure that agencies have in place appropriate corporate governance including the roles of ministerial advisory boards and independent advisors".
The thrust of the review is, I hope, to produce the consequence that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, wants; namely, openness and accountability.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what is the difference between an executive agency and a task force?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it will not amaze noble Lords that an executive agency is an agency that carries out executive functions. Similarly, it will not surprise your Lordships that a task force is a force set up to carry out a particular to for example, the extremely effective, universally applauded Human Rights Task Force set up by the then Home Secretary in the Home Office to put into effect the Human Rights Act over a period of about 18 months.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House in what way the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is responsible and accountable to this House for the work that he carries out in the name of the British taxpayer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it seems to me that there is no disentitlement to any noble Lord put down a question or to seek a short debate. My recent experience this afternoon demonstrates that it is possible to ask even unpopular questions in your Lordships' House.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the 30,000 people who work in quangos are owed a duty of care by the Government who employ them so that they can be rescued from the mockery and mistrust that the word "quango" now evokes? What plans do the Government have to deal with that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, with his vast experience in the advertising industry, will know that it is reality and not apparent perception that matters.

Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the placing in a woman of

1133
a human embryo that has been created otherwise than by fertilisation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, following the First Reading of the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill, it may be convenient for the House if I say a few words about the procedure that the usual channels propose for dealing with this urgent piece of legislation. As always, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Roper, for their co-operation in agreeing the proposed timetable.
The Bill will be printed overnight and will be available in the Printed Paper Office at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. The Public Bill Office has agreed, exceptionally, to take amendments before Second Reading. Therefore, your Lordships will be able to table amendments from 10 a.m. tomorrow onwards, although I understand that the Bill has been drawn narrowly and amendments will have to be relevant to the Bill as drafted.
We will take Second Reading of the Bill as first business on Monday. The speakers' list has been put up in the Government Whips' Office and any noble Lord who would like to speak in the Second Reading debate may put his or her name down immediately. The deadline for adding names to the speakers' list is 12 noon on Monday.
When we have finished the Second Reading debate, business on the Bill will be adjourned, and the House will deal with the next business on the Order Paper, which will be the completion of the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As soon as that is finished, we shall return to the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill and all the remaining stages will then be taken.
In order to allow the House to take the Second Reading and the remaining stages all in one day it will be necessary to suspend Standing Order 46 which prohibits the taking of more than one stage of a Bill in a single day. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will table a Motion to that effect, which will be taken at the start of business tomorrow.
Lord Roper: My Lords, on these Benches we find that these proposals make a great deal of sense. We are awaiting the report of the Select Committee chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, that will give the House an opportunity to discuss wider issues of stem cell research, including the so-called topic of therapeutic cloning. Therefore, we trust that the Bill is drawn in such a way as to avoid substantive amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms said, we have agreed to this procedure in this absolutely exceptional case. The Bill, as he indicated, is exceptionally narrow and it will
1134
avoid the single, most appalling potential consequence of the mess that the Government have got themselves into on this occasion. Of course, the other wider consequences remain to be considered at a more leisurely and proper pace.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of those noble Lords who are very concerned about this issue perhaps I can register our view. This is a government-induced self-inflicted injury and a constitutional outrage. Will the Chief Whip confirm to the House that what is being outlawed is not the cloning of embryos but the implantation of embryos and that the cloning of embryos will continue unregulated and unlicensed? Is it right that there will be no limitation on the length of time for which an embryo may remain alive and there will be no basis on which consent can be given for the particular scientific practice? As I so profoundly disagree with the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, will it be possible to consider amendments that would put cloning on ice until the Select Committee has reported and until the House has had an opportunity to debate this matter fully?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in supporting the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, perhaps I may ask the Government Chief Whip two questions. The first concerns our standing in terms of international jurisprudence. Is the noble Lord aware that the European Parliament on Wednesday last—the day before the High Court judgment—passed a resolution by a majority vote outlawing any European funding for either therapeutic, experimental or reproductive cloning? Secondly, can he say what bearing that will have on the orders?
Further, will the noble Lord confirm and ensure that in the debate on Monday it is mentioned that every one of our European partners has taken a contrary view from us on this issue, as has the American administration? Will he also return to the question that I put to the Minister about the compatibility statement which will appear on the face of the Bill under the duties laid upon us in the Human Rights Act? Can the noble Lord also say whether officials have this time— unlike in January last when they clearly failed to give proper advice to the Minister—looked at whether there is a clash with Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights—Article 14 being read with Article 2 for the purposes of the Bill?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Cope, for their comments and support. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to constitutional outrage. The Government and everyone involved in this issue thought that human cloning was banned. The judge took a different view. In the light of his judgment—only in the light of that judgment—the Government have brought forward emergency legislation to deal with the loophole, the existence of which has arisen only in the last few days. It deals only with that matter.

1135
If the noble Lords carefully read Hansard they will see that my noble friend Lord Hunt gave a very full Answer to the starred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, dealing with the matter of human reproductive cloning.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me about the international jurisprudence of the European Parliament and the European Convention on Human Rights. As I understand the matter, my noble friend was advised and was able to sign the Bill as being compliant with the Human Rights Act.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 15th November.—( The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Levene of Portsoken set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Walton of Detchant to two-and-a-half hours. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights: Joint Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I should explain this matter a little more. The object of the Motion is to reduce the quorum for the Joint Committee of both Houses from three to two from each House.
A noble Lord: Why?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, thank you. Someone asks why. I shall attempt to give an answer. Let me say first that the quorum will apply only to those meetings where evidence is taken and where a transcript will be published. The problem is that the present quorum amounts to 50 per cent of the committee. That is a high quorum. There have been problems. If there are three Members of one House there and only one from the other the sitting has to be suspended. At the moment, we have the problem that one of the Members from this House has been ill and another has been sitting on the Stem Cell Research Committee. The committee times clash. Therefore, it
1136
was thought sensible—a similar Motion has already been moved in the Commons—that the quorum should be reduced to two on this occasion for this particular committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the quorum of the Select Committee appointed to join with the Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights be two for the purposes of taking evidence.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services
3.14 p.m.
Lord Levene of Portsoken Lord Levene of Portsoken rose to call attention to the place of the financial services industry in the economy of the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to propose this Motion. I should like to declare an interest. I am chairman of IFSL, the old British Invisibles, and vice-chairman of Deutsche Bank in London.
The financial services industry is about managing risk. It is wider in scope than many imagine. The industry now includes not only traditional products such as lending, deposit taking and credit cards, but also investment banking, insurance, securities dealing, fund management, derivatives, maritime services and foreign exchange.
Financial services operate globally and money, in its raw form, is a commodity. We should be very encouraged that the United Kingdom is such an attractive base for the industry. Nearly 500 foreign banks operate from, and provide wealth for, the United Kingdom. The industry is concentrated in London but there are other sizeable centres in Edinburgh—now the sixth largest fund management centre in Europe—Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, Bristol and Birmingham. The financial services industry, when one includes the legal and accountancy professions, produces 8 per cent of GDP. The industry provides employment for almost 2 million people, which is four times larger than the number of civil servants. In Scotland, the industry employs almost 10 per cent of the workforce. In the most narrow definition of balance of payments, the financial services industry contributed a record £13 billion last year, which helped to offset the shortfall in physical goods of £30 billion. The insurance sector pays out £200 million of benefits every day.
Financial services acts as a driver for other industries, particularly property and telecommunications. In Scotland, financial services account for 25 per cent of the entire Scottish property market, while the bulk of the Canary Wharf development is predominantly filled by financial services firms. The competitiveness and size of the industry provide the ideal breeding ground for IT innovation. For example, LIFFE—the futures

1137
exchange—now provides the world's most advanced electronic trading system and is accessible in 25 different countries, far more than any other system.
The financial services industry makes an enormous contribution to the Exchequer. The banking and insurance sector pays over one-third of the entire corporation tax take, amounting to £7 billion as well as £1.25 billion in irrecoverable value added tax. That is the equivalent of three pence off the basic rate of income tax.
Financial services firms also contribute generously to local communities. In the past 12 months over £250 million has been donated directly by the industry to worthwhile local causes over a wide range of activities.
Most of the City's investment banks and securities houses are now in international ownership. This has increased, rather than diluted, the UK's strength. Businesses have consolidated in London, where there is critical mass and not in other European centres. Openness to foreign investment, coupled with favourable tax regimes, is the foundation of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom. "Wimbledonisation", as it is called, where we provide and host the best venue, even when most of the best players are neither British nor British owned, is undoubtedly good for us and good for the economy.
We are certainly enjoying the fruits of success. But we cannot afford to be complacent. One cause for growing concern is regulation. It is increasing, becoming over bureaucratic, tying up considerable amounts of time for little apparent benefit. It could well make us less competitive.
These concerns are not primarily aimed at the main UK regulator, the Financial Services Authority. It is true that there has been some disquiet at the work required for "N2", when the FSA takes over as the "super-regulator" at the end of this month. But if the result is the promised "light touch regulation", properly geared to risk, then it will have been worth the effort.
We welcome the FSA's new obligation to take into account the impact of what it does on the competitiveness of the UK's financial markets and its establishment of a "Practitioners Panel" to monitor that. The FSA should not, therefore, be a problem for the industry. Indeed, we believe that the current regulatory regime is part of the attractiveness of London. Last month, Euronext took over LIFFE, the futures exchange, and promptly announced that it is moving its entire derivatives trading to LIFFE in London, an implicit acceptance perhaps that, for financial firms, life is better in the UK. Certainly that is the view of LIFFE's membership, three-quarters of which are foreign companies and have been attracted to the UK by our international reputation.
However, our real concern is Europe—but not, I hasten to add, the euro. I want to issue a wake-up call. As powers have moved to the European Commission, potentially damaging directives are now issuing. Whatever the intention, there seems to be little
1138
consultation and the results are certainly not "light touch". Risk management is too often swapped for risk avoidance, which is neither desirable nor achievable.
Two current directives may serve as examples. The first is the market abuse directive, which is in danger of failing to learn the lessons from recent work on the new UK market abuse regime. It risks inadequately defining the offence. In some countries, criminal sanctions may apply for abusive behaviour where there has been no intent to abuse. Firms could find themselves at the mercy of several national regulators each applying different standards—perhaps for behaviour that is currently perfectly acceptable practice and approved by their regulator here in the UK.
The prospectus directive was originally well intentioned but is threatening to miss the opportunity to streamline the European capital markets. It could instead fragment the market, raise the cost of capital and burden companies, particularly smaller ones, with additional costs of up to £150,000 per year. It is small wonder that 56 senior executives issued their own wake-up call by highlighting these measures in a letter to the Financial Times last week.
We must impress upon the Government the need to keep a very watchful eye open for the potential implications of these directives and then to alert City interests. We can defend ourselves well. The withholding tax was a good example and government support here was outstanding. But we need to be aware of the issues at an early stage. If we are, we can prepare properly. Influencing the debate in Europe is not just a matter of protecting "Fortress UK" but understanding how the proposals will impact on other European markets and what other Europeans are trying to achieve.
Another key area of concern of the institutions is infrastructure, particularly transport. The dire state of public transport in London works against the capital's international position. But this is not just about sorting out the Tube. The London CrossRail link needs to go ahead and it must serve the whole of London's financial services community. The investment also needs to be approved for the light rail network linking Edinburgh city centre with the waterfront development there, its own Canary Wharf. Back in London, do we really have to wait four years for improvements to the Waterloo & City Line? The special bus lanes in Leeds, the trams in Manchester and, more recently, in Croydon, have worked well. We need to draw on these models to bring urgent infrastructure improvements.
Sadly, we are also beginning to have a problem with reputation. There have been many investigations and inquiries into various aspects of the financial services industry in recent years. The cumulative effect of these on London's image and reputation in the eyes of the outside world has been damaging. It is increasingly embarrassing on occasions to commend, as we rightly do, the high quality of our financial regulation procedures to our European friends only to have them

1139
retort, briefed as they are by our candid and often aggressive media on the apparent defects and scandals affecting our financial industry, that a market place so unhealthy that it needs constant investigation can scarcely be put forward as a model for others to follow. A more balanced approach by the media would undoubtedly pay considerable dividends.
Money laundering belongs in this context. We all take this very seriously. Yet only the other week the UK was under attack by a French parliamentarian saying that we are a "money launderers' paradise". Let me try to set the record straight.
Money laundering damages the reputation of the City. We therefore have a corporate interest in fighting it. But we know that there are problems; we are certainly not complacent; and we are working very hard at solutions. In the past year the dedicated staffing in the Economic Crime Unit, which leads the fight against money laundering, has increased threefold. A new computer system has been introduced, as have direct links to 37 police forces. This has led to a much higher notification of suspicious transactions, up by 50 per cent this year to 27,000. Since 11th September the daily rate of notifications has increased dramatically from 70 to 200.
Theoretically, if we imposed draconian regulations—such as insisting that all deposits are made through one point coupled with a half-hour interview each time, we could eradicate all money laundering. But if we fell for the total risk avoidance trap, then we would be out of business. The City is very serious about preventing money laundering. It is actively fighting back. But we must bear in mind that with a pool of 500 billion dollars being traded every day on the foreign exchange market alone, there are bound to be some leaks. We do not like them. The Industry is keen to plug them all.
As I outlined earlier, the industry makes a significant contribution to the Exchequer, both from corporate and personal tax where the rates are among the lowest in Europe. In times of economic difficulty it is tempting for government to raise taxes in the short term. But the Government must recognise that employees and their firms, in this industry above all others, are internationally very mobile. Raise the price of doing business and business will move. Tamper at your peril.
In a similar vein, I should like to mention the issue of stamp duty on share transactions. Its continued imposition is a glaring anomaly at odds with the Government's agenda on investment and competitiveness. Independent research commissioned by the Stock Exchange concludes that abolition would reduce the cost of capital of UK companies by 80 basis points from a current average of 12.5 per cent, boost share prices by an average of 10 per cent and investment by around £3 billion per year, and remove the anomaly that the tax discriminates in favour of non-UK companies.
Presentationally I know that this is difficult. The costs of abolition seem huge—almost £4.5 billion. However, research also shows that the net impact
1140
would be less because of corporation and income tax gains; and the residual lost revenue which would be completely offset by increased GDP growth. On balance, the advantages of abolition outweigh the disadvantages. In difficult times, abolition would boost UK equity markets and corporate morale.
The financial services industry is a vital contributor to UK plc, but it is more than that. It is one of the engine rooms of our economy and a tremendous success story for the United Kingdom. We are number one in the world as the international centre—a claim that we can make in few other areas. The industry provides well over £8 billion to the Exchequer. 8 per cent of the GDP and employs 8 per cent of the workforce. Financial services firms are the largest corporate benefactors to charities, social causes and the arts. It is a thriving, profitable industry. Therefore it is imperative that we remain vigilant and start t o take steps today on the points I have outlined—European regulation, reputation, transport, taxes and stamp duty—to ensure that the financial services industry retains its competitive advantage and can continue to provide enormous benefits to the UK economy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken, for introducing this debate. To use a capital asset, one does not necessarily have to own it. That is the concept behind a highly successful sector in the financial services industry—a sector which is generally known as equipment leasing but which can also include hire purchase and other related products and services. I declare not only an interest but my livelihood. For most of my adult life I have run companies involved with the leasing of high technology products. My present company, of which I am the chairman, is one of the leaders in the field. We are also members of the Finance and Leasing Association which is the trade association for UK lessors. I should like to give your Lordships a feeling for the scale of the industry.
In the 12-month period to September this year the members of the FLA financed 25.2 per cent of all fixed capital in the UK, excluding property. That percentage translates into an actual amount of £23.3 billion. Of that total, 28 per cent was represented by cars. 12 per cent by commercial vehicles and 18 per cent by plant and machinery. The balance was invested in equipment such as information technology, medical technology and communications networks.
Last year, leasing financed two-thirds of all transport investment in the UK. In the future, with so much government money being invested in transportation, leasing is bound to increase rapidly. It truly is an unsung example of public/private partnership. Leasing owes its popularity to the fact that it enables users of capital equipment to defer the cash impact of an outright capital expenditure. In essence, users pay for their equipment over a period.
Why has leasing become so popular and why do so many organisations use it? The principal reason is that leasing enables organisations to conserve cash. In

1141
effect, it takes the pressure off the cash flow of business. A secondary reason is that leasing decisions can be made much more quickly than those for a bank loan and the finance advanced represents 100 per cent of the cost of the equipment. That enables customers to match asset expenditure to income generation. In my area, which is technology, it allows the customer to avoid investing his own cash in rapidly depreciating assets. At the big ticket end, finance for assets such as ships, aircraft and oil pipelines can be made for very long periods—even up to 20 years. By way of contrast, my company will rent a computer for one day. Most typically, leases will be written for a period of between three and five years.
If I have given the impression that equipment leasing is the preserve of the large corporates, let me add that in the year 2000, 53 per cent of business finance provided by the FLA went to small and medium-sized enterprises. During this Government's first term, they produced a degree of economic competence that was simply dazzling. Boom and bust have become relics of a bygone era. Yet the Opposition were meagre in their praise, claiming that we were the beneficiaries of decisions that they took when they were in government. Today the industrial world is in recession, with one notable exception—the UK. Today's headline in The Times, based on an OECD reports, says it all. It states:
"Britain forecast to buck world recession".
However good GDP growth may be, our Achilles' heel as a nation is, as it has always been, productivity. Output per worker lags behind our competitors. Capital equipment is part of what makes the workforce more productive, and so, too, are skills enhancement and good management. It is my firm belief that leasing is a financial tool that oils the wheels of productive growth.
With productivity being so high on the economic agenda, your Lordships might have expected that the Treasury would encourage the leasing industry. But I have to report that in general government recognition of what we do is less than helpful. I wish to give just one example of where the Treasury has tried to make life easier for the small business sector but has ended up making it harder.
In the past few years the Government have announced accelerated capital allowances for small businesses when they acquire capital equipment. In the case of IT equipment, such allowances are even further enhanced to 100 per cent. So far, so good. The problem is that many small businesses are barely profitable and cannot use the benefits of capital allowances. This is particularly true of start-up companies which are in most need of the benefits.
Traditionally, capital allowances have followed the owner of an asset rather than its user. That has meant that a lessor has been able to transfer his tax benefits to the lessee by way of lower costs. Or, even better, the lessor has been able to accept credits that otherwise might have been rejected. For a reason that I cannot fathom, these special SME incentives are precluded
1142
from being transferred from user to owner. The effect is that an SME pays more for a lease than would be the case if the allowances were transferable.
We learn this week that the DTI has reported that SMEs in the UK are failing to meet the Government's own targets for trading on-line. That is hardly surprising. Tax policy and the desire to improve productivity need to point in the same direction. Will my noble friend the Minister ask the Treasury yet again to review that anomaly, which is illogical and self-defeating?
The leasing industry helps to keep small business in business. My industry does a good job for this country and the economy. It would be nice if the Government could give us a little more encouragement.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Levene, not only for introducing the Motion but for his speech and the knowledge that it contained. I shall take only a few moments of your Lordships' time to draw attention to what I believe is an excessive activity on the part of the Financial Services Authority in curbing the nuisance and menace of money laundering and drug peddling. I have no doubt that those who engage in such activities have need to clean up large sums of money and that they ought to be hampered in their disgraceful conduct.
However, I wonder whether what is contemplated and what is actually happening will deter even the most easily deterred money launderer, or whether that will only be a nuisance to large numbers of people who will be irritated, annoyed and inconvenienced by an unnecessary probe into affairs that they have been accustomed to regard as private.
Today a host of bankers, stockbrokers and other financial institutions are being stirred to approach customers, many of whom they have known for years, with detailed questionnaires. I seriously wonder whether it is sensible or appropriate for an official body to press such institutions into requiring of their customers documentary evidence that they are who they claim to be. Is it justifiable to ask people to tell those whom they have no particular reason to trust what they owe, what they own and where they got it from?
How can the Government guarantee that such information, which in essence is confidential, will be kept confidential by those who receive it? Who will be responsible for assimilating and checking the masses of information that will come from many thousands of sources, and who will have access to it?
I believe that it is going too far not only to require that people should furnish those with whom they have dealt for many years with documentary evidence as to who they are but also to insist that they reveal the very private side of their affairs, without an assurance that the inconvenience that they suffer will make any contribution to hampering the business of money laundering.

1143
Governments traditionally tend to be as inquisitive about others' affairs as they are reticent about their own. I very much hope that before they allow their creatures to go too far with these inquisitorial processes, they will bear in mind what to them is the awkward truth that those who show they trust no one are unlikely to be trusted by anyone. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Levene.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, we are all immensely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for raising this very important topic. I should like to speak about one of the most important issues to be faced by the City of London: the likely effect upon it of the development of the euro, in particular any decision on our part as to whether or not to join. The reasons why the City is preeminent are well known and have been rehearsed and I do not repeat them. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord that there is no question of complacency. We sometimes have a tendency, not, as many say, to run ourselves down and underestimate our virtues, but towards a certain smugness and complacency to boast as if we are the best and somewhat to underestimate the challenges, particularly competitiveness, that we face.
The first question is: are there any signs that the City's pre-eminence is being eroded? In some areas there seems little doubt that the City has strengthened its position since the euro was introduced. Despite being outside the euro-zone, it has gained market share in the trading of euro-denominated bonds, but in some other areas it appears to be losing ground. In terms of listed companies, market capitalisation, value of share trading and the OTC derivatives market, Paris and, in some cases Frankfurt too, is growing faster.
This year for the first time the BIS triennial survey shows a small drop in our share of the foreign exchange market from 32.5 per cent in 1998 to 31 per cent in 2001. We are still well ahead, but at the same time there was a slight rise in Frankfurt shares. There is a warning sign there. Overall, the figures suggest that the City is doing well but that its lead is narrowing.
I turn to the major changes that the euro will bring about and how they are likely to affect the City. I mention only three of the most important. First, a huge European capital market is beginning to emerge. The equity cult is spreading fast. Corporate finance on the Continent is going through a sea change. There is less government debt on the market. The advent of the euro has led to increased competition, which in turn has produced a great leap in the number of cross-border mergers and takeovers. A gradual shift is taking place towards privately-funded pension schemes. That is true in Sweden where part of the state funds will now be invested in equities or securities; and the Germans have announced a major reform.
All this leads to a huge extra demand for corporate bonds and equities. That demand is growing at a spectacular rate. Are the fund managers and other financial services of the City more likely to be able to exploit these opportunities if we are inside or outside
1144
the euro-zone? Banks tend to go where the customers are; they are not likely to up sticks and abandon London overnight, but new movements may well be to the euro-zone. Further, recent research suggests that proximity to the market improves the information available to analysts and enhances profitability. A rational assessment leads to the conclusion that the prospects would be better inside than outside.
Secondly, it will be the euro-zone countries which will increasingly determine the nature of the regulation of the European capital market. That point was adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Levene. who pointed to the dangers from a number of directives, for example those concerned with market abuse. The Financial Services Action Plan will be completed by 2005. As the noble Lord pointed out, it will affect the City profoundly. It will be decided by qualified majority voting. The fact is that the euro-zone countries will have the required qualified majority. It is noteworthy that the Lamfalussy report, which was concerned with the single market, was discussed separately in the euro group on the ground that its interests might be different from non- members of the euro-zone. It is also significant that when Sweden held the presidency of the European Union it was not allowed to chair the euro group because it was not a member of it. It appears to follow almost inevitably that outside the zone our voice is only too likely to be ignored or, at best, to count for much less than that of zone members, and that will not be good for the City.
Thirdly, the euro is likely to affect foreign direct investment. Changes in its pattern are likely to be gradual and may take time to show. So far foreign investment in this country has stood up well, but there are grounds for concern. First, one must remember that on the whole opinion expects us to join the euro-zone; if not, investment may begin to dry up. Secondly, the exchange rate uncertainties if we stay outside are bound to be a minus factor. Thirdly, we would be very rash to ignore the warnings issued by some of the biggest manufacturers which invest in Britain —for example, Siemens, ABB, Bosch and a number of Japanese companies—about the dangers of staying out. Finally, the most recent survey by Ernst & Young shows that our share of European inward investment has fallen from 28 per cent before the launch of the euro to 21 per cent today.
I do not argue that the City will collapse if we do not join the euro; it is strong enough to prosper even if we stay outside. But I fear that all the signs are that the City's relative position would decline. If, on the other hand, we join it is very possible that the City could become as important to Europe as New York is to the United States. Indeed, backed by the huge potential of the European capital market, it could even rival New York as the leading financial centre of the world.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords. the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and I periodically join in explaining the British constitution to American students. It is thus a particular pleasure to follow him today, even if I do not do so into controversy.

1145
I owe a particular debt to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for having initiated this particular debate which affords me the opportunity to make an uncontroversial speech. I hope that I shall not be thought to contravene that intention if I support what the noble Lord said about European regulation in his notable speech. Apart from his own present activities, the financial services industry owes much to the noble Lord not only for having been a most distinguished recent Lord Mayor of London but also for his efforts in an extracurricular capacity in straightening out at least some of the transportation links involving the City and Canary Wharf.
I thank both your Lordships' House and its staff for the warm welcome I have experienced, which has endorsed the pleasure my late parents both took in this place. I realise from the rubric afforded me upon arrival that I should not allude to my parents in terms of my specific relationships with them. In future I shall adhere to a self-imposed code. If needed, I shall call my father my late noble kinsman and my mother my late noble relative.
My qualifications for speaking in the debate are modest but personal. I served in another place as the third-longest-serving Member of Parliament for the City of London since 1283 and I served for another 10 days as chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council. At the end of November, the individual industry ombudsmen will disappear under the Act and become the integrated Financial Ombudsman Service.
I have never myself worked in the City, nor indeed in the financial services industry except for a year's service as a non-executive director of a merchant bank and, indirectly, as an outside Name at Lloyd's, now in run off. When for four years I was a Minister at the Treasury I was, among my seven ministerial colleagues, the only one never to have worked in the City.
My relationship to the industry has been that attributed to Churchill in his wilderness years when, on being introduced at a party gathering as one of the pillars of our party, he replied, "Not so much a central pillar, more a flying buttress. I lend support, but from the outside". Because my links derive from personal roles, I may offend in the same way as the Liberal Peer in the first half of the last century, the publication of whose memoirs was held up for three weeks because the printers had run out of the capital "I".
Because time is as gold dust I shall not rehearse the City's remarkable trading statistics, as did the noble Lord, Lord Levene, save to remark in passing that gold dust is but one of the commodities in which the City provides Europe's dominant market. But I shall endorse what has been said about the industry's wider contribution. At a breakfast briefing in the City in past years, a distinguished economist said that the economy of London had grown for many years less fast than that of the rest of the country until in 1987 "big bang" heralded an explosion of growth in the City, which then fed across into much faster growth in London as well, exceeding the nation's growth. Because around
1146
20 per cent of the employed population of Greater London work in the parliamentary constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster, leaving under 80 per cent of London's employed population for the other 73 parliamentary constituencies, I can understand why that stimulating effect should be so. Indeed, it was an index of the City's centrality that the only joke generated by the Single European Act was the example of how non-tariff barriers created a less than level playing field, in that in the life insurance industry a British actuary could tell you how many people were going to die, whereas a Sicilian actuary could give you their names and addresses.
A number of noble Lords will have heard the radio announcement this morning about the citizens advice bureaux report on inappropriate financial instruments being sold to fellow citizens. I have myself extricated our closest neighbour in Wiltshire, a retired agricultural labourer who left school at 14, from a financial contract where he was still paying interest at more than 20 per cent to a household name financial institution on a loan he took out to buy a second-hand car some 30 years ago.
But my concern today, wearing my "Ombudsmanic" hat, is not so much with mis-selling or mis-buying, as it is with delivery. I recall sitting next to a foreign banker one year at a Stock Exchange lunch who said that what distinguished London from all other centres was that somewhere in London, there would always be someone who would do a deal on any risk, and that that was not so elsewhere. In an era when electronics will rob us of some of our markets, since there is nothing necessarily unique about our electronics, we shall rely increasingly on our comprehensive experience and individual ingenuity. It is important that some of our human skills go into the management of systems and the training of lower ranks in institutions because I know from experience that, over the years, an ombudsman sees many aberrations in institutions.
My only other footnote on the integration of the ombudsman service under the Financial Services Authority is that ombudsmen should remember, as from next month, that they are ombudsmen and that they should avoid becoming regulators as well.
Overall, however, one's conclusion is admiration for the industry as a British success story in the world league, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Levene. When I was at the Treasury, there was a saying that that which could not be measured did not exist. It was a saying put to the test some years ago by the Foreign Office when concerns were expressed by the embassy in Brussels as to whether Mr Ernest Bevin, who admittedly was a large man, would be able to pass through the door between the embassy's main spare bedroom and the main spare bathroom. A telegram was sent to London with the request, "Please verify diameter of Secretary of State". From the Foreign Office in London came a telegram in response, which perhaps proved that the officials were more literate than numerate: "Unable verify diameter but circumference is 60 inches". Unmeasurable is the

1147
respect we hold for the Cities of London and Edinburgh and, indeed, for the rest of the industry. We are lucky to have them.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on a wonderful maiden speech. In spite of his modesty, I think that all noble Lords are aware of his distinguished career in politics. He served his party at both extremes; he was a Whip and then, much later, he was the party chairman. He served the country as a Minister in many departments. He told the House about his time at the Treasury, but he also served in education, heritage, and at the Northern Ireland Office during a very tough time.
Perhaps what is not known is that the noble Lord was also a management consultant for 18 years before entering Parliament. That experience may be the source of the authority with which he speaks on business and other matters. I think I speak for the whole House when I say that I hope that we shall hear from him often.
I recently had the opportunity to attend a talk on schizophrenia. I learnt that schizophrenics have two personalities, one which is kind to people and helpful to society, the other which is a threat to people and a danger to society. What an apt description of the financial services industry here in Britain. On the one hand are flourishing businesses providing valuable and important services to our economy in insurance, banking, trading and financing—and in leasing, as described by my noble friend Lord Mitchell. At the same time, there are practices which are a danger in themselves and which damage the rest of our economy. I only have to mention Lloyd's, Equitable Life and the mis-selling of pensions.
The noble Lord, Lord Levene, told noble Lords about the good side of that split personality. I congratulate him on moving the Motion and on initiating the debate. I certainly agree with his comments about transport. However, for the sake of balance, I believe that I should look at the darker side of the industry's personality.
One symptom of schizophrenia is excess. The excessive fees that City lawyers and accountants, banks and hedge fund managers charge are legendary. They can charge those fees because they have created a kind of closed shop for their specialised services. That is particularly worrying in the field of pensions where high charges together with low levels of information have alienated many savers. Furthermore, underfunding has created many worries. The cost of such excess is passed on to the rest of the economy, reflected in the high price of finance and the high fees charged by our financial services companies to the rest of industry.
I wish that I could accuse the financial services sector of excess when financing new industry, new research, new products and market development. Sadly, I cannot do so. if the financial services industry was doing its job properly, there would be no need
1148
for the Government to use taxpayers' money to finance projects such as the loan guarantee scheme, the £54 million innovation fund and all the other national and regional schemes funded the Government to help companies to expand and to develop their products, new markets and new technologies. I do not mean helping lame ticks, poorly managed companies or declining businesses: the Government do not do that any more. But the Government are helping the entrepreneurial revolution by financing businesses to help them make progress.
The City's preference for dealing with big corporations has not helped the entrepreneurial revolution which is taking place in this country The venture capital sector has helped, but its preference has been for management buy-outs rather than king new ventures. If the financial services industry was doing its job properly, it would he doing this work not the Government.
British manufacturing industry should be well served by a flourishing financial services sector there should be no lack of investment in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and chemical engineering. Unfortunately, the City seems- most interested in investing in the financial engineering sector in Britain; in engineering share values. We are witnessing that waste now as companies write down billions in assets this year which the financial services sector valued last year. There was an example of that only last week. Last year, Vodafone paid a £10 million bonus to its chief executive for buying a business, against which it had to write off £10 billion last week.
Perhaps this all came about because the financial services sector fell into a trap to which many of us succumb—fashion. The industry tries to follow fashion so as not to miss out on the next fashion hit. I can recall two property fashion booms, the fashion of overseas government bonds, the fashion of commodities, and, of course, the recent dot com fashion. While money was recklessly poured into these fashionable sectors, good businesses in less fashionable sectors were starved of finance.
I come from the textile industry. I know all about fashion and what a poor master it is. How much better it is to have some kind of vision. Sadly, the dedication to personal gain which seems to permeate the financial services industry is a pretty uninspiring vision. At least having a vision instead of following fashion ensures that market prices are more likely to be driven by normal corporate fundamentals.
The dangerous side of the City's character is dedicated to personal gain through the narrow emphasis on shareholder value. That narrow emphasis has let down the remainder of British industry. After all, what is shareholder value? When managers decide, it is usually about their broad overall business—its growth, employment and market prospects—and its fundamental value. But when the financial people define shareholder value, it usually means only the share price, and that is a fairly narrow term.

1149
Other noble Lords have spoken about regulation. The financial services sector tried to regulate itself, but, sadly, it did not work. The rules for insider trading were virtually impossible to enforce. That is why it has been necessary for the FSA to take on swingeing powers at the end of this month, powers that include unlimited fines for market abuse. I am rather sad about this. Instead of being a policeman, the regulator should be the City's conscience, a conscience which encourages good practice, sets high standards of professionalism and lets the customer call the shots. The City depends very much on its reputation, which is very difficult to build up. If it does not react as I have described, I am afraid that the City will decline in importance. The sector needs to cure its own evils.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, this is a welcome debate and the timing is very pertinent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken, for introducing it at this time.
Of one thing I am certain—namely, that there is no disagreement in your Lordships' House that the financial services industry is a most important industry—some claim it to be the most important industry—in the economy of the United Kingdom.
The figures, of course, are impressive. We have heard already that the financial services sector accounts for an enormous percentage of GDP—apparently 6.1 per cent in 1998 for what I would call the "proper" financial services, including banking, securities dealing, insurance and fund management. If one then adds the legal services and accountancy one arrives at a figure of about 8 per cent. The UK financial services industry is a world leader in specific sub-sectors such as foreign exchange, insurance and derivatives, and London is the world's largest fund management centre.
World-wide growth in the provision of financial services is a feature of the global economy. Although this country is one of the biggest centres of financial services at this stage, it does not give anyone the right to be complacent, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken. Even the success in attracting so many foreign-owned banks—more than 500—to the City and to Docklands cannot be viewed in a sanguine manner. It is the easiest thing in the world to change location by moving to other financial centres.
It always seemed to me that London—particularly the City of London—had the edge on other international centres because the motto "my word is my bond" of the Stock Exchange gave everyone a high comfort factor. It was rather good that the City of London motto Domine dirige nos—for the non-classic scholars among us, "Lord direct us"—gave a feeling of security. I am not about to say that those mottoes no longer hold good, but, again, complacency must not creep in.
We spent a long time in this House debating the Financial Services and Markets Bill, when many warnings were given concerning the operation of the
1150
FSA. We particularly drew attention to the inconsistency with current corporate governance whereby the posts of chairman and chief executive were not to be vested in two people but in one.
None of us underestimated the size of the task facing the FSA and pointed out the difficulties which could arise if the chairman and chief executive posts were combined. That was not to suggest for one moment that the individual chosen for the task was not of the highest calibre, but rather to express the concern that the job could be too much for one individual.
In addition, we spoke of the well-recognised benefits which derive from the splitting of the posts in other sectors of the economy, whereby the chairman can take the wider strategic view and the chief executive can concentrate on the day-to-day operation of the organisation.
Despite the concerns expressed from these Benches—in my case, they were expressed solely on the basis of personal experience—the Government disregarded our request. I believe that the two major problems which have beset the financial services industry since that time might have been avoided, or at least minimised, if our concerns had been addressed. I should like to ask the Minister whether there are any further thoughts on this issue and whether a timetable could be put on the splitting of the post.
The two issues which have caused a great deal of concern are, of course, Independent Insurance and Equitable Life. I have to declare an interest as a holder of Equitable Life bonds. Therefore I shall not make any comments which could be regarded as special pleading.
It seems to me that in both cases—and I can rely only on media comment plus information gleaned in the course of a few directorship responsibilities—there was a delay by the FSA in getting to grips with the fact that something nasty was happening. The pattern of what I call "neglect of fiduciary responsibility" has been repeated in the Railtrack situation—but not, of course, by the FSA in that case. This will bring disrepute on the whole of the financial services sector because doubts will be cast—and are, indeed, being cast—on its basic integrity.
Those who are close to it know that integrity is highly prized and guarded, but we also know that one rotten apple can spoil the barrel. The FSA was set up to ensure, insofar as is humanly possible, that both the individual customer buying shares, insurance policies, arranging loans or savings, and companies arranging insurance, long-term and short-term financing or other financial instruments, are convinced that "my word is my bond" still pertains.
It would be both wrong and unfair to suggest that our financial services industry is tainted, but it is part of the most competitive of competitive markets worldwide and control cannot be lessened. This is where the FSA comes in and I have no compunction in using the opportunity afforded by this debate to raise again the issue of splitting the job of the chairman and chief executive.

1151
I would now like to turn to the issue of confidence, or lack of it, engendered by the Railtrack débâcle. I fear that the Government have been extremely naïve in asserting that the way in which the Railtrack issue was handled would not have any effect on the Government's ability to raise finance from the private sector. This assertion has been made many times in the past few weeks, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, in this House in answer to a question from me. Comments by bankers have shown strong disagreement with this assertion. Indeed the experience of people withdrawing from propositions to lend shows that that is correct. There must have been a serious amount of damage done to the trust built up over many years by successive governments.
Any knock to confidence takes a long time to overcome and in particular when the world's financial markets have been especially jittery. Too many of these jolts to the reputation of the financial services industry of the United Kingdom could have a lasting effect and damage the international competitive position of the industry. That cannot be allowed to occur.
In my own small way I have highlighted two separate issues; the management of the FSA and the importance of government maintaining trust with investors. I hope that we can have some comfort that these issues will be taken on board.
4.11 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Levene for introducing today's debate. My noble friend has a very distinguished background—notably his tenure as Lord Mayor of London—which qualifies him to espouse the many virtues of the financial services industry in this country. The debate comes at a particularly opportune time following the tragic events of 11th September and the consequential spate of redundancies in the City.
I should declare an interest as a consultant to Merrill Lynch and a number of other financial services companies. It would be simple to espouse the many qualities of London as one of the three major financial services centres in the world and to extol the contribution of the financial services industry to the UK economy, both directly and indirectly. However, in my limited time today, I should like to touch on just two issues. The first is the alarming impact of ongoing job losses in the industry. Indeed, my own company is in the process of shedding more than 10,000 jobs worldwide. Earlier this year it was being predicted that there would be around 20,000 job losses in the UK financial services sector. However, the events of 11th September have led many observers to suggest that the final tally could be much higher, possibly approaching the scale of the economic downturn in the 1990s when 60,000 jobs were lost. My noble friend Lord Levene has already mentioned the indirect financial benefits of those working in the City and the potential impact that could have on the property market and many other sectors.
The question is whether this spate of job losses is a temporary blip or a symptom of a problem altogether more fundamental and devastating. It is easy to be
1152
alarmist, but the reality is that in the past three years, with the IPO boom and the technology boom, almost all the financial services companies throughout the United Kingdom have tended to over-man themselves. Now that the markets have stabilised, many companies are substantially downsizing their staff levels and seeking to cut costs by out-sourcing many of their non-core business activities, such as IT. Over the past few years there has been huge consolidation among the major banks. My noble friend Lord Levene comes from Deutsche Bank. There has been a massive amount of consolidation in that bank alone. My prognosis is that the worst is over and that the job market is likely to stabilise next year.
The second issue that I want to raise briefly, which was also raised by my noble friend, is regulation. Among the many attractions for foreign capital and foreign banks coming into the United Kingdom has been the fact that the financial services sector in the United Kingdom is a self-regulatory regime. In this context I refer to the Yellow Book for the Stock Exchange, the Blue Book for the Takeover Panel and of course the banking ombudsman. I could continue.
While I share my noble friend's concern about the potential for over-regulation, I have one concern about the alternative investment market—otherwise known as AIM. That market has boomed in the past four years due in part to the fact that those who are seeking a listing on the alternative investment market go through a far less strenuous scrutiny. Over the past year there has been a dramatic collapse of many companies on the market and that has particularly affected many small investors. My concern is that while companies seeking a full listing are governed by the Financial Services Authority, the prospectuses of those seeking an AIM listing are the responsibility of their nominated advisers and not the FSA. In my opinion small investors in the alternative investment market are entitled to far greater protection and a company seeking an AIM listing should be more tightly regulated.
Finally, on a more positive note, it is important to recognise that London has recently played a pivotal role as a disaster recovery centre, with American banks looking to London for continuity of trading following the devastation suffered in New York on 11th September. We should not underestimate the value of the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly during the current global crisis.
It is obvious that the financial services sector occupies a highly significant place in the British economy. I believe and trust that it is equally evident that the industry's current difficulties will soon be overcome and that growth and prosperity will soon return.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Levene, on, and agree with, what he said. On behalf of many others in your Lordships' House perhaps I may thank him for heading the recent appeal

1153
for those bereaved by the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Perhaps I may also couple the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with those thanks. From these Back Benches perhaps I may say how much I welcome the maiden speech of my former ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. His erudition will enlighten our proceedings and his sense of humour will lighten them.
I wish briefly to concentrate on pensions partly because of the changes that are under way in their provision and their critical, even major importance, to the financial services industry. I declare an interest as the trustee of a number of pension funds as reported in the Register of Lords' Interests.
Within western Europe, the United Kingdom has an enviable record in the provision in the private sector, and indeed in the former nationalised industries, of self-funded pension schemes. Indeed, we have one of the most developed pensions industries in the world. I very much welcome the Myners report and the Government's acceptance of it in October. I believe that it will help to provide, through greater transparency, the proper provision of pension funds and advice.
Most pensions in this country, certainly numerically, are provided through company schemes on the basis of a proportion of final salary. Four decades of equity investment has allowed—until recently—the value of the funds to rise substantially, including, for example, the House of Commons parliamentary pension fund. The Conservative government introduced personal pensions to take account of the greater mobility of labour. People can take their pension fund with them to a new job. But those are money purchase schemes; there is no employer guarantee, and they are invested largely in equities.
Some dramatic changes have taken place recently. The first has been the fall in the equity market, which is cyclical but severe. There has been perhaps a 25 per cent reduction in the value of the assets of many major pension funds. At the same time, pensioners are living longer. Those two factors, the fall in the equity market and the longer life span of pensioners, are increasing the cost to employers of the guarantee of final salary pension schemes. So it is not surprising that we are moving from defined benefit (final salary schemes) to defined contribution (money purchase schemes)—because they are cheaper.
There is also significant movement from equity investments to debt instruments. It is estimated that 50 per cent of the FTSE 250, the Financial Times share index of the 250 largest companies, will be moving out of equity gradually, possibly into debt provision, for the assets of their pension funds; and some £100 billion may move out of the equity markets over the next five years.
These dramatic changes could cause a severe fall in the income of the financial services industry. But they also present a major challenge. Perhaps I may briefly describe the position and conclude with a question to
1154
the Minister. First, the rules relating to personal pensions—under which a person must buy an annuity, and by the age of 75—are causing an unnecessary cap on the amount of savings that many taxpayers are prepared to make through the personal pension provision route, which may be the only route available.
It is calculated that in order to provide through personal pensions, with current actuarial rates, a pension of £40,000 at the age of 65, a person needs to have saved £500,000 during his or her working life. I wonder how many people in their 40s or 50s have even begun to accumulate anything like that sum to provide a decent pension on retirement.
We need greater flexibility in the provision of personal pensions and the rules governing them. We need the flexibility not necessarily to buy an annuity, and the ability to pass part or all of those funds on to our dependants and family. That means that the tax regime may have to change. We may have to limit tax relief on contributions by individuals to, say, the basic rate rather than the marginal rate. We may have to contemplate taxation in the form of inheritance tax for that part of a pension fund that is passed on to the beneficiaries of an estate.
If the financial services industries grasp this challenge—one of the biggest challenges in the past decade—savings rates may rise, and people may feel more inclined to save for their retirement. Are the Government likely to begin consultations over the next few months or years on changes in the annuity rules for those who are saving through personal pensions?
We need greater disinterested advice to be given to younger people in their 30s and 40s, encouraging them at an early stage in their employment to save for retirement—and to save significantly. The relative failure thus far of the stakeholder pension fund initiative sounds a warning note as to how much people are prepared to save.
Finally, I suggest a motto that might be attached to many of the financial documents that are sent out, particularly to those in their 30s and 40s: "Failure to save properly will seriously damage your future financial health".
4.25 p.m.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for initiating the debate. It provides us with a marvellous opportunity to discuss a feature of economic life which is of crucial importance. Perhaps I may also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on his maiden speech. It was erudite, entertaining and humorous.
I begin by declaring an interest. I served until last year as chairman of the Co-operative Group (CWS) and also as deputy chairman of the Co-operative Bank. I am now chairman of Unity Trust Bank, the trade union bank, owned by the trade unions and the Co-operative Movement. This debate is most welcome.

1155
The financial services industry, as has been stressed by many speakers, plays an increasing part in our nation's prosperity. It is vital that it is properly regulated. It is equally vital that the benefits of a successful and expanding financial services industry are available to all, and that the practical advantages of its prosperity can be translated into prosperity for all.
I want to comment on employee share ownership plans, on credit unions and in general terms on the social economy. ESOPs were introduced by Unity Trust Bank to the UK in 1997. They allow employees to purchase, or be awarded, shares under tax efficient profit sharing schemes. The Chancellor's recent initiative to re-launch ESOPs under the Share Incentive Plan (SIP) permitting employees to obtain up to £7,500 worth of shares is most welcome. This provides motivation and incentive, and encourages the retention of key employees and a participative style of management.
Surprisingly, credit unions are not widely understood or appreciated. They enable members to start the savings habit with small sums and thereafter to borrow at reasonable rates of interest. Credit unions can protect the most vulnerable members of society from the clutches of loan sharks and money lenders. There have been successes—most notably in the trade union sector. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the GMB and USDAW have made considerable progress. Indeed, the GMB's credit union has become one of the largest and fastest growing examples in the UK. That is extremely encouraging.
What is also encouraging is that the Department of Health has produced a report on the positive impact that credit unions can have on improving quality of life. It used Tower Hamlets as a case study. The report was formally launched on 8th November.
The expression "the social economy" has only recently entered the business vocabulary. It embraces ESOPs, credit unions and community programmes which among other things support local schools and educational projects, help to organise community sporting events and offer specialist advice to projects and groups, not least to pensioners. The comments on pensions made by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, struck a chord with me.
I take it that everyone accepts that every citizen should have access to a good pension scheme. There has been a good deal of tinkering with pensions over the years on all sides of the political spectrum. People have become uncertain and are often confused about their entitlement. Frankly, the vagaries of the stock market do little to overcome that. During the 1980s and 1990s, people became accustomed to consistent growth in stock market values. They become totally bewildered when stock markets suddenly show not signs of collapse but clear signs of decline. I appreciate that that varies from time to time. Stakeholder pensions may well be a step forward—I believe that they are—but I contend that they will need to be made compulsory in future.
The Government have shown sympathy with the concept of the social economy, which I welcome. The social economy is no longer regarded as the preserve of
1156
somewhat eccentric individuals who operate on the fringes of the financial world. To make Further advances, it is important that we recognise that personal financial management should be part of the educational process. In that regard, an increasing emphasis should be placed on the subject for example, the school curriculum.
We—certainly noble Lords on this side of the House—have talked about, "Education, education, education". That should be expanded to include sensible education in personal financial affairs. The key to further progress in the social economy sector is fiscal encouragement and better education. By definition, the social economy means self-help. self-reliance and self-determination. It would be appreciated if the Minister would confirm that the Government regard the social economy as an important part of the financial services industry and that they are committed to its expansion.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I understand that I am not supposed to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for his outstandingly brilliant maiden speech as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has already done so warmly on our behalf. So I confine myself to urging him to make many such contributions in future debates. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for giving us this opportunity to debate a vital subject. As he said, the UK financial services industry is the flagship of the UK economy.
I am very proud to be senior partner at one of the leading financial services law firms, Beachcroft Wansbroughs. I know, from my own experience. of the tremendous international significance of this vital part of the economy.
First, however, I want to comment on the retail financial services sector in my capacity as chairman of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers. The recent report undertaken by the eminent consultancy firm Oliver Wyman indicates that a substantial gap exists between what people are saving and what they need to save for retirement. We share the Government's concern that more encouragement should be given to increasing the savings ratio. The retail savings industry has to provide the mechanisms by which that gap is bridged.
We have of course achieved a great deal. The savings gap may seem intimidatingly large but the provision for personal and occupational pensions in the UK is far higher than elsewhere in the European Union. Those who criticise the UK industry should bear in mind the fact that it has already delivered. Advice has played a significant part. All the research shows that advice is needed if consumers are to feel confident enough to purchase financial products. There will always be many consumers who want to discuss their financial futures with someone—preferably face to face—before they make a financial decision. There will always be many who need to be persuaded to defer spending today in the interests of providing for their future.

1157
Nearly half of those who are earning less than £13,500 a year claim that they would not save at all without advice and encouragement. Among the more highly paid, the figure is still more than a quarter. That is why the role of advice—in particular, that of the independent financial adviser—is so crucial. The FSA has embarked on an ambitious and excellent programme of consumer education. That starts in the schools but it will be many years before it feeds through into the market, although I am sure that the result will be better informed consumers asking better informed questions of their independent financial advisers.
The key for policymakers is to ensure that the regulatory requirements that they impose on the giving of advice in the interests of protecting consumers do not become so onerous—many noble Lords have already discussed this—that they deprive those consumers of access to advice altogether. In recent years, the balance has perhaps swung too far in one direction. Bureaucracy and paperwork have grown to a point at which too much time is spent in that process and too little in actually giving advice. I hope that the FSA will consider, in conjunction with the industry, how some of the burdens can be mitigated. In that regard I am encouraged by some recent comments of senior management at the FSA.
Such a review would be of especial importance to small businesses. It is they who feel most acutely the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy. They can play a significant part in bringing advice to those who need it, not least because many businesses are local businesses and are capable of attracting those who are put off by the less personal "mega" financial institutions.
AIFA recently co-sponsored a research project. About 70 per cent of those questioned indicated that they thought it important to receive advice from someone who was independent of a bank or insurance company. That is why it is vital to support a distribution channel and not to over-regulate it out of existence.
Much effort has been put into identifying substitutes for advice, such as decision trees and comparative tables. They have a role to play but the limits of that role should be understood. We should focus on the value of advice. Alternative mechanisms seem to leave many consumers cold.
I know that advisers will rise to that challenge and look for new and different ways of making their services available. They will have to provide a constant demonstration of their professionalism to clients and show that they offer value for money. In particular, the provision of advice through the workplace offers new opportunities for the provision of advice. Sir John Banham, as chairman of the inquiry into financial advice which was sponsored by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, highlighted that route. The economics of advice can be transformed if the adviser has access to individuals in their workplace. More individuals can be contacted at the same time and the
1158
availability of payroll and other data reduces the time spent collecting that data. It is also a valued employee benefit.
I hope that many more employers will see the benefits of making independent financial advice more available to their workforce.
Of course, the IFA sector is under review—perhaps I should say that it is under many reviews. Ron Sandler is undertaking an exhaustive—and exhausting—review of retail financial services. The FSA is looking at fundamental issues to do with the structure of the market, such as polarisation. All the reviewers must bear in mind that the central objective concerns getting people to save in the right products at the right time. Independent advice is crucial in that process. Constant fiddling with market structures is as likely to interfere with that objective as it is to promote it. Those undertaking the reviews need to have that fact at the forefront of their minds.
I reiterate, as the noble Lord, Lord Levene, pointed out, that we are proud of the UK insurance industry. Last year, UK insurers had more than £1,100 billion invested on behalf of their policyholders. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that companies in London face greater regulatory burdens than their competitors elsewhere. It is vital to have a level playing field for the industry rather than a competitive disadvantage.
I turn to flooding. I hope that the Government will embark on a stronger partnership with the industry. I commend the ABI's report, Flooding: a partnership approach to protecting people. Flood defences need to be improved.
I also want to mention Pool Re. We took that initiative following Irish terrorism. However, it covers only fire and explosion, and it evolved at a time when it was hoped that commercial insurance would take over the risk. Recent tragic events make that most unlikely. However, we need to cover the new risks, whether from an aviation accident or biological and chemical hazards. I hope that the Government will respond quickly and positively to this necessary extension of Pool Re.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, one of the great advantages of your Lordships' House is that one can receive eminent advice from eminent senior partners without having to go to the great expense that I can no longer afford.
I begin my intervention today by declaring, in accordance with the Williams code, as many interests as I think are relevant—and I am afraid there are many—commencing with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who was my Member of Parliament. I canvassed for him for many long nights in Peabody Buildings and others. We were very grateful for his success and I am very grateful that, at last, he has joined us here. The noble Lord's father was extremely kind to me when I was a young Member of your Lordships' House.
The words of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who made a most excellent presentation of a very positive situation, caused me grave concern. They made me

1159
wonder what other pieces of good news there are in the United Kingdom economy. As he eminently pointed out, our manufacturing industry was always judged to be a good winner abroad. We had a positive balance of payments in manufacturing for 78 of the past 100 years, but we are now in deficit because we no longer make anything. We wiped out great companies, including that which my noble friend Lord Prior chaired, because everyone decided that we should not make any more but should outsource and downsizetwo strange words and phrases. That really meant that Hornby trains were no longer made in England but in China, and that everyone made things everywhere else. Was that because we were no good at making them, or were we really a nation of shopkeepers? Let us assume that the manufacturing sector in this country is near dead or dying. One reason we are not facing a recession is that we do not manufacture enough to be worried by those kinds of issues.
I turn to agriculture, which is bogged down in a quagmire of bureaucracy—totally unproductive, uneconomic, not loved, suffering. When I questioned whether there were any other productive areas of the economy, someone said, "Yes, my dear chap, property, which these days is 10 per cent of GDP". I tried to work out how property created added value other than to the owner of the property. So we come to what I suppose was once called the stomach of the country, from which all other organs took the tone. It was Gladstone; that is finance.
Can the finance sector support everything? Does it not have to finance something somewhere in our own country and not necessarily around the world? I have spent most of my career in the financial and banking world. When my young relatives used to be asked to describe what I did, they said, "We think he rings up and orders money from people who do not have it for people who need it desperately". In a way, that is the direction in which we are heading at the moment in the financial services world. I want to start at either the top or the bottom and move through the middle.
The bottom is an area of very great concern to me. It is called debt, more debt and debt compounded. I was no good with computers, I could not even use an abacus, but I used to navigate by guess, by God and by—that wonderful phrase—"the law of 72". If you divide 72 by the prevailing rate of interest, you are told how long you have to double the amount that you have to repay. Since the figure of 24 per cent was quoted earlier, in three years you have to double the amount you repay.
I refer to the example of a young student who happens to be handicapped or illiterate and who receives a credit card offer through a telephone call or the post, which he accepts, but discovers that he cannot afford to fund it, and then gets a succession of other similar offers. Based on that kind of example, one could, before long, find many underprivileged members of our society in debt up to their eyeballs; and those who can use a computer can do it even better because someone else then says, "Are you worried about your debts?"—of course they are—"Take out something else". I therefore request the noble Lord,
1160
Lord McIntosh, to ask his colleagues to consider those worrying issues—and they have been raised previously—that affect many members of our society who cannot afford to pay.
It is at the top end that we have a real worry. This is the area of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for whom I have great regard and respect, because he has a major opportunity in front of him. We have to make major investment in a number of areas over which the Government have direct or indirect control. We have the worst and most expensive transport system in Europe, and possibly in the whole of the developed world. We have the worst and most incompetent health service—because it lacks resources—in Europe and probably in the world. We have the worst school system in Europe and possibly in many other areas as well. Those are historic infrastructures which, for one reason or another—I do not blame the Government of today or of yesterday—have left our people deprived. They require the investment of large amounts of money. They require not only large amounts of money but also the resources to build them, to complete them, to fit them out and to manage them.
In that respect, I have in mind the lovely phrase, "It is not me, Jack, it is you, it is PFI, it is someone else". The Government will rely on the private sector to finance this great programme and probably to design and build it, but at one level it has within it party bodies who think that PFI and PPP are wrong and not cost effective. At the other end, we have unions that do not want people to work for a private company. We also have contractors with fairly full order books at the moment, who may not be able to take on the extra work. Finally, we have the European Union, which has decided that there should be a new purchasing policy directive stating that you cannot negotiate and, therefore, you have to go out to wider tender, which is being considered at the moment.
The problem with a PFI project—I declare an interest as a director of one of the contractors that does a good deal of PFI work—is that in the process of bidding everyone has to incur costs amounting to probably 3 per cent of the total cost of the project. That amounts to 9 per cent in the case of three people and to 15 per cent in the case of five people, which adds very substantially to the cost of funding projects. We also have to bear in mind the cost created by a lack of decision making. For example, a modern hospital will cost approximately £200,000 per room, and in the inner London area approximately £400,000 per room—the price of five-star hotels—which is in some cases difficult to finance.
I ask the Government to give very careful consideration to being more open about how they plan to fund their major development programme, which is very welcome. We hear of PUK, or puke as some people call it; we have all the different pneumonics that are introduced; we see the rows that exist between different sectors of society. I merely say that I believe the financial services world would willingly help the Government effectively and quickly, provided they could get their own act in order.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I, too, join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, on an excellent and deliciously witty maiden speech.
The thanks of the whole House are due to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for giving us the opportunity of debating a subject which, unfortunately, is not very often discussed in the House at any length. He and many other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, have clearly emphasised the importance of this sector of our economy.
I do not want to add to what has already been said. However, I remind your Lordships of one fact. It was about a century and a half ago that Disraeli warned us that Europe would not long allow England to remain the workshop of the world. It has taken quite a while, but in the end that prophecy has turned out right. Today manufacturing today represents 20 per cent of the gross domestic product. The rest is taken up by the service industries, notably financial services. That, of course, is much to be praised. However, it carries with it a certain danger. We have a very high level of consumption, which very much depends on the imports of consumer and consumer-durable goods. We know the difficulties that our manufactured exports, alongside manufacturing itself, now face in the world markets. How long can we rely on the export of services, notably financial services, to take up that slack? I leave that question with your Lordships.
The other point I want to mention—although I shall not dilate on it, because I fear that I have wearied your Lordships several times in the past—is my view on the euro. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said. Leaving aside whether we should join the euro or what the scene will look like after 1st January, psychologically as well as mechanically, let us consider for a moment the likely world monetary scene in a few years. Will it not be dominated by the dollar, the yen and the euro? What then will be the position of sterling? I readily accept that even if the euro comes into force successfully on 1st January next, sterling and London will hold their own for quite a long time. But for how long?
Finally, I shall say a few words about regulation. After two other careers, I have worked in the Square Mile for 34 years. When I first worked there, regulation was practically non-existent. There was a modicum of gentle self-regulation here and there, partly because the financial services were divided into all kinds of specialisations. The financial services industry of which we speak today hardly existed. That has changed. As so often happens in our society, when we make a change we do not do it by half. We now have the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which is a formidable and very weighty document. It would be against parliamentary etiquette for me to display it to your Lordships.
What will the Act do? It gives statutory powers to the Financial Services Authority. I do not think that it is designed—or that it would succeed even if it were—to catch and destroy the myriad petty deceits and
1162
frauds of which we hear every day. That is not its main purpose and such a steam hammer could not do it anyway.
Will the provisions be effective on big deals? We can hardly use Equitable Life as an example, because the FSA was barely involved. But we know only too well, even from the experience of the United States, which we have often rather complacently dubbed a lawyer's paradise, that very often such big issues bring to the fore problems of a non-legal character of such weight—financial and otherwise—that they almost inevitably lead to some kind of compromise.
There is a fear in my mind that even in the very big problems of wrongdoing of one kind or another the FSA will not be able to be fully effective, despite the elaborate powers conferred on it by the Act. As has already been pointed out, the FSA will be effective in education and in gradually habituating the greater public, and more particularly the people working in industry and the financial services, to certain standards of conduct that we must hope will eventually come right.
There remains a question mark. The Romans knew a thing or two about this. The question that they used to ask remains relevant: who will guard the guardians?
4.54 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic today. I wish to pick up one of his themes about the regulatory burden, but first I want to explain the extent to which the Government and the Labour Party continue to misunderstand the financial services industry at a strategic level. That was brought home sharply to me a couple of weeks ago, when we debated the prayer of my noble friend Lord Kingsland against the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules.
The problem was not so much that the Government changed their mind on whether the appeals to tribunals should he heard in public—although that is probably serious enough. More important was their failure to appreciate the role of trust and confidence in financial services and how damaging to an individual or a firm a public hearing would be, not over a short period of a week or a month, but perhaps over many years. Those firms or individuals might, on appeal, be found to be innocent of any wrongdoing.
One Labour Peer—or perhaps it was a Liberal Democrat—prayed in aid the example of an elderly lady stealing a loaf of bread, who perforce had to appear in public at a magistrates' court. I find it hard to square that atavistic desire to switch the searchlight of publicity on to firms in the private sector with the Government's secretive behaviour over a number of episodes, particularly Railtrack.
If the Government were a regulated firm under the current regime, they would be found to have broken nearly every one of the nine basic principles of current regulation in the Railtrack example, including

1163
principle nine, which requires a regulated firm to keep proper records. Labour Members refer to old ladies stealing a loaf of bread. The Government have not stolen a loaf of bread; they have stolen the bakery.
I am particularly concerned about the heavy burden of regulation. I shall not refer specifically to the City. I fear that the Labour Party does not care much for the City. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, were very much in that vein. There is a fundamental feeling in the Labour Party that the City deserves what it has coming to it. I am more concerned in this context about the building society movement—a part of the financial services industry that the Labour Party finds altogether more cuddly. I declare an interest as the director of a medium-sized mutual building society. We are 17th in the rankings with £1.5 billion of assets and 54 branches in the West Midlands and the Welsh border counties. In many cases, we are the only or the last building society in a particular community or town. In that, we are doing our bit to help the Government avoid financial exclusion.
We are regulated not just by the Financial Services Authority, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Roll, said, has a weighty tome of regulations behind it, but by a mortgage code, a banking code, a general insurance code, the money laundering regulations, the Office of Fair Trading and the Data Protection Act. That does not include all the authorities that are involved in normal commercial life, including the social security authorities, the Inland Revenue, the Companies Act and the health and safety regulations. All those codes spawn their own armies of regulators and investigators and checkers. We now have a Mortgage Code Compliance Board, a Banking Code Standards Board, a General Insurance Standards Council, a Joint Money Laundering Steering Group and the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Let us examine that last body for a moment. What a nice title it has. It conjures up the image of a band of worthy men and women struggling to reconcile disagreements between regulated firms and their clients. The reality is somewhat different. Picking up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Brooke in his splendid maiden speech, they have long since moved on from referring only to individual cases and are beginning to issue general guidance, making ex cathedra statements with no prior consultation. When questioned, they say that these will not be taken as precedents in their future deliberations. Tell that to the Marines.
Taken as a whole, there is a huge burden of cost for all building societies, which has to be paid by the customers, as well as a burden of practicality for smaller societies. All for what? I do not think that any building society saver, investor or borrower has lost money in living memory. If the Government are serious about their desire to increase financial inclusion and to maintain a diverse range of building societies, reflecting the different needs of different parts of the country, they need to make a serious assessment of the regulatory burden that is now being imposed.
1164
In the two minutes remaining to me, I turn to the City. Again, I must declare an interest as the chairman of an investment bank regulated under the present framework. As noble Lords have pointed out, the City is a major success story, but not one that can be taken for granted. I should like to make three points.
First, I echo the point about stamp duty made by the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken. That is a business issue, not a tax issue. It imposes a burden on British industry that increases the cost of its capital. It therefore puts British industry at a disadvantage compared to its non-British counterparts. It also imposes a disadvantage on the London Stock Exchange, because it affects the competitiveness with which London Stock Exchange members can quote prices compared to continental bourses.
My second point concerns the takeover directive, on which, in the vulgar phrase, the Government do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. At times, they have argued strongly for a statutory system; at others, they have backed self-regulation. Following the throwing-out of the takeover directive 11 years into its negotiation, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what position the Government now take on future developments in that area. The City needs, and we should have, some certainty about where matters stand.
Thirdly, as the Government stagger out of that mudbath, they stagger towards the next one, which is the prospectus directive. One size cannot fit all. That directive will affect the ability of smaller firms to obtain access to public markets, and therefore increase their cost of capital.
I end as I began. In addition to the blizzard of statutory instruments issuing from the Financial Services Authority, I understand that 18 European financial directives are lined up on the runway. I hope that those employed in the financial services industry during the next few years will be able to find at least some time to do some work for their clients.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I must offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. He has brought his dry wit from the House of Commons, where it evoked many chuckles, to this place. I joined him in the journey from that place to this at the same time. I was fortunate to share in his transition.
The noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken, has brought an important matter to the attention of the House. The noble Lord appeared before the Public Accounts Committee many times during my 14 years as its chairman. What impressed the whole of the committee was that, for the first time that any of us could recall someone in charge of defence procurement earned the approbation of the committee. I once went so far as to offer the maximum amount of congratulation that I could as chairman, which was to say that I was satisfied. In fact, on another notable occasion, I went so far as to say that I was very satisfied. We are satisfied with his performance today.

1165
London's financial services were once pre-eminent in Europe; today we have problems with Frankfurt and Paris, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred. Of course, they lag behind us, but there is a danger, which did not previously exist. We must be aware of that danger because financial services now occupy such an important role in our country's economy. We should give them more attention in future.
The enormous advantage that we had was our position as a bridge between the United States and Europe: we shared the language of the one and the geography of the other. That was an enormous advantage, but we never made the most of it. We made mistake after mistake, such as not entering the Community and over the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank should obviously have been sited in London; there should never have been any question or discussion about it. We lost it, as we are also losing some of our other advantages.
In the 1960s I spoke at a big weekend conference for German bankers. Their concern was that on entering the European Community, Britain would benefit from the financial strength of the City of London, which would be of enormous help to British industry within the Community. I had to point out that, sad as it may be for British industry, that was not the reality. The advantages of the City were available to all. That led to the great strength of the financial system that we had. Our task now is to retain our pre-eminence in financial services. Even Ken Livingstone, in his role as Mayor of London, must accept their importance. The world's financial centres must continue to be New York, London and Tokyo.
We need both a vigorous savings industry and a vigorous lending industry. We have a vigorous savings industry—pensions, unit trusts, home ownership and so on—but there are gaps. I welcome the FSA, because I think that it will do a good job. It states that its tasks are to maintain efficient, orderly and clean financial markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal. It says that it wants to ensure that consumers are protected. That will be a most important aspect of its work as more people move into the financial sector. The FSA's success in that area will have international repercussions. The more that our financial service industry is made legitimate and seen to be legitimate, the more important it will become.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, I am concerned about what is called predatory lending. We must protect naïve borrowers from escalating indebtedness. As I know from my previous constituency work, some suffer real anguish and, on occasion, develop suicidal tendencies because of mounting debt. We must consider whether there should be a further obligation on the lender to instruct and inform borrowers.
I have a few words to say about money laundering. There is an important difference between money laundering for the purpose of financing terrorist activities and that which arises from drug dealing and other criminal activities. Terrorist activities do not
1166
require the passage of large sums of money, so they are much more difficult to detect. There are problems, such as those of the spelling of names, which I know from my constituency experience always make it difficult to attach names to the passage of money.
In the absence of supervision, it was easy for terrorists to launder money. However, any further monitoring will lead to more evasion of controls. The best way to deal with terrorist finance is first to use the intelligence services and then to detect the relevant financial movements.
We have not been given a critical assessment of the difficulties in several areas. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us. A conference on money laundering was held in New York in September. It was clear that many of those attending had no intention of doing anything more than strictly necessary. One person said, "My boss just wants me to come up with the cheapest solution, so that we can say that we have complied." Another wanted to target wealthy individuals only because his efforts would then gross up the amount of money investigated. Those are real problems. I hope that the Minister will deal with them in his reply.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for initiating this debate. As a distinguished former Lord Mayor it is entirely appropriate that he should focus on the role of the City of London where the major part of our financial services industry is based.
I must declare an interest as a fund manager working in the City. First, I was pleased to see in yesterday's Financial Times that,
"London's position as Europe's pre-eminent financial centre is unchallenged in spite of the introduction of the euro and growth of Frankfurt as a eurozone financial marketplace-
according to a joint Anglo-German study of the rival cities. The article continues:
"The City has retained its dominant position as Europe's leading centre for banking, capital markets advertising, the law and management consultancy".
According to a July 2001study for the Corporation of London by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, the City's GDP was estimated at nearly £22 billion in 2000 and its share of UK GDP was close to 2.7 per cent. City workers contributed a net £8 billion to government revenues which is around 42 to 43 per cent of the national public sector surplus for 1999–2000.
During their first term the Government recognised the important place of the financial services industry in the economy of the United Kingdom. The decision to hand over control of interest rates to the Bank of England was widely welcomed and gave the industry a stable economic environment in which to operate. However, in their second term the Government by their actions on Railtrack have seriously damaged their relationship with an important part of the

1167
financial services industry in London. As Jeff Randall, the BBC business editor, stated in an 8th November commentary on the BBC News website,
"I don't think we can underestimate the bad will in the City now towards Mr Byers in particular and to some extent towards the Government. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair spent a lot of time nursing trust in the City and I think they did a pretty good job but this has become a big hole and many investors—professional investors—will say, 'Hang on a minute, do we really want to put money into anything the Government's going to do if this is the way they act towards shareholders?"'
That could have major ramifications for the future cost of raising finance from the private sector and in the area of public/private partnership. Serious damage has been done also to the Government's relationship with overseas investors. US investors have been hard hit by the administration of Railtrack. Franklin Mutual, which has one of the biggest holdings in Railtrack with 4 per cent of the shares, said that Mr Byers' actions indicated that the Labour Party did not believe in privatisation.
David Winters, a portfolio manager for Franklin Mutual, said that Mr Byers',
"political decision to force the company into liquidation has forever changed our involvement in the British market … It would not have happened this way in the United States. A bigger risk premium is to be attached to investing in UK companies now".
He also said that American investors would be wary of any British privatised utility or regulated company.
The state of Wisconsin is also a significant Railtrack shareholder and stands to lose millions of pounds. The evidence that the Government's handling of Railtrack will hit vital investment in infrastructure has been borne out by the collapse of a property deal worth £2 billion to raise funds for improvements to London Underground stations. The chief executive of Land Securities, one of the two bidders shortlisted to manage and develop London Underground's nonoperational property estate, said on 14th November that he had no doubt that the property deal separate to the London Underground public/private partnership had been jeopardised by the bitter row over the Government's role in forcing Railtrack into administration.
Outgoing Strategic Rail Authority chairman, Sir Alastair Morton, said in an interview on "Breakfast with Frost" last Sunday that,
"The City is annoyed and wondering exactly what the level of regulatory risk is in this industry now".
He added that,
"tremendous damage has been done"
by the Transport Secretary's action.
A number of commentators and investors have alleged that the Government allowed a false market in Railtrack shares in the days and weeks before the company was put into administration. Under Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986, the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for pursuing those offences. There is a strong case that Crown immunity does not apply in that situation. I have seen legal advice which states that the Secretary of State for Transport can commit an offence under Section 47 of
1168
the Financial Services Act 1986 and that, accordingly, he can be liable under Section 61 of the same Act to compensate investors for losses suffered as a result of misleading statements made outside parliamentary proceedings and, if the facts are proven, of dishonest concealment of relevant facts. The relevant case law here is The Madras Electricity Supply Corporation v Boarland.
In order to reassure the financial services industry, both in the form of professional and private investors, the FSA, whose prime job is to protect investors, should surely be required to investigate whether the Secretary of State has indeed committed any offence under Section 47 by making misleading statements outside Parliament or by dishonestly concealing facts which rendered an earlier statement misleading. In addition, I have seen further legal advice that, following the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is reason to think that the Crown must he included within the definition of a person under Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Will the Minister confirm my understanding of the FSA's legal obligations?
The financial services industry must have confidence that the Government will provide a favourable economic and regulatory climate for it to operate in. The Railtrack episode has dented that confidence. The reaction of major investors must serve as a warning that the hard-earned confidence can soon dissipate.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it appears that I am winding up for the Back Benches, therefore, I assume that I can speak for 10 minutes.
Most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have declared an interest. I do not have much to declare. However, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to the kind of plc which I chair and in which I have a major investment. Therefore, I declare that interest. I should have had an interest to declare in Equitable Life, but I am happy to say that I moved my investment elsewhere before the company got into difficulties.
As we know, the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has had a distinguished career, the most important points of which—which he did not mention today, understandably—are the facts that he attended Manchester University and he watches football avidly. I trust that he follows Manchester United and not the other Manchester football team.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord told us all the things about the City that we know. The importance of the City is well recognised; I certainly recognise it. However, I wish to discuss the exceptions to that state of affairs. He mentioned only one; that is, money laundering. I noted with interest that on that score he said that there were bound to be some leaks. I hope that he is right that there are only some. I fear there may be rather more.

1169
I also wish to mention the FSA and Europe. One of the major exceptions which has not been referred to sufficiently is that of Equitable Life—not because of the losses sustained by those who invested in that company, but because of the consequences of that for the industry and the City generally and what it means for others who are trying properly to sell insurance, banking services and investments of all kinds. I refer to the fear that has arisen in that area as a result of what happened at Equitable Life. I refer also to mis-selling and loan interest sharks.
I know that we are not supposed to congratulate maiden speakers in the middle of a speech, but I owe my congratulations specially to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. He was my MP— although I did not vote for him—for a long time in the City of Westminster. I heard someone say that they canvassed for him although I cannot think that that would be necessary. He succeeded me as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and as the chair of the Building Societies' Ombudsman Council. I should always be ready to invest in a building society if he was the ombudsman.
Regulation is not always perfect, but the plain fact is that exceptions inevitably occur in a major industry such as the financial services industry and, therefore, it requires a regulatory body. I refer to the Financial Services Authority under the chairmanship of Sir Howard Davies. Last week, Sir Howard gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee in another place. Now, of course, he is called a "super-regulator". He told the committee that companies are aware that failing to keep the regulator informed is a regulatory breach. I am sure that that is the case. He also said that it was clear that many companies are not keeping the regulator informed or are providing incorrect or inadequate information. I am sure that that is also the case.
Therefore. given the enhanced powers that Sir Howard will have on 1st December, what will happen now? He told us that the FSA currently employs some 2,000 people, of whom 157 are involved in front-line investigation in insurance and supervision. After 1st December the FSA will govern 217,000 authorised financial service personnel and 10,873 firms. I believe that those figures are correct; no doubt the Minister will confirm that that is so.
Sir Howard went on to tell the committee that he did not have enough staff to double-check all the information received. I cannot help wondering whether he has been able to single-check the information received or even to check whether it has been received. That is the problem. If we are to have a regulator, we must have a good one and he must have good authority. I have my doubts, but if Sir Howard approaches the Treasury to ask for more money to enable him to increase the number of his staff, I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that there will be no cash limits to prevent him having that money.
1170
Finally, I turn to the crucial question of the fourth so-called "test" of the five that the Chancellor has said must be met before we enter the euro. There is an important point to be made about that. The fourth test is:
"What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK's financial services industry, particularly the City's wholesale markets?".
It must be said that if, at this stage, we were to announce that we would never enter the single currency, that would have very serious consequences for the City and for the financial services industry. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Levene, did not feel that it was necessary to say so because it is an important exception to the benefits that we now receive in substantial form from the City and from the financial services industry.
We are told constantly by the Chancellor that not only must the fourth test be seen to be met now but that that must be sustainable. I want the Minister to tell me again—I have asked him previously but have never been totally satisfied with the response; perhaps he will be able to tell me today—how one defines what will be "sustainable" in the foreseeable future. How could one have a sustainable anything, let alone a sustainable convergence for the financial services industry if we were to join the euro?
That is all that I have to say. However, I hope that the Treasury is discussing with Sir Howard the amount of money that he requires and I hope that it will give it to him. I understand that consultation will take place with all kinds of people. I volunteer the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to take part in that because he has more time than I have. I hope that not only Sir Howard but a much wider field will be consulted so that the best kind of benefit for the financial services industry will be obtained.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for initiating this extremely interesting, important and wide-ranging debate. It has covered issues such as employee share-ownership, pensions, the leasing industry, the euro, and building societies. It has seen a notable and tremendous maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and a very rare example of a former Chief Secretary saying that the Treasury should open its pockets and give no thought to the financial consequences of further expenditure. That is, indeed, quite a rarity.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the great significance of the financial services sector to the UK economy. They have concentrated necessarily on the City of London. I begin by reiterating a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Levene. Although the City accounts for, I believe, more than one-third of financial services employment and activity in the UK, it is by no means the only significant financial services sector.
The economy of my home town of Leeds has been transformed over the past couple of decades. The fact that that has occurred is due to, more than anything

1171
else, the spectacular growth of the financial services industry in that city. Employment numbers in financial and related services have grown over the past decade from 66,000 to 100,000. Another 50,000 new jobs are forecast. It is alleged by the Leeds financial sector that it and its associated employment provides 33 per cent of the city's GDP. That is a phenomenal figure and it demonstrates the strength, vitality and importance of the financial services sector. It is important not only in its own right in providing employment and income but also in providing in the regions, as in London, a motor for growth in all the other sectors of the economy which necessarily require financial services if they are to prosper and grow.
We heard something of the paradox that faces the financial services sector. It is one of the biggest in the country and hugely successful—arguably the most successful in the country. But it is not loved. I believe that polling evidence from the City of London Corporation, which has carried out this type of work in the past, shows that, although the majority of people accept the importance of the City, only a minority have a good word to say for it and for the people who work there.
This afternoon we have heard a number of arguments about the PR problems which face the City and the financial services sector. Of course, money lenders have had a bad press since biblical times, so perhaps we should not be surprised. However, in recent times a number of exemptions, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Levene, as interpreted by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, have made people suspicious of the financial services sector, and with good cause. In recent years we have had to face up to the problems of pensions mis-selling. More recently, we have experienced the problems of Equitable Life.
We also find that individuals in the City and their exuberant lifestyle often jar pretty harshly with the success of the products that they sell to their investors. I refer this afternoon to one such case simply to demonstrate a problem that the sector has in promoting itself. The major shareholder of an organisation called BFS Investment Group paid himself £2.6 million at a time when the split income-investment trust which the company was promoting was in the process of breaking its banking covenants and postponing payment of a dividend. We have come across that type of mismatch between senior director remuneration and performance in other sectors. However, I would argue that in the financial services sector it is particularly damaging.
The characterisation of the sector—one of innovation, growth and complexity—has led to the type of regulation which we now consider to be necessary under the FSA. We on these Benches supported the creation of the FSA. I believe that we understand the problems that it faces, on the one hand, of being an effective regulator and, on the other, of avoiding being too heavy-handed. This afternoon we have heard many examples both of the need for a light touch and of the problems of being effective. I believe that the FSA is still grappling with that problem. There has been reference to an avalanche of regulation which
1172
is currently doing the rounds in the City and which is causing a major problem in terms of both understanding and compliance.
I strongly agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about splitting the job of the chairman and chief executive, an issue that was discussed at great length during the passage of the Bill. The FSA is hugely important to this sector of the economy. At its head it needs a chairman who can act as advocate and overseer, and a chief executive who can manage the many day-to-day activities and priorities, such as staffing, many of which are conflicting matters.
Many of the opportunities that will face the sector in the future lie on the international front and in Europe. We have heard of the problems that the City has faced as the EU has moved towards completing the single market in financial services. The good news is that the lobbying that was undertaken by the City last week on the prospectus directive has persuaded Commissioner Bolkestein to change the proposals in a way that will make them less onerous. That is welcome. One can hope that the Byzantine argument that is currently taking place between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, in terms of competences, will mean that the securities committee will be established so that it can move quickly in terms of further legislation.
A number of noble Lords have discussed the euro. Interestingly for this House, so far the debate has not been balanced, although the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, may help to redress the balance. Every noble Lord who has spoken about the euro has taken the view that, although to date the City and the financial services sector have not been disadvantaged to any significant extent by Britain's exclusion from the euro-zone. In the longer term there will almost certainly be a cost. and possibly a significant one.
I refer to the three areas that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, mentioned, which I believe exemplify the long-term costs that will almost certainly be faced if we remain outside the euro-zone. The first point is that many of our financial institutions are effectively excluded from the growing European capital markets and equity markets by not being within the euro-zone.
Secondly, our exclusion from the euro group means that we have less influence. The discussions on the prospectus directive show that when we exercise our influence we can bring about change in Europe in a manner that we will find helpful. However, if we are not at the table, it will hardly be surprising if the proposals that emanate sometimes do not appear, at first sight, to be at all satisfactory from our point of view.
The third point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, which must be true, relates to foreign direct investment. If companies invest in a single European market, with a single currency—save for one or two economies—in the future those companies are likely to move towards the countries and regions that arc part of the euro-zone rather than those that are not.

1173
When people are asked what is the major challenge facing the City, amazingly, they do not mention any of those points. Indeed, the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society found that most people in this country, when questioned about the weaknesses of the City, refer to transport as being a potential major brake—no pun intended—on the growth of the financial services sector. The failure over the years to undertake and to complete the CrossRail project, the farce of funding for the Tube, where in reality nothing is happening other than further chaos and confusion, and the huge delays in relation to planning for transport, have put the City at a disadvantage. The Government must grapple with those matters with greater urgency.
Every noble Lord who has spoken has recognised the importance of the financial services sector to the UK economy. It is one of the few major sectors of the economy in which the UK is a world leader. As has been said, it faces a number of major challenges and it is in all our interests that it meets them successfully.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for initiating this excellent debate and for reminding us with the many telling facts in his speech of the special contribution that the financial services industry makes to Britain. We should also be grateful to the noble Lord for providing us with the occasion for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke, which I and other noble Lords enjoyed. He said that all noble Lords should feel lucky to have the City of London; I say to him that all noble Lords are lucky to have him as a Member of the House.
The noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Taverne, said that the financial services sector may fail and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that it deserved to. Most noble Lords have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Levene, that we are the best. They are right. If the financial services industry did not exist, the UK would permanently have a balance of payments deficit. That is why we need to heed the wake-up call of the noble Lord, Lord Levene.
I believe that every speaker has mentioned regulation and I too want to speak on that subject. When the Financial Services and Markets Act completed its passage through Parliament it had racked up an astonishing 2,800 amendments. But it is not over. We and the City have to stand by for more amendments to the most amended Bill in history.
I want to introduce your Lordships to the financial services action plan of the European Union. Here are some of the actions in that plan: two directives on company prospectuses; the directive on insider dealing and market manipulation; the directive to upgrade the investment services directive; amendment to the fourth, seventh, tenth and fourteenth company law directives; the implementation settlement directive; the directive on take-over bids; the review of EU corporate governance practices; the two directives on
1174
undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities; the directive on the prudential supervision of supplementary pension funds; the directive on the distance marketing of financial services; the amendment of the insurance intermediaries directive; the amendment of the directives governing the capital framework for banks and investment firms; the amendment to the solvency margin requirements in the insurance directives; and the directive on prudential rules for financial conglomerates.
Shall I go on? Many of those topics may sound familiar to your Lordships as they arose during debates on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The majority of necessary changes to accommodate those directives will be implemented by regulation, either as secondary legislation or by FSA rule book changes. However, there are three areas of the plan—the noble Lord, Lord Levene, mentioned two—that are likely to require further amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
First, the proposed upgrading of the investment services directive is likely to require amendments to Schedule 3 to the Act as it enacts into UK law the provisions of the directive. It is also possible that amendments will be required to Part XVIII of the Act, particularly Sections 285 to 313, which deal with recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses.
Under the Act an operator of an investment exchange has a choice of applying to become a recognised investment exchange under Part XVIII, or becoming an authorised person under Part IV. The proposed directive to upgrade the ISD may make it compulsory for all investment exchanges to apply to be recognised and, in those circumstances, amendments to Part XVIII of the Act would be required.
Secondly, the upgrade of directives on prospectuses, which has met a particularly hostile reaction from the City of London, has been mentioned by several noble Lords. The proposed prospectus directive could require significant change to the Act, particularly to Part VI, Sections 72 to 103. Those sections provide for the FSA to perform the role of competent authority in relation to the admission of securities to the official list. In practice, only securities traded on the London Stock Exchange are now admitted to the so-called official list.
Securities traded on other regulated markets—for example, AIM—are not admitted to the official list. But the prospectus directive would apply to securities admitted to trading on any "regulated market". Accordingly, the role of the FSA as the UK listing authority would change, requiring significant changes to the provisions of Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act.
Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, is the EU directive on insider dealing or market manipulation, known in the Act as "market abuse". It is probable that the scope of the EU proposal will not overlap precisely with the existing provisions of the Act. So the City should expect further amendments to the most sensitive part of the Act—the market abuse regime in Part VIII, Sections 118 to 131.

1175
The EU directive defines market manipulation as, "entering into a transaction or dissemination of information, which is likely to give false or misleading signals as to the supply, demand or price of financial instruments".
Noble Lords will note that there is no requirement that the abuser intended to commit market abuse. That is familiar territory to many of your Lordships. The statutory offence of market abuse created by the Financial Services and Markets Act also does not require intent to be shown.
Indeed, the Commission states explicitly in an explanatory commentary that market manipulation depends on,
"the behaviour of its authors and not on their intention or aim".
The Government refused to accept the amendments requiring intent proposed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland in the debate in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, eloquently justified the Government's approach; if intent was necessary, he said, his small son who threw a cricket ball at a glasshouse could argue that he never intended the glass to break and escape punishment, which he said would be wrong.
We disagreed. We looked at the case of a second son who had thrown a cricket ball at the glasshouse with the deliberate intent of breaking the glass. We felt that the same punishment was not appropriate. Since then, I am pleased to say that the FSA has sensibly published a code of market conduct, giving practitioners examples of "abusive" behaviour. They do normally require intent. The FSA code provides safe harbours for Chinese walls and also for similar confidentiality arrangements. So the FSA has in effect correctly narrowed the scope of the market abuse provisions of the Act, which we argued at the time were too all encompassing.
But if the proposed directive is adopted in its present form, the FSA will no longer be allowed this discretion over its own rulebook, which is why considerable concern has been caused in the City, to practitioners and also to financial journalists.
To resolve the discrepancy with the FSA's approach the EU would have to provide safe harbours for Chinese walls, confidentiality arrangements and the other exemptions contained in the code of the FSA itself. Unless it does, many practitioners say the directive will he both unfair and unworkable.
It is touching that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will fight for changes to the proposed prospectus directive and to the market abuse directive. But should we rely on that? I can see the logic of a single European financial services market; why a company trying to raise money should have a "single passport" for capital raising, one EU-wide approved form of prospectus; why market abuse should be defined similarly across the zone; and why in cases like these EU-wide rules may be desirable. But what I cannot see is why so many precious hours and days of debate in your Lordships' House and in another place were spent on an Act which is so quickly being overtaken by events outside our control. Perhaps it is that we have to face up to the fact that our new system
1176
of financial regulation, even before it has been implemented—next week—is slowly but relentlessly being overwhelmed by the concept of the single EU market for financial services.
Your Lordships may think that I am being paranoid, but I should like to leave the House with what a spokesman for the Treasury said about—for example—the prospectus directive. He said:
"This is a directive in its early stages, but we have to accept it will go ahead".
Of course we do because the EU Commissioner on tax and internal markets said this week about the EU directives on financial services regulation:
"The UK must pull its socks up".
Mr Lamfalussy, who was mentioned earlier, goes much further than that. He says that if a planned review proposed for 2004, at the latest, showed what he called "lack of progress", he suggested that the EU should,
"consider a treaty change including the creation of a single EU regulatory authority for financial services generally in the Community".
That proposition was strenuously denied during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say now.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House is very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, for introducing the subject and attracting so many distinguished and well-informed speakers. It is also much in his debt for encouraging the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to make his maiden speech. The noble Lord is, after all, a one-man recreation of hereditary peerage in this House. He deserves his distinction. In a well run market economy the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would command very high fees. We are indebted to him for allowing us to hear him without making a charge. We have paid something back. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, the master of mixed metaphor, has given him a phrase, "safe harbours for Chinese walls", which I am sure he can incorporate in some future speech very much to his advantage.
I was going to recite the contribution to the UK economy of financial services, because that, after all, is the subject of the debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has done it. My figures do not coincide with the noble Lord's because he was taking, as he said, the broadest view of the scope of the financial service industry. But that does not matter. The point is that the industry is enormously important to the UK economy and to the position of the United Kingdom, both in Europe and in the world at large.
The UK is one of the world's top three international financial centres along with Tokyo and New York. When my noble friend Lord Sheldon rightly refers to the threat from Frankfurt and Paris, we must remember that the UK has been successful in resisting existing pressures from Europe to take over. I shall come on to some of those issues later in my speech.

1177
Your Lordships will notice that I say "the UK". I have not said "London" because it is not just London; it is Edinburgh and Glasgow in particular—if I may start with them—but also Leeds, Manchester, Bristol and Birmingham and probably other cities in this country as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Roll, asked the pertinent question of how long we can expect to go on maintaining our pre-eminence in financial markets when we are not one of the three largest and most significant currencies in the world. That is a good question. It is a question that was asked 70 years ago by Bernard Shaw in "The Apple Cart". The Member of the Government who sat for North-North-West Birmingham was really worried by the fact that the economy of North-North-West Birmingham was sustained by the export of chocolate creams to West Africa. He wondered how long they could continue getting away with it.
There are reasons why our financial services market deserves to continue. The success of our financial services market relies on the fact that we have a regulatory and competition policy which helped to create an environment that encourages foreign direct investment. We have a history of openness, combining relatively easy access to markets with a tradition of welcoming foreign firms. We have a dedicated and well-educated workforce with a wealth of expertise and experience. Of course the noble Lord, Lord St John, is right about downsizing. I was reassured to hear from the "inside"—so to speak—his view that things will turn around next year. We have office accommodation and an efficient telecommunications infrastructure, to which the noble Lord, Lord Levene, referred.
It is certainly the case that we have major problems with public transport in the capital. I accept all that has been said about the need for us rapidly to improve our public transport. I do not refer only to London Underground but to CrossRail and other major transport projects. However, I cannot accept that the situation has been without cost. My noble friend Lord Haskel referred to the high fees and public failures. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, talked about the encouragement of unmanageable debt, a quite significant feature. We cannot allow ourselves uncritical support of failing companies, particularly failing companies such as Railtrack. We must not move away from the fundamental rule that those who invest in equities must expect that it is possible for them to go down as well as up—as we see from the small print rushing across the bottom of the television screen or hear recited at breakneck speed on the radio. The fundamental point of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, was that we are about risk management not risk avoidance. I was sorry not to hear that reflected on the Conservative Benches.
On the subject of Railtrack, the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked what I thought about legal evidence. I shall not answer that. It is clearly a matter for the courts. We are told that somehow grave damage is being done to the City by the fact that the
1178
Secretary of State for Transport decided that he could not put up with unlimited demands for more taxpayers' money combined with a holiday from regulation. None of us apologises in any way for what Stephen Byers did. If I am considering damage to the financial community, I am more concerned with issues such as the almost universal mis-selling of pensions and insurance and the continuing stream of rogue traders. We are always told that it is a rogue trader; it is the last; it will not happen again. Then the next month or year it occurs again. I sympathise very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
I shall speak about what I see as the Government's role in encouraging financial services, the European Union and then more international issues. We see our role as one in which we help industry and financial services by creating a stable and favourable macroeconomic environment, a modern and effective regulatory system and a strong domestic economy to act as a foundation for international success. I can say that now at a time when international economies are in great turmoil. I add to that the point made by my noble friend Lord Fyfe about our social economy and social policy because that is an essential element of economic and social stability. Companies need low and stable inflation and interest rates. They need the assurance that they will continue in the long term if they are to have the confidence to plan investment and growth; and we have been able to do exactly that.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, asked how we plan to finance investment in the future. Again, it is a subject for the pre-Budget review next week. However, all the indications are that we are within the golden rules which the Chancellor has set for this country.
I confess that I was startled by some of the comments about UK regulation. I had heard the noble Lord, Lord Levene, say in a telling argument that our current regulatory regime is part of the attractiveness of London—and I am sure he means the financial services markets in the UK more generally. What did I hear from the Opposition Benches? I heard a sustained attack on what many—not simply people associated with the Government but those associated with industry and the economy in this country and world-wide—believe is a leading reform in the regulation of financial services. It is a reform which will protect consumers and maintain confidence in markets without creating an unnecessary burden on companies.
It is not for the Government to involve themselves in day-to-day regulation. I should say to my noble friend Lord Barnett that it is not for the Government to pay for it. The independence of the Financial Services Authority is maintained by the fact that it is paid for by a levy on the financial services industry. His startling departure for a former Chief Secretary does not mean very much. It is not much of a concession.
Our aims of minimising the regulatory burden and encouraging competition are clear in the constitution of the FSA. The Act requires the FSA to ensure that the restrictions it imposes on an activity are proportionate to the benefits. In his speech, the noble

1179
Lord, Lord Hunt, recognised that to some extent. The noble Lord, Lord Levene, recognised it and answered adequately in advance the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Under those circumstances, I cannot take seriously the renewed demands for the division of roles between chief executive and chairman. The FSA is to come into full force next week. Let us see how it progresses for a while before we divide Howard Davies into two.
It was inevitable that there would be some discussion of Equitable Life. The noble Lord, Lord Roll, rightly said that the FSA was barely involved. But of course government had been involved for a number of years and we must await the judgment of the inquiry on that subject. In establishing the FSA we are putting the old regime, with its complex, overlapping structures and uncertain responsibilities, behind us. It is no consolation for those who invested in Equitable Life but it should be some protection for the future.
I am very keen on the notion of proportionate regulation. In complying with its four statutory objectives, the FSA is required to have regard to the principles of good regulation, including the obligation to regulate proportionately so that there is a balance between the benefit of regulation and the burden it places on a firm or the industry as a whole. The FSA is required to consult when it makes its rules and publish a cost benefit analysis. It can reduce risk and enforce the higher standards but of course it cannot prevent it entirely.
It will be virtually impossible for me to respond in detail to the many points on taxation. Clearly some noble Lords feel strongly about stamp duty. The noble Lord, Lord Levene, described it as presentationally difficult. The sum is £4.4 billion. Anyone who proposes to abolish it will have to say where that money is coming from. I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said about annuities. As the noble Lord knows, we take the view that the requirement to buy annuities is part of the deal which involves tax relief. If he is prepared to say that we should limit tax relief on payments into pension funds, I think that he should persuade his party of that. I do not think that that is its policy.
I turn to the European Union. I was astonished to read the well-prepared attack by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph this morning. He does not bother to tell Parliament first, but I am even more astonished when I hear his views in detail.
We are engaged with our partners in the EU, the European Parliament and the Commission to complete the single market in financial services and to complete an integrated and efficient single capital market. At Stockholm we agreed to complete an integrated market by 2005. That means focusing on mutual recognition of core standards and greater regulatory co-operation; prioritising measures in the financial services action plan and concentrating on the measures that businesses have told us matter, and which we know deliver economic benefits to
1180
consumers; and producing legislation that is proportionate, flexible and responsive to market developments. In particular, we need to ensure that the prospectus directive has the effect of lowering the costs of cross-border capital. Those are the objectives that we set ourselves at Stockholm and which we aim to achieve at Barcelona and beyond.
Coming from a party that yesterday in this Chamber voted against enlargement of the European Union, we shall not convince our partners that we are serious about a single market for financial services if we take the same view as that of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi.
Of course there are problems with existing or proposed directives, some of which are serious. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right that it is sad that the take-over directive fell virtually at the last fence this summer, but we hope that it will be revived. On the market abuse objective, we support the aim to ensure the integrity of the financial markets. That means that there will have to be greater unanimity of view about what market abuse means, but the directive must be effective and fair. It has not yet been agreed, but it is being considered by a Council working group and the European Parliament. There are parts of it that we consider to be unhelpful, and we shall argue for them to be removed, as we have done successfully on many directives in the past four and a half years.
We support the purpose of the prospectus directive, as does the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He said that he agreed that it is important to make pan-European capital raising easier and cheaper. But there arc major problems in the present draft, which have been expressed in authoritative letters to the press in recent times. We believe that the present draft could have a negative effect on the European capital market in general and the United Kingdom's market and its participants in particular. We are actively seeking changes to the text and are glad to hear the latest news that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reported about the view of Commissioner Bolkestein.
If that means changes need to be made to the Financial Services and Markets Act, so be it. It is a small price to pay, to spend a small amount of parliamentary time to bolster the financial services industry in this country and Europe as a whole.
I should say a word about the euro—not that I can add anything. I am certainly not going to add to the theology. The wording is that which we used in October 1997. I shall not define "sustained" or "sustainable". I shall not change the five economic tests, except to observe that one of them was clearly about whether joining was beneficial to the financial services industry in this country. Clearly decisions are being taken without us and there are occasions when we would wish to be involved in those decisions. I leave it to your Lordships to await the outcome of the review of the five economic tests, which will take place within the first two years of this Parliament.
I shall say a final word about the effects of the events of 11th September. Over the next two weeks we shall be debating with horrible intensity the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which includes all the

1181
financial measures in Parts 2 and 3. We have already taken firm action in denying funds to terrorists, and we are taking firm action in increasing our activities against money laundering. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Levene, dealt with that matter in considerable detail. He recognised that we all have a part to play in the fight against financial crime. Of course there are compliance costs, but the Government have tried to ensure that those will not be excessive. We have tried to make it as difficult as possible to launder money through the United Kingdom, to help to maintain London's reputation as a leading financial services centre. That is the tone with which I wish to close my remarks.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, I shall first take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is gratifying to hear so much support in the House for an industry that has proved to be so successful in the United Kingdom, and which is continuing to do so much to support and develop our national economy.
I join all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, on his highly pertinent and very amusing maiden speech, and claim the privilege of thanking him here on behalf of the City of London for the tremendous amount of work that he has done and the support that he has given over so many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke about schizophrenia. I think that he was perhaps trying to illustrate his concerns about the need for the financial services industry to support new technologies. That industry has supported new technologies in the past few years—much to its cost, in many cases. It may have got it wrong, but it did so with the rest of the world, and it has put a hell of a lot of money into it. As the Minister said, we have to take risks. Sometimes we get it right, and sometimes wrong. Before we think that all that money went into other pockets, let us not forget that in the case of Vodafone and others, the Minister will not begrudge the £22 billion that went to the Exchequer through the sale of third generation licences. Much of that money was raised through the help of the financial services industry. Schizophrenia is fairly evident in that case.
Concern was expressed about competition, but of course it exists. Fees are competitive because we live in a competitive world. They are at a level that the market will bear. I remind noble Lords that that is what a market economy is all about. I support the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in his call for the removal of the actuarial cap on pensions and the need for far greater flexibility in pension schemes. I thank him, too, for his kind words about the World Trade Centre Disaster Fund and its great success in raising a considerable amount of money for people in New York. I was there this weekend to see what was happening. The fund is a true reflection of the close and enduring relationship between the UK and New York.
1182
It gives me great personal pleasure to be debating with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, again, albeit on a rather different basis. He mentioned the competition that we might face from Frankfurt and Paris. We certainly do face competition; we are not complacent, as I said. But if there were no competition, we would become complacent. We have to look over our shoulder all the time. The industry is doing a very good job in ensuring that we retain our pre-eminence, and I am sure that it will continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, spoke about the leaks to which I referred earlier on the question of money laundering. I remind him that we are talking about a pool of some 500 billion dollars a day. It is inevitable that one will have leaks from a pool of that size. One cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. We have a huge market from which we benefit enormously. The noble Lord referred to Manchester United. Although I do not support that team, I know that it lets in the odd goal. No one is perfect.
As to the euro, we are in a market. I do not take sides in this particular argument. At the time of the introduction of the euro, during my period of office as Lord Mayor, I was very concerned about the effect on the financial services industry of the UK being outside the euro. Happily, we remain at the top and, whether we go into the euro or remain outside, it is our intention to stay in that position. The effect on the rest of the economy is another issue. So far we have maintained our position, and we intend to remain there.
I concur with the observations of both the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the Minister, particularly when wearing my hat as chairman of IFSI. We go out of our way to ensure that we represent the interests of the whole of the financial services industry of the UK. Of course the City of London is the largest section of that industry, but there are significant and very successful parts of it in Edinburgh and Leeds. We want to do everything to support them as well.
The hour is late and I do not wish to detain noble Lords any longer, save to thank all those who have contributed. As I have no desire to receive any Papers, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Medical Teaching and Research
6.12 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant rose to call attention to the issues now confronting the National Health Service with particular reference to medical teaching and research; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, ever since, as a young medical registrar on £400 per annum, my salary was virtually doubled at the introduction of the National Health Service I have been one of its most fervent supporters. This brave and imaginative initiative was something of which we had very high hopes. All of us in the medical profession in those early years, and subsequently, worked exceptionally long

1183
hours, if only because of the excitement of clinical practice and caring for patients, the joy of teaching young, bright medical students and the intellectual fulfilment which arose as a result of being involved in fruitful clinical research. That clinical research not only nurtured clinical practice but brought about untold new developments in patient care.
At snail-like pace new hospitals were built, although with cheap materials because of government cost limits. Health centres appeared and GP premises were slowly upgraded. Vocational training transformed standards of primary care and support staff were recruited, so that in every respect primary care improved over the years.
In those days almost no one sought early retirement; indeed, the majority of members of my profession tried to find ways to continue to work after the age of 65. But from the earliest days clouds began to gather on the horizon. Many stentorian voices, not least my own, continually pointed out to government after government that we were spending less than 6 per cent of our gross national product on the NHS compared with 8 to 9 per cent in Germany and a very much larger figure in the United States. There were too few general practitioners, as is still the case, offering only five to eight-minute consultations; too few acute and intensive care beds; and too few consultants in all specialties. Five years ago there were 190 neurologists in the UK compared to 400 in Finland with a population of 4 million. Only today we learn from the British Thoracic Society of the appalling consequences of too few consultants in respiratory medicine. We now have about 240 neurologists, but that is only half what a proper service requires.
Report after report of the royal colleges has urged governments of both main parties to increase funding and consultant numbers and to reopen closed acute beds as our population ages, huge technological developments increase patient demand and expectation and new and effective, but often very expensive, drugs produced by that jewel in Britain's industrial crown—our pharmaceutical industry—come on stream. Effectively, we have seen the overt rationing of resources, postcode prescribing, trolley waits in accident and emergency departments, sometimes increased waiting lists and innumerable new initiatives by governments which impose additional administrative burdens on doctors, nurses and other staff.
All too often we have heard governments say when putting in more funding that there will be no more money at a later stage and we must have more efficiency savings. As a consequence, disenchantment and frustration grew.
Where are we now? I credit this Government with their desire to increase funding in the NHS and to recruit many more medical students—1,000 a year. That is welcome. But is the new funding which is coming on stream and now the policy of the Government too little, too late? A recent survey by the BMA shows that 48 per cent of general practitioners are considering early retirement. Many consultants are
1184
burnt out and in despair and also seek early retirement. Even the new hospitals built under the private finance initiative, such as Cumberland Infirmary and the University Hospital of North Durham, have provided fewer beds than the hospitals that they replaced.
We also see what I believe to be seriously misguided decisions, such as that made by Oxfordshire Health Authority to close Burford and Watlington community hospitals which provided care to patients on early discharge from acute hospitals, with the consequence that beds are blocked in acute hospitals like John Radcliffe.
Who will teach the new medical students? The Council of Heads of Medical Schools has pointed out that there are now 73 vacant clinical chairs. Recently, it has revealed 322 vacant lecturer posts in clinical medicine. Early in the days of the National Health Service there was an article of faith called the knock-for-knock agreement which was to the effect that the clinical services provided by doctors employed in clinical specialties in the universities would be compensated for by the teaching given by NHS consultants and registrars. The idea then was that six sessions would be devoted by clinical academics to clinical practice with the remaining five protected each week for teaching and research.
The recent report by the Council of the Heads of Medical Schools shows that academic clinicians spend a minimum of 40 hours a week—some as many as 58 hours a week according to a recent report—in clinical service. Where is the time available for teaching and research? In some NHS hospitals there are even some consultants who refuse to teach because of the sheer burden of their clinical work. Why is that the case? The answer is that managers exert pressure to increase throughput and cut down outpatient waiting times and inpatient waiting lists simply to meet government targets and new initiatives. The result has been a serious decline in recruitment into clinical academic medicine. The attractions of an academic career in medicine were not only the care of patients but also involvement in teaching and research. Therefore, the academic field has been gravely eroded. We must not forget that for many years the UK has had a proud international reputation in the field of biomedical and clinical research. As a result of these factors, that reputation is now in serious decline.
I commend the initiatives of the General Medical Council to weed out poorly performing doctors. But I believe that the great majority of doctors, nurses and other staff in the health service give outstanding dedicated service and long hours of work, sometimes under intolerable conditions. Will the Government do something to get rid of the culture of blame, which is now so prevalent throughout the NHS? Doctors and other staff continually have to look over their shoulders. Furthermore, is there any hope that the number of political initiatives, as well as political interference—if I may use the term—in the affairs of the NHS, may be sharply reduced, if only to allow health service providers to get on with the job?
Those in the NHS look enviously at their colleagues in Europe, who have more beds, more consultants and superb research equipment. Last week, a consultant told me that, on a recent visit to Uppsala in Sweden, he found that eight consultants were undertaking the amount of work that he, alone, was expected to do within the NHS.
The litany of gloom is not a figment of my imagination. It is a genuine, heartfelt cri de Coeur. So what are the solutions? First, increase the number of acute beds and increase the recruitment of nurses, who may well have to be paid more in order to attract further recruits. Open more outlet beds in community hospitals. Increase rapidly the establishment of consultants in all specialties and establish more GPs and medical training positions, which the Government intend to do, but not at a sufficiently fast rate. Expand the public-private partnership. Many more routine operations and other procedures could be carried out on NHS patients utilising spare capacity in private hospitals. I know that it will be controversial, but I urge the Government to restore and expand tax relief on private medical insurance, which I believe was withdrawn for the elderly because of outdated ideological concerns.
Secondly, I invite the Government to implement more rapidly the recommendations of the Saville report from the Academy of Medical Sciences on the training of clinical scientists. That will require funding. A further report is expected from the academy on such implementation. Will the Government consider making available public funding for the Academy of Medical Sciences, as they do for the Royal Society, in order to help the academy to act as an agent in furthering the implementation of the Saville report? What has happened to the Follett report, which contains many excellent points?
Several years ago, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology produced a report based on an inquiry which I had the privilege of chairing. It recommended instituting pilot studies of the development of university hospitals under joint NHS and university management. Is it not time that an initiative of that kind was brought forward in order to improve the standing of clinical academic medicine? Recently, the Council of Heads of Medical Schools recommended setting up a joint initiative between the Department for Education and Skills on the one hand and the Department of Health on the other to develop a training and teaching authority which, I hope, would provide support in pursuit of these aims. Such measures are absolutely vital to overcome the crisis in clinical academic medicine.
Thirdly, I believe that the Government must seek additional sources of funding. Of course we already capitalise on public goodwill. Over the length and breadth of the country, people raise funds to buy new equipment, to help the work of hospices and to assist many other organisations. However, those efforts can make a contribution only at the margins. Furthermore, it must be recognised that, while the Government happily put more money into scientific
1186
research and the Association of Medical Research Charities makes a truly outstanding contribution, regrettably there are fewer clinical academics with the time and opportunity to carry out research using those funds for reasons which I have already explained.
The amount of money that the Government have now committed themselves to investing in the NHS is still, I believe, not enough. Please will the Government stop tinkering at the edges and consider urgently alternative and additional sources of funding? Thirty years ago, I recommended to a then Royal Commission on the National Health Service, chaired by Sir Alec Merrison, that the Government should at least consider hypothecated taxation and that they should think about an index-linked, income-related health tax as a supplement to national insurance. I know that all will respond by saying that the Treasury will not stand for it. Are the Government brave enough to confront that mystical body and persuade it that at least those ideas have some merit? Is it not time that such proposals were examined in depth and in detail?
The increased government funding recently announced has been most welcome and I do not doubt the Government's good will towards the National Health Service. But we cannot go on as we are at the present time. Radical measures are needed, not least to save clinical academic medicine and to be able to teach those additional medical students now coming on stream. We need to restore and preserve this country's proud reputation in biomedical and clinical research. That is an objective which we should all seek to pursue. I beg to move for Papers.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for initiating this very important debate. As usual he has delivered his remarks with enormous clarity and in so doing has stolen some of my best lines. However, I should like to make a number of points.
First, it is important to emphasise that academic medicine is not something distinct and separate from the practice of clinical medicine. It is not merely academic; it forms a completely integrated part of the practice of medicine. Without it, we shall not advance medicine and we shall not be able to teach future medical practices to today's students. We must be able to transcribe the fruits of the many exciting advances being made in the biomedical sciences into clinical practice.
Never have there been such bright prospects for future cures and treatments. Here I should express an interest as vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences. But if we are to achieve all this, we must have in place the academic clinicians to do the work. At a time when, as we have just heard, we need more such clinicians at least to staff adequately the medical schools that have recently been created, we cannot even fill the existing vacancies. The reason why academic medicine is unattractive, despite the excitement of progress in medical research and despite

1187
the fact that in the UK we are pretty good at it, is—we heard this from the noble Lord, Lord Walton—largely because of the pressures of clinical service work.
Clinical academics serve two masters: the universities and the NHS. They are stretched between the two. The balance has now swung much too far over towards clinical service, to the immediate detriment of teaching and to the future detriment of patients. What can be done about that?
In 1990, a committee was set up comprising members from the Department of Health and the Department of Education. It was chaired by the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health, Sir Christopher France, and sought to ensure that universities and the NHS co-ordinated their efforts and collaborated so that academic medicine could prosper. That committee agreed 10 key principles. In 1996 those principles were revised and included a number of extremely important points. I shall quote one or two as examples:
"The provision of undergraduate medical and dental education and research, guided by clearly defined and co-ordinated national policies, must be supported by effective joint planning".
A further principle states that:
"The universities and the NHS should work closely together in funding research and development within the NHS in England".
Many of the other principles are set out in a similar vein. I am afraid that the standing group has fallen into abeyance and the key principles have been largely forgotten. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he would strongly consider setting up a new committee established along similar lines to take on that work and to revise and revisit the 10 key principles, some of which were again introduced in the recent Follett report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred.
I should like my noble friend to consider in particular one element; that is, to make it possible for an academic department, comprising perhaps a dozen academics, to contract with their NHS trust to provide a total service, as a department, in specialties such as cardiology, neurology, surgery and so forth. Within that department, some would provide the clinical service for most of the time, while others undertook research. This flexible approach could be effective and efficient for both the service and the research, but it is currently not possible while individuals within a department have to do everything according to their individual job plans. Will the Minister look kindly on what seems to me to be an eminently sensible approach?
Finally, perhaps I may mention one other serious threat to research which, in this case, I am afraid, largely is to be laid at the door of the Department of Health. I am not sure how long my noble friend will remain my noble friend when I tell the House that a whole segment of important research, which depends on the use of information derived from patients over many years in, for example, cancer registries and other disease registries, has now ground to a halt.
Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act was specifically designed to ensure that this kind of research, given certain safeguards, could be pursued.
1188
In practice, the body which was to undertake this work, the Patients Advisory Group, which was to be set up and running by October, the deadline, has not been. Meanwhile, research ethics committees around the country do not agree that this research can be done, with the result that disease registries are not registering patients, and research has stopped.
I understand, unofficially, that the group will meet in December, but its membership and its chair have not been announced, nor has notice been given of the way in which it will go about its work and what criteria it will adopt. It gives me no pleasure whatever to know that the worst fears I expressed during the debate on the Bill have been realised. Instead of ensuring that epidemiological research can be undertaken—for which the Bill was designed—the bureaucracy in which it is so ineptly enmeshed will effectively strangle it.
The longer this situation is allowed to continue, the greater the damage to research and to the patients who will depend on that research. I hope that when he comes to reply the Minister will offer some reassurance that there will be a resolution of this self-inflicted damage.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is always daunting to take part in a debate initiated by and with contributions from academic members of the medical profession. They are the kind of professors who, some years ago, used to set my examinations. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for this opportunity to discuss some of the issues confronting the NHS. There are so many, a fact reflected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. We seem to have come such a long way since my party lost an election because one patient spent one night on a trolley.
I declare an interest as a practising dental surgeon, although the Minister will be delighted to hear that I am not going to speak about dentistry today. We shall be doing that at about this time tomorrow.
The modern, research-based scientific advances in medicine over the past 50 years have been beneficial to countless numbers of patients. This growth of knowledge has been such that different specialties have developed, each competing for and making legitimate demands on the NHS budget, which has always been, and will always be, incapable of funding the personnel and materials needed to treat all those patients who are perceived by conventional methods of diagnosis to be ill.
It has been estimated that about one-third of all patients with chronic symptoms have no organic disease, and that another third have symptoms unrelated to their organic condition. Scientific advances in medicine have also affected the patient-doctor relationship and caused difficulty in communication.
This crisis in healthcare is world-wide and will not disappear. We cannot legislate our way out of it, nor pass the buck until someone else pays for it. Because of its dependence on expensive technology, medicine simply cannot be delivered to the people who need it.

1189
There is a serious risk of hospitals having to restrict the services that they provide and, because patients are not getting the services they require, more and more are going to other kinds of practitioners. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the routine, day-to-day practice of medicine has become less and less satisfying. It is not easy to work on your own. The autonomy, which was so attractive some years ago, has gone. Many doctors now have to work in corporate settings, where a bureaucrat tells them how many patients to see and the insurance companies dictate how medicine is practised by their policies of reimbursement.
What is done in medicine today is not always what a doctor chooses to do, but what is going to be paid for. No one envisaged the increase in practice litigation, which is destroying doctor-patient relationships. If you come to regard every patient coming in the door as a potential plaintiff in a lawsuit, it will detract from the relationship that you have with patients, which was once a great source of satisfaction to doctors.
In our report, the Select Committee which considered complementary medicine, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so capably chaired, recommended that there should be more consistent training offered to complementary therapists in all the different disciplines, and that formal training should be offered to doctors, dentists, nurses and physiotherapists who wish to practise complementary disciplines, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The Government agreed and promised funding. I shall be interested to hear how this is moving forward.
This setting up of a formal training structure should produce practitioners and therapists who have a research-based background. This will lead to the increased research that is so essential in the creation of a new approach to medicine—one that is based on a model of health rather than disease; one that trains practitioners to take time to listen, to value nutritional and lifestyle influences on health and illness, to offer treatments in addition to drugs and surgery, and to understand the potential of the organism for self-repair and healing.
Less than a century ago, most orthodox medicine was what we now call complementary or alternative because there was little understanding of the mechanisms of human disease. Today we understand some of the chemical, neurological and psychological factors that contribute to the complexity of the human being, but the fact that so many people are turning to complementary medicine indicates that conventional medicine is failing in some areas.
A massive research commitment will be required to investigate the mechanisms in CAM, ranging from social psychology to genetics. There is already an evidence base that could be used to inform trial design, particularly for herbal remedies and acupuncture.
There is no longer a right way of practising medicine. Both conventional and complementary systems are a mixture of wisdom and folly; both have very sensible ideas and both have weaknesses. The
1190
challenge is to look round dispassionately and critically and to take those elements of different systems that make sense. This is best described as "integrated medicine". It works from the premise that people can get better, and it must be cost-effective. I declare an interest as president of the renamed All-Party Group for Integrated and Complementary Medicine—or Healthcare.
Earlier today, together with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, I attended the Integrated Health Awards, at which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who is president of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine, presented a wide range of practitioners with awards for the best examples of the integration of complementary and conventional healthcare.
Two winners were selected from a short list of 11 projects. The first winner was the Derriford Maternity Acupuncture Service, a unit which initially offered acupuncture to provide more choice of pain relief for women in labour but soon expanded to a popular outpatient and in-patient service for ante-natal and postnatal problems. The second winner was the Blackthorn Medical Centre and Trust, which is an NHS general practice and charitable trust which adopts an anthroposophical approach towards providing treatment, rehabilitation and supportive employment for patients suffering from chronic illness. Its methods are aimed at actively engaging patients in re-establishing the quality and direction of their lives, thereby reducing dependence on statutory health and social services. His Royal Highness confirmed his belief that integration is the way forward, and I am grateful for his continued support for the concept of integrated medicine.
Patients have the right to take responsibility for their lives and the right to receive all the information that they need to do that. I believe that medical training and research should reflect the fact that multidisciplinary co-operation is the strategy that best provides health and healthcare. Education is the core for understanding, and medical teaching should reflect the need for a basic knowledge of the theory, practice and application of the wide range of complementary therapies.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for introducing this important debate. Medical research and teaching are the key to the future of the NHS and neglecting their current problems will cost us all. I look forward with particular anticipation to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, whose contribution to science, but also in sharing that knowledge with the public, has been outstanding. Bridging the gulf between science and society is especially relevant today.
I find myself hearing quite a bit on this subject one way or another. My husband is a surgeon who runs an Imperial Cancer Research Fund cancer unit and he is also a professor of surgery at Imperial College School of Medicine. I used to teach the history of medicine to medical students within the University of London.

1191
Teaching and medical research have been integral to the National Health Service since its foundation over 50 years ago. Teaching had of course long been part of hospital practice. Research was far patchier and in many ways Britain lagged behind the United States and Germany. But under the NHS, clinical research in particular developed rapidly and productively. We had a particular strength in our clinical trials. Assisting this was a public-spirited feeling among NHS patients that it was appropriate and in the public interest that they should take part in trials.
But things have changed over the lifetime of the NHS and there are now new question marks over teaching and research. There is a continuing decline, as we have heard, in the number of medical academics and that is set to get much worse. How can we plan to expand, as the Government do, the number of medical students by 56 per cent while the number of medical academics is falling? With so many unfilled chairs of medicine and surgery, there will be fewer leaders and role models for those who might follow on, making it even less likely that the problem will sort itself out.
Reduced training time means that fewer junior doctors are undertaking sustained research. That means that fewer will see the attractions of academic research, further undermining efforts to fill academic posts. How can we advance the cause of evidence-based medicine if those coming through the system are less familiar with this approach? I heard with great interest the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to reverse these trends. I look forward to the Minister's response.
But there is one area in relation to medical research which can be addressed immediately. It is something which does not require large investments of money. No doubt the Minister will be pleased to hear that. However, it requires commitment. That is the issue of medical researchers having access to confidential patient information for the public interest purpose of research. We have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, speaking about that.
For years this kind of information has been a vital tool for researchers. Without that, how could Sir Richard Doll have demonstrated the link between smoking and cancer? Your Lordships will remember that this was considered in the Health and Social Care Bill which we passed just before the election. Whether it was because of the new data protection laws or whether it was always a tricky area under common law, the GMC issued new guidance to doctors. This guidance served to scare doctors away from passing information through to the disease registries and elsewhere lest they appeared in court.
After much debate inside and outside your Lordships' House, the Bill was passed and included a Patient Information Advisory Group to oversee regulations in this area. It was to contain a balance of those with an interest in the area, including advisers from the patient's point of view. So where is it? No names for the group have yet been announced although I understand that they may be on the Minister's desk. Where are the draft statutory
1192
instruments? I understand that the draft regulations are in such a basic and early stage that they are nowhere near ready to be published.
I therefore wish to learn from the Minister answers to these questions. How many people has he working on this area; when can we receive the names of those in the group; when will we see the regulations and when can the medical research community continue its research? One medical researcher in this area remarked rather bitterly to me that the reluctance of the UK Government to move rapidly in this area, which was so clearly in the public interest, contrasted rather darkly with the speed with which that same Government are proposing to take sweeping new powers to restrict our civil liberties in the face of terrorism.
Sir Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research pointed out on 29th May in the Sunday Times that some health authorities are refusing to provide women's computerised cervical screening records for potentially lifesaving research commissioned by the NHS. He added, not surprisingly, that,
"the requirement that we contact 100,000 women would prevent this research from being done".
I thought that we were on the road to the resolution of this problem. I expect the Minister to give concrete assurances that the delays hitherto are to be a thing of the past.
There are many problems today in medical education and research as they relate to the NHS. Let us at least resolve this particular problem forthwith. I therefore look forward to the Minister's satisfactory reply I shall now sit down so that we can hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, amid the very warm welcome and kind advice that I have been very grateful to receive since my arrival in your Lordships' I louse, it has been repeatedly emphasised to me that one has to adhere strictly to times: every second counts. I have some small experience of that already in television and radio. On one occasion when I was on the "Today" programme, towards the end of the interview I was horrified when the presenter said, "And now, in the last 30 seconds, since you work on the brain, can you tell us about the soul?". Time is once again short. The subject is perhaps not quite as wide or as deep, but for some of us it is just as important.
I would like to comment on the issues as someone who has taught medical students at Oxford University for 15 years. I still have a lab there where I conduct medical research into Alzheimer's disease.
I fear that those conducting medical research and teaching in the university might be, as already in the National Health Service itself, re-evaluating the cost-benefit balance. Everyone has always known that salaries for academics are much lower than in the private sector, most typically compared to those in big pharmaceutical companies. But now other factors are creeping into the equation. There is an increased teaching load. Medical student numbers are set to rise relative to the number of lecturers and that will mean

1193
less time spent on research. In addition, research is becoming more expensive. Information technology is now much more sophisticated and becomes rapidly obsolete each year so that computers have to be replaced.
With the current trend towards molecular biology, the consumables for this type of research are much more expensive and therefore the final budget is much greater. Perhaps it is no wonder that the public sector funding bodies are beginning to become increasingly risk averse, less speculative and less open to the novel, adventurous projects and less open to interdisciplinary research which, arguably, is why one was engaged in it in the first place as it presented an intellectual challenge.
There is the audit. Let us imagine that you have been teaching for several decades and someone is listening to your lecture and evaluating you. Imagine how you might begin to feel somewhat demoralised, even resentful. What about the audit for research? Again, that is surely pushing scientists into playing safe so that they can publish.
Let us now add to the landscape the burgeoning bio-technology sector. Here there is no drain in teaching loads. One has to do novel research. That is a prerequisite otherwise your company will become extinct. You have the chance to learn other transferable entrepreneurial skills and let us not forget the possibility of an enhanced income. No wonder that some of the brightest and best are defecting from the campus to the science park.
Therefore, how can we motivate university scientists to stay where they are and engage in the public sector doing research and teaching medical students? The answer lies in enhanced interaction between the private and public sectors. We are getting much more used to university "spin-out" companies as part of the landscape of academia. That is due in part to admirable schemes such as those of the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, and to the Government's university challenge schemes. But the problem is that they apply when you have a patent in your sights. You can seek help from such projects once you are near to gaining a patent. What happens for the university scientist whose work is in the pre-patent stage? You cannot apply to the public sector, because that will violate your intellectual property. So where do you obtain the funds to carry through an idea that might eventually be exploitable commercially? What we need are more funds to help scientists to do that.
One possibility would be to have, let us say, 1 per cent surcharge on grants. Another would be to encourage universities to plough back the money that they are making from their equity stakes in existing spin-outs to help the much more fundamental research that goes on in universities. And the money should not be spent merely on that. At Oxford, for example, the ratio of technology transfer unit staff to research workers is 1:500. It is impossible for people to be alert to the patentable possibilities of the work in which research scientists are engaged. Surely we should be
1194
increasing the number of technology transfer staff, especially if we want to lure them back from the private sector where they are used to the levels of salary.
Surely money should also be spent on organising fora, on workshops, and perhaps on developing websites, so that the average university scientist, who has never before contemplated the prospect of the private sector, will easily be able to access an idiot's guide. If we can do that, we can start to encourage people to think outside of the ivory tower. We can start to bring about a mindset whereby people can blend private and public sectors for the benefit of both.
Almost 400 years ago Francis Bacon developed a pretty Latin dichotomy. He said that there were two types of experiments: experiments lucifera, versus experiments fructifera—those that shed light, versus those that bore fruit. I suggest that if we are to meet the challenges of 21st century medical teaching and research, such a distinction is as inaccurate as it is obsolete.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness. She made a truly remarkable maiden speech, based on a depth of knowledge and understanding that makes it obvious to all of us who heard it that her contribution to this House will be an outstanding one.
For me, the noble Baroness's address was not as remarkable as it would have been had I not heard her speak previously. I refer in particular to a recent occasion when she entranced a huge audience at the culmination of the Millenium Debate of the Age (for which I was responsible) at Greenwich. She spoke about the human brain and its potential, and about our realistic capacity to use our scientific and technological knowledge to improve the health and well-being of humankind. Many Members of this House will also know of the noble Baroness's dazzling academic career, now both as a professor at Oxford and as director of the Royal Institution, where she has already achieved an enormous amount. She has raised the profile of science, and particularly of women in science, with the public as well as with professionals. I know that noble Lords will wish to join with me in congratulating her.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on initiating this important debate. Much attention is rightly given to the problems that are faced today in the NHS. They are critically important to all of us. But I want to emphasise that we must also think ahead to tomorrow's agenda, where training and research are particularly highlighted.
Society is ageing fast—in some countries staggeringly so: particularly, for example, in Japan and Italy. In the 3rd November edition of the Economist Peter Drucker wrote:
"the dominant factor in our society will be something to which most people are only just beginning to pay attention—the rapid growth in the older population and the rapid shrinking of the younger generation".

1195
Such is the global impact of that factor that the United Nations is convening a world assembly on ageing next spring.
With regard to training, I want to point to the importance of injecting across the board what is known as a "life course" approach. Bearing in mind that the majority of patients seen by healthcare professionals will—a fact that we must welcome—be older people, all our professionals need to understand how people develop throughout their lives and the key factors, both endogenous and extraneous, that affect their health throughout their lives.
Through an organisation called the International Longevity Centre-UK—which I chair—I am part of an international partnership which is examining this issue with the World Health Organisation, which has firmly embraced a life course approach as the key perspective in its ageing and health programme. It is already used in part; but if it is injected more widely it can give individual healthcare professionals a holistic and integrated response to some of the greatest challenges that they face, bringing together in a single framework the ability to look back across the life of an individual, and also across generational cohorts, emphasising both temporal and social factors. It aims to identify biological, behavioural and psycho-social processes which operate across the life-span and across the generations. It helps us to identify critical periods of growth and development, chains of risk and springboards which can alter life course trajectories, with implications for a person's future health.
I am gratified that many medical students—mostly from the International Federation of Medical Students' Associations—have enthusiastically adopted this approach, which I hope we can take forward in this country, as we are beginning to do with the welcome support of many experts in medical and nurse training.
Turning to research, I welcome the announcement on 12th November that the Government intend to invest £8 million in research into ageing and services for older people. This will be conducted through the research councils, taking forward past work done under the EQUAL banner. But more is needed—not only by government but by all sectors. There is a need for all of us to rise to the challenge and the opportunities presented to us by the demographic shift.
More thinking could also be done within government. The DTI's foresight panel on ageing, which I raised in a debate in this House in March, highlighted various important issues, many of which touch on health, but which need to be taken forward more enthusiastically.
There are still too many examples of clinical trials stopping at the age of 65. In professional practice, the rigid demarcation lines drawn by age rather than competence and ability to perform critical tasks is totally out of tune with reality. That is illustrated in today's Times, which points out that Professor Magdi Jacoub is banned by his trust from performing operations because he has just reached the portentous
1196
age of 66. Surely his skills are worth assessing in a more individual manner. The cost to patients and to the NHS might well be much greater than the cost of appraising his abilities in a way that should be routine for all of us along our own life course.
While I know that there are many issues confronting the NHS, I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that is it fundamental to examine NHS training and research in the present situation of increasing longevity. I see it as an opportunity to be welcomed, not a threat to be feared, so long as we plan ahead as best we can.
6.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on her incisive, wide-ranging and deeply committed speech. I hope that she will accept my gratitude as a Bishop for all that she represents in the world of science to which all of us are so deeply indebted. And I should love to have heard her speak for 30 seconds on the soul!
Philip Larkin had a wonderful capacity for downbeat and melancholic honesty. One of his favourite aphorisms, which I treasure, was that which stated:
"Life was so flat you could see the tombstone at the end".
Debates about healthcare are frequently littered with statistics. We have had several examples this week, including the league tables concerning heart surgery and, on the "Today" programme at five minutes before seven this morning, the brilliantly constructed opening salvo from the British Thoracic Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already referred. It was about deaths from respiratory disease and it quoted the figure of one in four.
I have no problem with statistics—clearly they are a useful management tool. However, there is only one statistic about human beings that has 100 per cent accuracy; it is that each of us will die. That statistic, as a result of the pioneering work of the hospice movement, has impacted upon palliative care and bereavement counselling in many hospitals and trusts. However, the quality as opposed to the quantity of that care is not easily susceptible to statistical analysis. When it comes to the quality of spiritual care that is offered to the dying, management-speak falters and stutters to a halt.
The death of a patient, I venture to suggest, represents a moment at which medical staff are brought face to face with their own mortality.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls".
Exactly the same can be said of the clergy when we say prayers with the dying or stand at a graveside. I n the face of death, each of us is forced to draw on the wellsprings of our own faith and belief—whatever they may be.
I recognise that this debate is about the NHS. While we rightly concentrate on measurable improvements in health service delivery, I wonder whether we sometimes do that at the expense of ignoring the

1197
profound human issues that daily affect staff and patients alike. My plea is that in the NHS a wholehearted commitment should be made to ensure that the range of religious and other beliefs that are held by patients are recognised by the chaplaincy team and by everyone in the relevant structures. In a multi-faith society, the complexity of the issues that are involved is considerable. I hope that when the Government publish guidelines for spiritual care-givers—it would be interesting to know the date on which those guidelines will be published—they will encourage trusts and others to offer training to all staff in those matters. I hope that chaplaincy teams will be specifically involved in that initial training. Research in that field may not appear at first sight to be of as urgent a priority as other pressing medical conditions. However, if we ignore the profound significance of death, we shall fail our patients and staff at the point of greatest need.
I move, if I may, to a different level of discourse. Her Majesty's Government have made much of their laudable desire and determination to have more consultants and doctors in training by 2004–05. However, I pick up around the place a certain degree of tired scepticism about whether or not those numbers can really be achieved. The pressure is undoubtedly on to reach the targets. It is not clear how the objectives can be achieved in all honesty. For instance, can the Minister assure the House that junior doctors will not be put on some fast-track system so that accreditation can be achieved in a shorter period than normal? Lying behind that is another question. Can the Minister assure the House that if fast-tracking is used, standards will not fall?
I return to my initial point. The learning of skills in healthcare is not a matter of treating either patients or staff as if they were engineered and engineerable objects. Slapping "go faster" stripes on junior doctors to try to achieve ambitious and laudable objectives will be counterproductive. Skills and wisdom require appropriate timescales in which to mature. When dealing with the most vulnerable in society and with fellow human beings in their greatest need, only the highest, most well-founded and mature levels of skills and wisdom will do.
If the targets are going to be met, it would be helpful at this stage to know how. If they are not going to be met, a degree of openness now would, ironically, be more confidence-building than much rhetoric followed by failure. That would involve building demoralisation even more firmly into the system. That benefits no one, except perhaps the makers of Philip Larkin's tombstones.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, it is good for those of us approaching the sere and yellow to retain some unfulfilled ambitions. I confess to having more than one. Near the top of my list is an ambition to convert the young doctor who, when faced with a patient with Down's syndrome, kindly but simply asked the patient's mother, "How long has he been retarded?".
1198
My ambition has been honed over a good many years—so far without much success. Indeed, as long ago as the early 1960s I visited the then Minister of Health, Mr Enoch Powell, to enlist his support for a postal campaign to all NHS doctors, midwives, nurses and maternity units, giving them some pertinent facts regarding the birth and ongoing health problems of people with a learning disability who were then cruelly referred to as mental defectives. Mr Powell listened politely to my request and turned it down. Statistics, he pontificated, proved that nearly every member of the health service knew exactly what to do in that situation. He added that the matter was totally under control and that the health service was not the Post Office.
Unhappily I must also report that, on trying again 20 years later, Mencap, of which I am proud to be president, received a similar cold shoulder from the heads of medical schools. I am therefore delighted that my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant has instigated this debate. It encourages me to have yet another go; it allows me to put the case for people with learning disabilities to enjoy some modicum of interest when medical education is being considered. Only a minority of doctors in training are exposed in any way to formal teaching about the healthcare needs of those people.
Not so long ago, large numbers of people with learning disabilities lived in Victorian institutions that we chose to call hospitals and the healthcare of the patients was seen as the responsibility of the doctors—some dedicated, some desiccated—who worked there. Now, thank God, very few people live their lives in such places. And that healthcare responsibility has been placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the general practitioners and consultants to whom the rest of us turn for help when we have health problems.
Unhappily, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that people with a learning disability do not get as good a deal from their doctors as we get from ours:
"Rough-hew them how we"
They seem, on average, to be less likely to attend the doctor, hesitating, no doubt, because of their likely reception. Yet people with learning disabilities have a higher incidence of health problems, which are undiagnosed and untreated. Indeed, some of those health problems are directly related to the disability, but others are not.
When the patient finally sees the doctor, there may be communication difficulties—difficulties for the patient in explaining and difficulties for the doctor in understanding. Further difficulties arise from the doctor's misunderstanding about consent to examination and treatment, despite the excellent guidance recently issued by the Department of Health. Screening and healthcare programmes, too, appear to be denied to both male and female learning-disabled patients, and consequential problems are caused by late or incorrect diagnosis.
It follows, therefore, that improved training while a medical student, plus improved postgraduate training, could help to prevent the present grave disadvantages

1199
suffered by patients with learning disabilities. I am happy to say there is a little glimmer of light on the horizon. First, the Government have issued a number of reports on the health of people with learning disabilities, culminating in the White Paper, Valuing People. Government recommendations include the identification of patients with learning disabilities—a basic requisite, I would have thought—improved support for their access to generic health care; and individual action plans which, where appropriate, cover screening. Along with that goes encouragement for all healthcare professionals to have appropriate training. Amen to that!
Secondly, in conjunction with the Royal Society of Medicine, including its distinguished immediate past president, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, Mencap held a seminar to bring together current wisdom on this topic, and earlier this year Professor James Hogg distilled a report on the proceedings, Improving Essential Healthcare for People with Learning Disabilities: Strategies for Success. Needless to say, that underlines the importance of medical training, which, with the support of the current president of the Royal Society of Medicine, Dame Deirdre Hine, who also carries responsibilities for enhancing quality in the NHS, we hope to convey to those responsible for such work.
Thirdly, there are a number of other promising initiatives, among which I single out training for doctors in particular and healthcare professionals in general, produced by Professor Sheila Hollins and her colleagues at St George's Hospital, the training team of which includes two ladies with learning disabilities. I commend the St George's initiative to your Lordships and, more particularly, to the Minister.
These days we recognise the right of people with learning disabilities to empowerment and citizenship. Those rights will not be advanced unless we allow the right to health, which in turn depends greatly on the quality and extent of medical training. Just over 2,000 years ago, Ovid could well have been reflecting on the way in which the health needs of people with learning disabilities have too often and for too long been neglected when he wrote—and I shall leave the Latin translation to my noble friend Lady Greenfield—
"Too late is the medicine prepared when the illness has gained strength by long delay".
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for introducing this timely debate. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on a fascinating and forceful maiden speech, compellingly presented. She will be a great asset to this House.
In speaking in this debate, I declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. I hope that that gives me a vantage point, because it allows me some insight into the successes of medical teaching and research as well as the problems facing them, which I hope your Lordships may find illuminating.
1200
The relationship between the universities and the National Health Service is a very close one. First, the higher education sector provides virtually all the pre-registration education for the nation's doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives. Secondly, universities provide most of the clinical and basic medical research on which the future of UK healthcare depends. Thirdly, universities' clinical academic staff, often in positions of leadership, make a substantial contribution to patient care. That partnership between the NHS and the universities is vital to achieving an improved NHS that meets the needs and expectations of the country. It therefore follows that if improvements are to be made in the performance of the NHS, the contribution of the universities is essential; and, needless to say, universities need to be resourced and equipped to fulfil their role in that partnership.
The education of health professionals is undoubtedly a very important growth industry for our universities. In 1999–2000 some 225,000 health and medical students studied in UK universities. That equates to approximately 12.5 per cent of the total number of students in higher education. Furthermore, the recent review of social work education recommended the introduction of a new three-year social work degree, which would be delivered through partnership between universities and employers. That also indicates the extent to which higher education plays an integral part in the nation's health and social well-being.
With regard to medicine, figures recently released show that the number of applications to study medicine in 2002 has increased by almost 18 per cent. It therefore seems clear that the encouragement and resources provided by the Government have paid off. The figures also positively reflect the work being done by universities to widen participation in medicine, particularly in schools that have no tradition of encouraging pupils to enter medical schools. In addition, they are developing shorter medical programmes for graduates from other subjects wishing to enter the profession. In that regard, the Government could help through a willingness to fund experimental schemes for professional training and retraining.
Of course, those schemes exist in addition to all the other initiatives across the country to widen participation in the higher education sector generally, such as mentoring in schools and hosting summer schools for prospective students from lower socioeconomic groups. But such initiatives are not cheap. Supporting new types of students once they are in university is an expensive business. When published later this month, Universities UK's spending review submission will make it clear that the Government need substantially to increase their funding for these programmes, so that universities may receive enough help to attract and support these new students into medicine and more generally.
However, it is not just a question of attracting and supporting students. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, universities also need to be able to attract

1201
additional teachers for these new students. The Council of Heads of Medical Schools has shown that there are 73 unfilled clinical professor posts and 136 unfilled clinical senior lecturer posts. We can only attract more medical academics by giving universities the resources that they need properly to reward and motivate their staff.
I am delighted to proclaim biomedical research in universities a real achievement, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, a real jewel for the United Kingdom. It is a glowing demonstration of the benefits of working in partnership, which in this case takes in universities, the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry. University research underpins new treatments and improved patient care. It also provides an opportunity for medical and healthcare professionals to develop the skill of using evidence to underpin practice.
Additional funding already allocated for new medical students totals £95 million. Regrettably, capital funds are limited, and research funds for new medical centres are lacking, hampering the creation of new centres of medical research. Perhaps the Government will review the way in which capital and research funds are distributed to those new medical schools.
In conclusion, the growth of partnerships between the NHS and universities has been a great success story. I hope that the Minister will agree that it could be taken further if links between teaching hospitals and the NHS were increased through the establishment of clinical centres of excellence, and I hope that he will address that point in his reply.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a consultant in the NHS and a professor of a university. I am also the Chairman of the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland, a sister organisation to the Commission for Health Improvement.
I would have liked 60 minutes, not six, to inform the Minister of the issues now confronting the NHS, if he is not already aware of them. Six minutes will have to suffice for today. First, however, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on her excellent maiden speech. I also thank my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant for initiating today's debate.
Before expressing my own views about the woes of the NHS, I will get the good news out of the way. Many of today's ills of the NHS—shortage of staff, shortage of beds, poor access to services and care—have their origins in the reforms of the late 1980s and 1990s. The Government have now agreed that the NHS needs more resources and they are providing them, on which they should be congratulated. However, perhaps the Minister will agree that in the long term other ways of funding the NHS, apart from Exchequer funds, will have to be found if the UK is to match the quality of healthcare of some of our European partners.
The NHS has huge shortages of nurses and doctors and the omens are not good. Today I shall concentrate on doctors, but the nurse shortage is even worse.
1202
Nearly 25 per cent of our doctors qualified overseas—most in developing countries. Despite their training, experience and ability, they feel discriminated against as they cannot get on to specialist registers and therefore be considered for consultant appointments. More and more patient care is delivered unsupervised by doctors in training.
Entry to medical school is also being affected. I am informed that four medical schools this year had to go to clearing to fill their quota. Nearly 5 per cent of graduates leave the profession and many more choose non-clinical work. The training of specialists is too long and inflexible. Basic training before entry to specialist training is also too long. In both cases, that acts as a disincentive to academic training. The answer is early entry, shorter specialist training and many more specialists providing care, but not all necessarily leading to consultant status.
I hope that the Minister also agrees that the new medical education standards board should have the responsibility and the authority to make sure that training programmes meet the needs of the service. Clinical academic medicine has other problems over and above that—a lack of clear career pathways, tenure track appointments and workload related to teaching, research and service.
One of the new demands placed on clinical academics is the need properly to professionalise medical education. That involves training medical educators and recognising them in promotional ladders. The new medical schools have realised that and are actively recruiting, mostly by poaching from established medical schools, which is the only place where such expertise exists. We need targeted funds to provide opportunities and develop medical education expertise.
Protecting academic time is difficult because of issues such as burdens of service, external quality assurance and coping with massive NHS changes, but it must be an absolute requirement. The Follett report is welcome in that context.
RAE pressures are another difficulty. Clinical senior lecturers and other clinical lecturers are compared directly with their non-clinical colleagues, despite the fact that they spend more than 50 per cent of their time on patient care. It will be a huge help for them to be counted as half of whole time equivalent. That would remove a significant disincentive to the employment of clinical academics.
Academic remuneration is another area that needs to be addressed. I hope that, whatever else they say, the NHS consultants' contracts will also be reflected in clinical academics' pay structure.
There has been some progress through many schemes supported by medical research councils and the Department of Health and others, particularly following the Saville report, as has been mentioned, but much more needs to be done if recruitment of both clinical academics and clinicians is to improve. A commitment to that is required. I hope that the Minister will show us the way forward.
7.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for initiating this important debate. I have been dazzled by the array of medical academe manifested so far, including the wise and profound contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. I hope that the draft lay MPhil thesis that follows will not be sent back for resubmission too expeditiously.
The various NHS reforms announced over the past 18 months seem to be going in the direction of devolving the control of NHS resources away from the centre and outward to the primary care trusts. That is bound to exert a growing tension on the practice of medical education. All that, coupled with the aspiration to give patients a greater say in the provision of services, seems laudable in itself, but, as ever, we need to take what our friends across the pond call a reality check.
The NHS Plan promised a 6.3 per cent increase in funding over five years to 2004, but all the signals that I receive indicate that there is a considerable gap between the provision of high-tech services and the reality of local delivery. That exerts another tension on the practice of medical education. It is no good having MRI scanners costing millions of pounds but having waiting lists of up to a year to use them. I could mention an example of that but I shall not. It is no good saying that there will be more doctors when the reality on the ground is that GPs in Gosport, for example, are closing their lists through the pressure of the number of patients. It is no good saying that more nurses will be provided but to do so by importing able and trained staff from overseas, which is very much our gain and their home country's loss. I understand that the Isle of Wight has been reasonably successful in encouraging nurses who have taken early retirement back to work. A similar observation can be made about the target of 7,000 more consultants by 2004. That would mean 70 more in Portsmouth and 20 extra per year. This goes back to some of the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
I have spoken on a number of occasions in the House on issues relating to the provision of public services in health, housing, prisons or education. On each occasion, the same point has applied. If I came from the north country, I might be tempted to say, "You can't have owt for nowt". As a Scandinavian by descent, I am pleased to note that some of my ancestors appear to have shared their culture and, to adapt a phrase from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, perhaps their non-mystical bodies in the northern areas of this country.
I am continually amazed that we expect from our public services a level of provision comparable with those of our European partners yet we appear to have no intention of spending sufficient resources to supply that. We are faced with a circle that it appears cannot be squared. However uncomfortable the issue may be politically, it will need to be addressed. To speak the unspeakable, we may well have to consider the mixed
1204
economy found in much of northern Europe. where public healthcare and private insurance run hand in hand—a situation obtaining in many countries that have traditionally been further to the Left than ours.
Speaking from these Benches, I must in conclusion bring to the debate the reflection that there is an imperative from all faith traditions, including my own, that care for the disadvantaged in society is not an option but an obligation. Those who are On the margins, whether through age, gender, ethnicity or wealth, should expect that, hand in hand with society's calls for personal responsibility, there will also come the provision of efficient and effective public services. The highly complex system that has been developed in the National Health Service fails to deliver at various points what all parties aspire to. That can lead to the madness whereby, in my diocese, the excellent facilities and services provided by the Royal Military Hospital at Haslar have in recent years been threatened with closure. I know that the issue is complex. I have read all the material on it, but the people of Gosport feel badly let down because 50 per cent of the Haslar facilities have traditionally been NHS facilities.
We cannot think of the provision of these services in an idealised and abstract form. They are rooted in the loyalties of local communities. Those communities, as well as the individuals within them, have rights
I hope that the reforms that have been announced in recent weeks will lead to a narrowing of the gap between aspiration and reality. The debate has shown how essential a high-level, innovative and flexible education infrastructure is to ensure that that happens.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for introducing this timely debate. My aim is to examine medical teaching and research in the context of the National Health Service Plan introduced by the Government 16 months ago. It promised an ambitious programme of improvements for the NHS and local government. Outcome targets were set for people-centred services to provide the highest standards of care and to tackle major causes of disease and health inequalities.
Two key essentials identified to deliver the NHS Plan are an adequate number of staff and evidence-based practice founded on robust scientific clinical research and development. The Department of Health's implementation programme for the NHS Plan identified workforce issues, including recruitment, retention and training and development. On staff numbers, it states:
"the NHS plan commits the NHS to 7,500 more consultants, at least 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 extra nurses and 6,500 extra therapists by the year 2004."
The increases in GPs and consultants will not be met, despite the increase in medical student intake of our existing and new medical schools. According to the department's Medical Education Unit, the number of medical school places rose by 1,000 last year, Over the next decade, medical student intake will rise to 7,000 per annum.

1205
I declare an interest as an honorary public health professor at the University of Liverpool, where the new medical student curriculum is taught. Practice-based learning is better at equipping our future doctors with the skills for lifelong learning than is the former system of rote learning. However, the number of full-time clinical teachers is decreasing because, as noble Lords have said, excellent teachers are not rewarded as well as are medical researchers. For clinical teachers of surgical specialities, an academic career restricts income that can be earned in private practice.
With the important growing emphasis on primary healthcare in the NHS, more exposure of medical students to GP practice is becoming increasingly difficult. In Liverpool, 30 per cent of our inner city GPs are single-handed doctors, and the same is true in other English inner cities.
The Secretary of State for Health has recently been recruiting doctors from our European neighbours. While that is necessary to meet workforce targets, another source of doctors in the United Kingdom appears to be being overlooked. That is the estimated 2,000 refugees with medical qualifications, who could be recruited if they were offered a scheme of clinical attachments, support to pass tests in English language and in basic modern medicine, and an induction course to practise in the NHS.
In 1999, the Department of Health published a report of the working group on refugee doctors and dentists. That report, supported by the Advisory Group on Medical and Dental Education, Training and Staffing, produced several short and long-term recommendations to help integrate medically qualified refugees into our health service. Has the department considered implementing any of the report's recommendations?
Medical research has traditionally tended to be biological and disease-centred, leading to publication in high impact journals such as Nature. Such research is highly prized by universities for funding assessments, but does not usually cover the broad priorities of the NHS, including population health, which is focused on reducing health inequalities and improving the quality of health and social care.
I therefore welcome the position paper, NHS Priorities and Needs: R&D Funding, published in February this year. My concern is directed to the imbalance between the relative abundance of research and the paucity of development to harness the fruits of medical research for the NHS, patients and communities. I hope that that imbalance will be an issue that the Minister will raise with medical and NHS researchers, managers and doctors, as well as with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant for raising this most important subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Greenfield on a truly masterful maiden speech.
1206
My grandfather trained and worked as a physician in Scotland. Many people from all over the world have been proud of the medical qualifications they gained in Scotland. The Government tell us that we are short of doctors and surgeons, yet a ridiculous situation exists. South African orthopaedic surgeons with five years' training appear unable to get onto the UK General Medical Council's specialist register because they lack an extra year's training. It is ironic that South African surgeons can work as locum consultants, doing all the work of a consultant, and with a substantive post. However, the new rule and change in political emphasis make it extremely difficult for such young people to make progress unless they return to their country of origin—or perhaps go elsewhere in the European Community—and are able to get onto a training programme formally to complete an extra year's training.
It seems extremely difficult for young doctors to get onto a training programme in the UK to specialise. I heard that the professor of orthopaedics at Bristol University had 200 applicants for two training posts. The lack of facilities—especially human resource—to train young doctors in a specialty appears to be the major problem. Also, those older than 35 are advised by the colleges that they would be wasting their time.
At a local hospital near where I live in North Yorkshire, two South African consultants are trying to formulate a plan to comply with the new ruling, and a young Pakistani surgeon, who is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and has all the enthusiasm and talent to become a good consultant, is finding it impossible officially to study further.
Why cannot the Government, in co-operation with Scotland, set up some training and assessment programmes in Scotland to help to solve that problem? It will be impossible to shorten the waiting lists without good surgeons and their aftercare teams of nurses and therapists.
The Minister knows my interest in the need for specialist units for conditions such as cancer treatment, spinal injury and many other challenging, rare conditions. In some cases, it would be neither practical nor cost-effective to have all specialist centres in every region. How will the Minister ensure that patients are not denied life or death choices? What is the current situation with extra-contractual referrals, and what are the plans for the future? That is one of the most important matters involving patients, their doctors and post-graduate training.
Another important update that I hope the Minister will give us concerns how patient participation will be incorporated into the English NHS, without being fragmented. Wales and Scotland are building on existing community health councils, maintaining independence. Patient participation should be part of medical education, helping to make doctors human and receptive.
There seems currently to be a limited list of charitable funders identified as qualifying for support in research and development for the National Health

1207
Service. Although I know that work is in progress to extend the list, many charities remain unaware of the official recognition procedure. Limiting the number of charities that will attract service support funding may jeopardise much research currently undertaken within the NHS.
There are many good and dedicated people working within the NHS. They need encouragement and appreciation. The agency staff culture which has grown within the NHS in the past two years is draining many of the resources which should go to direct patient care and much needed updated safe equipment for many of our hospitals.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on drawing our attention to the crisis in academic medicine. Of course, he has flagged up the issue ever since he joined the House.
I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has pointed out that there is not only a shortage of academic staff in medicine and nursing in the UK but also a shortage of their products—the nurses and doctors who serve us in the National Health Service. In several branches of clinical medicine, and not only in the "Cinderella" services, there are serious shortages and unfilled positions, as my noble friend is very well aware. In general practice, which is the front door to the rest of the National Health Service, that is well recognised by the Department of Health, and 2,000 additional general practitioners are planned by 2004. In parenthesis I should say here that the BMA's GP Committee feels that 10,000 more GPs will be needed to undertake the additional tasks that will be required as the National Health Service develops.
Medical school places are being sharply increased which, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others pointed out, is in itself excellent news. But the quality of those new graduates will suffer if there is not a corresponding increase in numbers of academic staff, both clinical and non-clinical, to ensure that these graduates have a sound basis for their professional life in the National Health Service.
Across the Channel the French health service was recently classified by the World Health Organisation as the best in the developed world and, therefore, the best in the world as a whole. It is, of course, more expensive than the National Health Service, consuming some 9.6 per cent of a greater GDP than our 6.9 per cent. That was the figure at the last count, but perhaps my noble friend can say where we are now. It is, of course, gratifying that we intend to proceed to a figure of 8 per cent which is the European average. In fact, the French system is more expensive than it need be, with excessive prescribing, payment of doctors by item of service and direct access of patients to specialists. So, it is quite possible that we could achieve the same standards as the French with perhaps less cost, even with the 8 per cent figure that is proposed. However, there is a huge backlog of underinvestment to make up before that proportion of
1208
our national income would be able to sustain a health service in which the infrastructure is as good as it is in France.
France has three doctors per thousand of the population which is nearly double our 1.7 per thousand; and the European average is 3.4 per thousand. It is probable that the French and the European levels are too high, but the population makes use of them and appreciates them. However, I suggest that demand is not the same as need and that we could provide an excellent service with perhaps fewer doctors per thousand than the French but with many more than we have now.
In nursing much the same applies although the contrast in numbers is rather less stark. There are 5.6 nurses per thousand of the population in France and 4.3 per thousand here. That means that the French have a 30 per cent higher nurse to population ratio. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Department of Health is making a determined effort to attract, recall and retain nurses, but it is having to run in order to keep still. I am not the only one who is unhappy that as part of that drive we are actively recruiting some nurses from poorer countries with far greater health problems than we have. But as with medicine, increasing the intake of new recruits into nursing will make more demands on nurse educators. As the Royal College of Nursing says, there are now,
"not enough nurse educators to supervise the existing clinical placements of nurses in training".
One of the problems facing the National Health Service and the Department for Work and Pensions is the persistent high level of sickness absence among the working population, despite steady overall improvements in our basic health statistics. Of course, as the Thoracic Society pointed out two days ago, there is an increase in asthma and lung cancer among women. But I think that these contribute only a very small proportion of that sickness absence and that it is mainly due to a mixed bag of recurrent and chronic conditions which are not life threatening. Among those, depression and social and family related problems loom large. They occupy a high proportion of medical time, particularly in primary care. The symptoms presented by those patients are many and varied; some are very puzzling and may result in referrals to specialists in outpatients departments. Others, of course, find their way to complementary practitioners. General practitioners and all clinicians benefit by sharing the care of those troubled patients with other professionals such as nurses, counsellors, psychotherapists, social workers and complementary practitioners.
The National Health Service would work more smoothly if this group of patients were handled better. Much time in primary and secondary care could also be saved. Liaison between doctors and the other caring professions can be greatly enhanced if at an early stage of their training there is inter-professional contact, when two or more professionals can learn from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care. I suggest that my noble friend looks carefully into that matter and sees that the Department

1209
of Health gives a rather more generous core support to "CAIPE", the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. I think he will find that that will pay a good dividend.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for initiating the debate and for the authoritative and spirited way in which he introduced it. I believe that many of us from time to time have had the privilege of working with the noble Lord on various subcommittees of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and know the tremendous contribution he has made to the discussion of medical research. I believe that this debate will form another landmark in the work of this House in respect of medical research.
I believe that the issues now confronting the National Health Service point to the need for research right across the NHS and in professions such as nursing, midwifery and health visiting, together with the 12 allied health professions which are shortly to be grouped together in the allied health professions council.
The debate is timely as I have heard that on 4th December the Higher Education Funding Council for England is to launch two major reports. Last year the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department of Health established a task group to examine the research base in nursing and the allied health professions. To support its work the task group commissioned a major investigation into the current state of the research base by a consortium led by the Centre for Policy in Nursing Research, which is based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The consortium included representatives of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, the Higher Education Consultancy Group and the Research Forum for the Allied Health Professions.
The consortium produced its report in August under the title, Promoting Research in Nursing and the Allied Health Professions. I understand that the task group has now completed its own report which it says draws heavily on that of the consortium. I have been able to read the consortium report. I found it impressive and compelling in its arguments. The report maps the present position as regards university research in nursing, midwifery, health visiting and the allied health professions. It compares the research activity with that in education and social work, which are comparable professions, and makes international comparisons. It suggests funding models and explores the case for further investment by HEFCE and the Department of Health. I believe it is important that some of its findings should inform this debate.
It was estimated this year by the National Health Service Executive and the Wellcome Trust that the UK invests almost £3.5 billion in medical research from public and private sources. Yet nurses, midwives and the allied health professions make up two-thirds of the staff responsible for direct patient care. The cost of
1210
nursing and midwifery salaries is the largest single item of NHS expenditure, and 3p in every pound of public expenditure goes on nursing. Yet little is known of either the clinical effectiveness or the cost-effectiveness of this largest sector of care.
An analysis by the Wellcome Trust shows that only 1.8 per cent of NHS research outputs between 1990 and 1997 related to nursing. The public is thus poorly served by the current capacity for research and by the research output of these professions in this country. If there are to be measures to improve the quality of care, it is essential that we have the basic evidence on which to base practice.
Frequent emphasis is rightly placed on the need for evidence-based practice. We now have a massive infrastructure of research-commissioning bodies and disseminating mechanisms to help that to happen. Yet the Wellcome Trust has indicated that fewer than 1,500 research publications in nursing have been produced over the past eight years at a time when the NHS supports over 13,500 research publications annually.
Recent policy changes in the NHS, such as the move to more home and community-based care, necessitate extended roles in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions. But if such advances are to benefit the patient and to be cost-effective, they must be based on sound evidence. Therefore, the demand for further research for these professions is essential.
We have a vicious circle, as someone called it, of disadvantage. The consortium compared research activity in nursing and midwifery with that in education and social work. When deficiencies were found in education research, a special teaching and learning research fund, managed for HEFCE by the ESRC, was created. That now has a budget approaching £23 million which is used to enhance the capacity for research-based practice. We may well ask why it compares so unfavourably with the budget for nursing research.
The consortium also made interesting comparisons with America and Canada. We could ask why we in this country are in a position of such deprivation. I plead with the Minister that these two reports should receive detailed consideration and form part of a coordinated solution.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. In a series of superbly well informed speeches, we could not have had a better demonstration of the value to this House of our Cross-Benchers. I have learned a huge amount in the course of this debate. I want in particular to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on her superb maiden speech. She certainly enhanced her reputation as a formidable communicator. I look forward very much to further incisive contributions in the future.

1211
I have no particular expertise in this area. I can pray in aid only that my late wife was a registrar at St Bartholomew's Hospital, specialising in endocrinology. Twenty years ago she ran a very busy practice as an endocrinology registrar. At the same time, she was able to carry out original research which demonstrated, ultimately, the physiological basis of acupuncture. I do not believe that she would be able to do that today. That is precisely the problem on which many noble Lords have put their finger.
Some may say that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, painted a sombre picture. However, it seemed to me to be a pretty true and fair picture. I was particularly taken by his apt description of NHS staff providing outstanding service in intolerable conditions. I consider that to be a key phrase in today's debate. I believe that, as I expressed in this House last week, health Ministers should understand that there is grave doubt among medical professionals and managers about whether we should be moving ahead with yet more structural reform in the midst of trying to achieve so much in the NHS.
A recent Financial Times leader was headlined "Maoist NHS", pointing out quite rightly that:
"Another huge structural reorganisation is under way, taking management eyes off delivery. Devolution is preached but centralised micromanagement still rules".
If the NHS were delivering, it would be a different matter. More reorganisation might well be in order. But under this Government it transparently is not. Recent figures show that so far this year fewer waiting-list patients have been treated by the NHS, despite the NHS budget having risen 6 per cent this year and 30 per cent since 1997.
A recent Audit Commission report on the NHS described the problems that patients in accident and emergency services, in particular, face, with people waiting longer in casualty than they did five years ago. Clearly that is mirrored in public opinion. In a recent poll, six out of 10 people believed that Labour had made no difference to the NHS since it came to power in 1997. Indeed, 16 per cent considered that the NHS had become worse under this Government.
The problem is that the funding promised seems to leak out of the system, whether it relates to cancer, mental health or heart disease—all of them key priorities—let alone respiratory disease, which, as we have heard today, is the biggest single killer. All the evidence is that budgets for the major priorities are being raided to make up for lack of funding in other parts of the NHS. Health service managers, it seems, are saying that there are unbridgeable gaps in funding for the NHS this year. They have made it clear that they believe there will be major financial problems this year unless they receive more money or targets are reduced. So far, the response of the Secretary of State appears to have been an announcement that the money to be spent in the private sector is to be doubled. I do not believe that that is a particular vote of confidence in the NHS.
There are many other pressing problems apart from that of finance. Bed-blocking, particularly in the south-east of England, severely affects NHS delivery.
1212
A risk-control expert told a conference last week that bed-blocking costs £32 billion annually. I find that figure very hard to believe, but it shows the scale of the difficulty. The Government now recognise the problem after several years of failing to do so. However, in trying to cure that particular problem they acted too late and with money that transparently was too little. Residential care beds al k. still disappearing at unprecedented levels.
On top of that, as we have heard from many noble Lords, are the issues of recruitment, retention and morale in the health service across a huge range of professions. The problem in these cases is not helped by the protracted and difficult discussions over regulation and the creation of a new overarching body—the council for the regulation of healthcare.
In this climate, morale declines. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned consultants leaving the health service. I believe that a quarter of our general practitioners want to retire. Even today I have received a letter from a health visitor saying that health visitors are convinced that the role and title of "health visitor" will be abolished in the new regulatory order. I am sure that the Minister can give reassurance, but that demonstrates the level of morale in the service.
The key purpose of the debate has been to highlight issues in the area of medical teaching and research—and as we have heard, there are many issues. I have considerable concern about training. Yesterday we heard from the Royal College of Nursing about the state of nurse education and the problems faced by nurse lecturers in "Charting the Challenge for Nurse Education" in terms of workload, role and clinical practice, with particular dangers for adequate clinical supervision. Are the Government addressing those issues with the Royal College of Nursing?
In terms of training doctors, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, highlighted some of the positive initiatives that are taking place. Of course, as she pointed out, they all require more resources. The Minister and his colleague, the noble Baroness. Lady Ashton of Upholland, know full well that I have highlighted the problems with the skewing of medical education as a result of the research assessment exercise (RAE) that values, and gives resource to, research at the expense of medical training. The RAE was described as a juggernaut by no less than the vice-chancellor of Manchester University, which is a fairly telling description. What answer does the Minister have to that?
We have a massive shortage of doctors in this country, which is a legacy of the previous government and the first two years of this one. Yet government policy appears to be designed to ensure that we do not achieve the numbers of well trained doctors that we need. In the past, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has recognised the problem at the interface of RAE with the need for teaching quality and resource, but what are his current thoughts? Who will fulfil teaching commitments? Surely not hard-pressed NHS consultants.

1213
I had wanted to cite one example at some length, but unfortunately I cannot. I am sure that all noble Lords could give a number of examples. At Imperial College there have been some 59 redundancies over the past year. Some people have been brought back on short-term contracts, but many of them have not and they are lost to medical teaching.
Despite that type of culling, there is a major problem with the recruitment of medical teaching staff. The noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed to the vacant chairs that cannot be filled by suitable applicants. The hours that need to be worked to fulfil clinical and academic commitments are clearly unreasonable. It is no wonder that in many specialties doctors are choosing to drop their academic and teaching commitments. Overwork for teaching staff and inadequate training for medical students inevitably follow. As a result of that and similar actions, the workload for medical academics has increased massively. The Minister needs to produce answers.
On research, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, identified key areas where further research is needed in nursing. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, in relation to medicine and my noble friend Lady Northover raised some pertinent questions that I hope that the Minister will answer today about the Section 60 regulations and the fate of the PIAG.
A further aspect is the matter of research fraud. A number of prominent research doctors have raised this issue and have proposed a body to respond to research misconduct. Many involved in academic medicine would like to see that set up.
Although this debate has only scratched the surface of this subject, a huge amount of wisdom has been displayed. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pointed out, there is a considerable degree of scepticism and disillusionment with the Government's performance. The Government still have to demonstrate that they mean business with the NHS and that they are prepared to share their doubts and worries about the NHS and its performance.
The Government took a dramatic step in increasing the funding for the NHS following their first two years of inaction. I did not realise, with reference to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that Ovid was quite so apposite in the circumstances. A notable number of practitioners have taken part in the debate. I urge the Minister to accept at least their diagnosis, even if he does not accept every jot of their prescription. To paraphrase the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, this debate has shed a great deal of light, but it is up to the Minister to ensure that the debate bears fruit.
8.5 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, for those who may be tempted to downplay or belittle the role of your Lordships' House as a House of experts, there can surely be few better rejoinders than this debate today, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of
1214
Detchant. We have heard some outstanding contributions, not least that from the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, whom I warmly congratulate.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has done the House a considerable service by raising a topic that is of central importance for the future of healthcare in this country. Indeed it is probably not going too far to say that the targets set out in the NHS Plan for the recruitment of additional GPs and consultants, as well as the maintenance of adequate standards in training those new recruits, depend critically on the availability of sufficient and properly qualified teaching staff.
To appreciate the importance of clinical academics, one has to understand their role. Clinical academics have three principal functions as employees of universities: they are fully trained specialists or GPs who teach undergraduate medical students; they undertake clinical practice which includes direct responsibility for patient care and the training of young doctors; and they undertake research into the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease.
It is the last of those, the research activity, that is seen as the raison d'être of clinical academics. Universities are research-led. The work carried out in university medical schools leads directly to advances in the clinical management of disease and to improvements in both the health and the wealth of the nation.
In the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us, clinical research was also undertaken by NHS doctors. For reasons that do not need stating, doctors are increasingly unable to perform that role, and it is clinical academics who are now the predominant drivers of research in British medicine. It is to them that the country turns whenever there are new and unforeseen public health crises such as new variant CJD or HIV; and it is often they who are leading contributors to the medical royal colleges, the research councils and the international medical bodies.
The prospects for making real advances in biomedical and health research have seldom been more exciting than they are today. Despite that, over the past 10 years we have seen an increasing reluctance among young clinicians to enter the world of academic medicine. The Richards report of 1997, acting in response to concerns raised by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, voiced serious worry about the growing shortage of academic clinicians, as graphically evidenced by numerous vacancies in professorial chairs. The unavailability of suitably qualified candidates for such senior posts is seen as a real threat to the future of some key disciplines.
Even at junior level, as many noble Lords have reminded us, there has been a fall in the numbers of clinical lecturers in post. Overall numbers of clinical academics have fallen by 20 per cent since 1992. Unless those trends are halted and reversed, centres of excellence will literally disappear and we shall be unable to provide the standards of training to medical students that both they and the nation expect and deserve.

1215
The disincentives against taking up an academic career have been well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and other noble Lords. Some of those arise from the need for medical academics to reconcile the competing demands of two employers: the universities and the NHS. In many specialities workloads have become almost insupportably high, with medical academics far exceeding their contracted hours of employment, especially on patient care. The Royal College of Physicians has found that 64-hour weeks are common. There is a shortage of opportunities for protected post-doctoral research and insufficient flexibility to combine such research with clinical training.
But the more fundamental disincentives relate to the absence of a clear career structure; prolonged insecurity of employment before obtaining a senior post; and, significantly, the lack of financial incentives. Medical research is not a lucrative occupation. It must also be remembered that clinical academics, unlike NHS consultants, have no opportunity to generate earnings from private practice. The NHS Plan, while providing for a system of rewards for consultants, does not extend these rewards to academic clinicians specialising in general practice. That deficiency must be addressed. Unless such clinical academics are made eligible for distinction awards, recruitment and retention can only worsen further.
If we look at one of the Government's key targets—cancer—there is already a worrying shortage of clinical oncologists. It took the University of Glasgow and the Cancer Research Campaign over 18 months to replace the head of clinical oncology at the Beatson Oncology Centre in Glasgow. That is not the only example in oncology. In fact, in cancer research posts, more and more of the funding is being left to charities which are finding it very difficult to compete with the draw of Europe and the United States in particular. The situation is unacceptable and really cannot continue if the imbalance between cancer survival rates in the UK and other countries is to be corrected. In pathology, in psychiatry and in surgery the shortages are even more acute.
Last year the Academy of Medical Sciences, under the chairmanship of Professor John Savill, published a succinct and authoritative report on these issues, called The Tenure-Track Clinician Scientist. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the seven principal recommendations in that report are being actively pursued by the Government. I hope too that any such action will recognise the intimate interdependence of the three facets of clinical academic medicine that I mentioned just now. Medical training is funded by two government departments— the Department of Health and the DfES.
I worry sometimes that the substantial new money promised to the NHS, however welcome it is—and it certainly is—may mean that in the joint departmental responsibility for medical education the DoH will assume a dominant role. That would be regrettable. Medicine needs constantly to relate across to the wider
1216
science and education base, and the DfES therefore needs to be kept closely involved in the fastchanging field of medical education.
Equally, we need to ensure that the forthcoming delegation of budgets to PCTs will be associated with improved clinical teaching and research in all subject areas, and not either with short-termist attitudes or with a curtailment of academic disciplines.
When the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and my noble friend Lord McColl raised the issue last year of the number of vacant clinical chairs in the UK, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave a reply that I thought was quite alarming. She said that the recruitment of university staff was nothing to do with the Government. That answer seemed to me at the time to be an abdication of legitimate ministerial concern. This really is the time for the Government to take the issue in hand and to take it seriously.
It is certainly true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, so eloquently said, that for clinical academic medicine to become a more attractive career choice it will take a concerted effort by all stakeholders, including government, the royal colleges and the universities. But the Savill report pointed the way to how this might be done. It is vital both for our healthcare and for our country that such efforts are encouraged and that they succeed.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I start by echoing remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in paying tribute to the quality of the debate today. Much of that is due to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, both for his initiative in introducing this debate and for the quality of his speech.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on what I can only describe as an extraordinary and delightful maiden speech. We look forward to her contributing more in our health debates in the future.
The focus of today's debate is on medical teaching and research but undoubtedly within the wider context of the future direction of the National health Service. I want to respond to the many comments that have been made about medical teaching and research. I agree that they are vital. They have a direct input to the quality of our doctors. The United Kingdom has a worldwide reputation for the excellence of its academic teaching. That is important to us in terms not only of the quality of doctors but also of this country's investment in the science base and in the relationship, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, with the research-based R&D, pharmacy companies which are responsible for 23 per cent of all commercial investment in R&D in this country.
There needs to be the strongest relationship possible between the National Health Service, universities and the private sector. That must be seen within the wider context of the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, very much echoed by the noble

1217
Lord, Lord Patel, raised issues over funding, the shortage of GPs, beds and consultants. I shall come to those matters.
The UK is not unique in facing up to issues and problems in its healthcare system. Most healthcare systems of the world face considerable challenges over the same kind of issues as we do such as funding—although some of them may be at a higher funding level than ourselves—issues to do with patient involvement and consent and issues in relation to the undoubted pressures that there are on many of our health professionals.
Although the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans warns us of statistics, I believe that there is convincing evidence that considerable progress is being made—the national standards arising from National Health Service frameworks and the focus on quality and outcomes. Ten years ago there was great concern that quality and issues to do with standards hardly rated a mention by trust and health authority boards. The whole issue of quality and standards is now right up there as the number one concern of all NHS organisations.
For the first time in 30 years extra beds are being brought into commission. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, when he referred to a number of PFI schemes. He said that the bed numbers had been reduced. The process that we adopt for a new capital proposal is that there is a projection of the number of beds before any decision is made about whether it should go down the PFI route or the public finance route.
Our latest PFI hospital, the Norwich and Norfolk, which is truly magnificent, successfully increased its required number of beds during the contract. Overall, more beds are being opened in the health service. It is not just a question of capacity increase; we must give patients choice. I accept the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we cannot have a culture of blame in the health service. We need to decentralise decision-making in the health service.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is always accusing the Government of micro-management. But, shifting the balance, the process of change we are seeing now is designed to move away from such micro-management, to have more focus on a limited number of priorities and to have much more frontline decision making. Seventy-five per cent of the NHS budget by 2004 is to be decided upon at the primary care level.
It is not a matter of either capacity or structures. I accept the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that of course we have to look at the personal needs of patients. He asked whether the NHS is wholeheartedly committed to recognising the spiritual needs of our patients. I say that we are. I recognise that in some places we have not been able to do all that we need to do. However, I can assure him that the Government are ever willing to discuss with the Churches and other faiths ways in which we can improve that spiritual care for those patients who wish to receive it.
1218
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth asked for a reality check and referred to the gap between high-tech equipment on the one hand and waiting on the other. A number of other examples were given. We need to equip ourselves with high-tech equipment. The NHS has run for far too long on out-of-date, old-fashioned equipment. But the key to dealing with waiting is to increase overall our capacity; and the key to that is staff.
We have an ambitious programme for increasing the number of staff. I believe that we shall meet the target of 10,000 extra doctors by 2005. As my noble friend Lord Rea pointed out, a key plank is the increase in medical school places. Between 1997 and 2005 over 2,000 medical school places will have been created in England, with four new medical schools and three new centres of medical education.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked whether there is a problem with regard to the number of applicants to medical schools. The latest figures for the 2001 entry are 8,438 applicants, with 5,869 accepted. For the 2002 entry, 9,018 applicants—a large increase over last year—have been received. I have no indication whatsoever that the quality of those applicants is any lower than in past years.
A number of noble Lords made important comments about the curricula. I do not disagree with those comments. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to complementary and alternative medicine; and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to learning disabilities. He put forward a persuasive case and I noted the support of Dame Deirdre Hine. The pressure on deans and medical schools to ensure that they cover so many different parts of the curricula is very great. While I would encourage medical schools to think widely about what should be in the curriculum, we need to recognise the pressures on them.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that I believe we shall meet those targets. We believe that we have enough specialist registrars in post to deliver the bulk of the 7,500 consultant targets. But we shall look further to boost their numbers by action to reduce delays in training throughput and international recruitment.
We have already announced the first 300 of the extra 1,000 specialist training places we plan. Those will be in place by April. Further increases will be supported by full funding of new posts from this year and all posts from next year.
Let me address the issue of international recruitment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lord Rea expressed some concern. I want to make it clear that we are recruiting only from countries where there is a clear surplus of either doctors or nurses; and that we are doing so with the encouragement and agreement of the governments of those countries. I believe that that is the right approach. As I mentioned earlier, we think that by changing the arrangements for training we can ensure that in some cases we can speed up the training programme. I want again to respond to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans by saying

1219
that this is being done by eliminating some unnecessary delays and dead time. It is not fast tracking in the way he suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, asked about refugee health professionals. I recognise that there is a community of people who could be used in the National Health Service. We are working with the Refugee Council and the BMA. We have also set up a steering group to allocate funding for projects targeting the needs of refugee health professionals. I understood the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made. We are conscious of the need to make the best use of doctors in the UK.
It is important to recognise nurses' contribution to expanded capacity in the National Health Service. We have seen a massive increase in the number of nurse training places. That will give us confidence to ensure that we will meet the targets we have set in relation to the nursing staff we require for the future.
One cannot discuss the NHS without talking about resources. Many noble Lords have recognised that we are putting in considerable extra resources and that we now have the fastest-growing health service of any major European country. It is true that we have a long way to go to catch up with many of our European partners. The scale of increase—it is 6.7 per cent in real terms—for this financial year is impressive. I am not convinced that there are magical alternatives to the current funding regimes. The right reverend Prelate hinted at social insurance as used in parts of Europe. But that is not always an advantage. Many companies in Europe are concerned about the cost to them of their contribution to that social insurance scheme. In many ways one can think of social insurance schemes as a tax on jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, wished me to be brave in standing up to the Treasury in relation to hypothecation. It is true that I had a briefing from the Treasury on this matter but I failed to understand it. I am not convinced of hypothecation. In the end it is still part of the general taxation picture. When government make a decision about the general level of taxation I am not convinced that the NHS would do any better than at present. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has asked Mr Derek Wanless, previously of Nat West Bank, to undertake a long-term assessment of the trends which may affect the UK health service over the next 20 years and to identify key factors which will determine the financial and other resources required to ensure that the NHS can provide a publicly funded, comprehensive health service. I understand that his recommendations will inform decisions to be taken in next year's Budget. I believe that in the meantime the amount of resources that we have put into the health service are very significant indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Turnberg, raised concerns about progress in relation to Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act. I well understand the issues they raise. I would be concerned about "research blight" as it has been
1220
described. I understand that membership of the advisory group will be announced shortly and that the regulations will be made as soon as possible. I have taken notes of the comments raised. I shall make sure that the matter is drawn to the attention of those responsible for ensuring that those proposals are up and running.
This question is related to teaching and research. The research infrastructure in this country is of a high order. In partnership with the Wellcome Trust, we are now investing an extra £1.75 billion in the research infrastructure, much of which supports biomedical research in the universities. I accept that we need to consider whether investment in research, especially when we examine the trends in the past few years, ought not to relate only to medical research.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, who was a distinguished nurse academic in her own right at Manchester University. She put forward a convincing case with which I have every sympathy. We have not seen the consortium report, but we shall read it with interest. I have made the point in my discussions with Sir John Pattison, the department's director of research and development, that we need to consider research in relation to nursing and the other non-medical professions.
I turn to a number of the specific issues that have been raised in relation to clinical academics. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that there is no doubt that there has been long-standing anxiety about the recruitment of clinical academics. Those concerns have been further fuelled by the increase in medical students and the need to have a sufficient quality and quantity of clinical academics to teach that growing number of students.
I was interested in the references made to current vacancies. I understand from the CHMS survey on clinical academic staffing that there are 73 professorial vacancies but that 45 were being filled at the time of the survey. With regard to lecture posts, the figure is 322 vacancies, but 180 of those are being filled. I am not suggesting that that is particularly comforting. I recognise that there are enormous pressures in the universities to ensure that those places are filled. Certainly the Department of Health via the academic and research sub-group of the Advisory Group on Medical Education, Training and Staffing has the long-term aim of developing a comprehensive database of clinical academics and is embarked on a project to conduct it. In addition, the sub-group of AGMET, as it is known, is responsible for taking forward the recommendations from the report of the Academy of Medical Sciences to address perceived disincentives to an academic career in medicine.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was right to refer to Sir John Savill's report. We are keen to ensure that the lessons from that report are fully learnt. The noble Earl may know that as a result of that report. we created a clinician scientist scheme jointly funded with

1221
research interests. I understand that eight of those posts have now been filled and eventually we wish to see 250 posts. This is an exciting scheme that offers new career pathways for the real academic high flyers.
Since the Savill report, the Academy of Medical Sciences, whose work in this area has been outstanding, has commissioned Sir Peter Morris to review and make further recommendations. The academy has highlighted particular areas that it views as a priority for action. I am not sure whether the report has been published yet, but some of the results have been shared with the department. The conclusion of the report is that concerted action by all stakeholders is required to highlight the seriousness of the current position. The academy has commented that, as one of the key stakeholders, the department has already made good progress in taking action to address concerns. We shall want to work with the academy on these issues, and I understand that action has already been taken on one of Sir Peter's recommendations with joint work between Universities UK, the BMA and involving the Department of Health to develop joint appraisal arrangements for clinical academics.
That brings me to the report of Sir Brian Follet on appraisal, disciplinary and reporting arrangements for senior NHS and university staff. It is extremely relevant to remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Follet recommends better joint supervision of clinical academic staff. By March 2003 all researchers not employed by the NHS will hold an NHS honorary contract, which includes both research governance procedures and responsibilities if they are to react with individuals in a way that has a direct bearing on the quality of care.
Follet arose from the problems at Alder Hey hospital. The Redfern report identified difficulties in relation to accountability for clinicians who have joint appointments. Follet will be important in sending us in the right direction. I noted the comments of my noble friend Lord Turnberg about the need for a flexible approach, and I shall take that on board. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, talked about the importance of attracting public/private partnerships and the need for workshops, and we shall consider those suggestions carefully.
I am also aware of the career choices facing young doctors. Some may have seen disincentives in opting for academic medicine as they saw rewards more quickly available by pursuing a clinical service-based path. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, made that point. I assure noble Lords that part of our response to the Follet review is to look at the recognition available to clinical academics through the new consultant reward scheme. Outstanding contributions by clinical academics and research workers will be recognised within the new schemes. There is clearly a need to increase rewards for service achievement without diminishing the recognition of university and MRC based consultants. That review should be completed in
1222
the spring and we want to see coming through from that the potential to reward academic excellence of clinical teachers.
My noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lady Warwick asked about liaison between my department, DIES and Universities UK. We have received proposals from Universities UK and the chairs and chief executives of teaching hospitals. I assure the House that my right honourable friend Mr John Hutton will be listening carefully to those proposals. We certainly accept the need for close collaboration.
The clock ticks away and I shall conclude my remarks by saying how confident I am that the NHS is up to the tough challenges that it faces. I am sure that we need good quality teaching and research to help us to do that. The NHS is one of our finest assets which we must support and cherish. We are determined to do so.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, we have had a fascinating and, at times, outstanding debate. I must say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have contributed to it and who have made so many important and valid points. In particular, I echo the remarks of congratulation made to my noble friend Lady Greenfield on her electrifying, inspiring, lucid and outstanding maiden speech. I trust that we shall hear a great deal more from her in the future.
I should love to comment on every contribution that has been made in the debate, but I am conscious of the fact that not very long ago I was gently but firmly rebuked by the Chief Whip for spending too long on my closing remarks at the end of such a debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, talked about the 10 key principles, which, in this collaboration between Universities UK and the NHS, must be maintained. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to integrated medicine; the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke about the importance of epidemiological research; the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, talked about the crucial importance of examining the problems of an ageing population; and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans highlighted the crucial importance of a multi-faith society, the hospice movement and palliative care.
As one would expect, my noble friend Lord Rix talked about the importance of training in the care of patients with learning disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, spoke about widening participation in medical education, while my noble friend Lord Patel referred to the important role played by doctors trained overseas. I hope that the Minister will take note of one matter of importance arising from his comments and those of my noble friend Lady Masham. The GMC is most anxious to introduce a single form of registration for all overseas doctors. The present process of registration creates barriers to many doctors, for example, refugees who come to the UK, as my noble friend Lord Chan said. I hope that that will be examined very carefully.

1223
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, in one telling phrase, said that there was a narrow gap between aspiration and reality of which we must be very well aware. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to primary care and the crucial importance of increasing the number of general practitioners, while my noble friend Lady McFarlane of Llandaff spoke very forcibly and effectively about research in nursing.
I am very grateful for the support that I have received in this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He referred to many issues, for example bed blocking, the importance of community hospitals and residential care beds. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, stressed the need for the NHS Plan and targets to take fully into account the crucial importance of clinical academic medicine and research in the university/NHS interface.
In his gracious and courteous response, the Minister carried his bruises manfully. He referred to international comparisons. There are many problems in healthcare systems across the world. If one talks to people in France, there are very few in that situation. The French healthcare system is very properly regarded as an outstanding example. Obviously, it costs very much more than the present provision in the UK. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say what he hoped to do about removal of the culture of blame and increasing not only bed capacity but the number of health service staff under an ambitious programme. I also appreciate his comments on resources and hypothecated taxation.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I regret that the time allotted to this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I simply suggest to the noble Lord that if he did not understand the briefing from the Treasury he should try a little harder in future and proceed with the implementation of the Saville and Follett reports, which he so wisely commended, through the Academy of Medical Sciences. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Hatred
8.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, given that they are proposing to legislate to proscribe incitement to religious hatred, why they do not consider it appropriate to treat such incitement as an aggravating circumstance under existing law to afford a greater sentence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask my Question with an expression of sincere gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his ready agreement that we should have an exploratory discussion on Part 5 of the Bill and not be restricted to the terms of the
1224
Question on the Order Paper. My Question is an attempt to identify aspects of concern. It is an irenic exercise to seek an exchange of opinion on matters of general importance which affect the approach to Second Reading of the Bill.
Before we enter into the matter, as I have no other opportunity, perhaps I may acknowledge with gratitude the help from Lambeth House, from right reverend Prelates who are unable to attend this debate and all noble Lords who are due to speak, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford
On 15th October the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, heralded the introduction of new laws, as he put it, to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence which, when presented in Part 5 of the Bill as a series of "grafts" on existing law as aggravating circumstances to afford an increased sentence, adopted the very suggestion made when this Question was tabled.
The parliamentary draftsman, faced with a cat's cradle of complexity, is to be congratulated on having produced a simple, straightforward and satisfactory result, perhaps subject to reservations on paragraphs (d) to (f) of Clause 38(4), with which I shall deal in principle but not in detail when I conclude.
The problem with which Part 5 was devised to deal—this is part of the essence of the debate—was identified by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham as the misuse of religion as a proxy for other purposes: the exploitation of religion as a cover for racial hatred in this country where Islam is perceived as an Asian religion and attacks on Islam are used for incitement of hatred against people of Asian origin. If one studies the Official Report—I shall not quote from it because there is not time—that analysis was, I believe, accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. The noble Lord said that the Government did not intend to define religion as that was not the issue.
The problem is that, if such be the essence of the problem in our country—I have had another word with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and, although he cannot attend, he confirmed that that analysis is correct—certain questions arise which assuredly I am not able to answer. Is there any need to introduce new measures if one can deal with the stirring up of racial hatred under the law as it stands? To me, that question begs any simple answer. On the other hand, can one empty religion—a source of identity, allegiance and way of life—into some other category of container?
The next question as to our approach is whether the introduction of new laws as proposed by Part 5 would be effective to serve their intended purpose or perhaps defeat such purpose. Is not Part 5 more likely to be used against Islam, which writes and speaks as a matter of belief with overt contempt of Christianity, than against adherents to the more tolerant faiths?
The next question that arises, as I see it—although I am no expert in this affair—is: are there not problems of definition as to what is religious in the context of hatred? There are many sects which claim to be religious—we know them all, or at least most of them—which are not recognised as such.
Another problem arises on an approach to the Bill. If satirical or serious aesthetic, agnostic or religious expressions of opinion on religion are not excluded from the prohibition, the new laws will not conform to Articles 9 and 10 of the convention covering freedom of expression and belief. But the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be aware that those provisions have either been used or misused, for example, to ensure that the appointment of an administrator to a religious institution shall be open to those of no religious belief. That is a form of anti-discrimination or equality of opportunity which, in my opinion, has gone right over the top.
There is another problem. As we are concerned with an indigenous domestic problem of ethnic proportions in our country to protect the subjects of Islam, is it appropriate to seek to deal with this in a Bill to contain and defeat international terrorism? I do not know the answers to these questions; I raise them as questions because I am not competent to answer them. Is it appropriate or requisite that incitement to religious hatred should be included in the Bill?
The other day, I had a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—always in amity—about recruitment. Apart from that, I ask whether there is any connection between religious hatred and international terrorism? Lastly, I ask respectfully: if we are to introduce new laws as proposed in Part 5, ought that not to be the subject of a separate Bill and removed from Part 5?
If such be the broad parameters of debate, may we look at the broad structure of Part 5, which would not appear to be incompatible with Articles 9 and 10 of the convention—and I accept the noble Lord's certificate, save perhaps as regards Clause 38. Although this complex structure, a kind of cat's cradle of criminality, is set out in Clauses 36 to 41, the devil is in the detail and it would not be appropriate to deal with that tonight. We are concerned with matters of principle and that can be dealt with on Second Reading of the Bill.
But this complex structure of criminality is relevant, as I see it, when considering some of the questions within the parameters of the speech that I have made. However, I respectfully suggest that Clause 38(4)(d) to (f)—there is no need to look at those paragraphs at the moment—which concerns the public performance of plays, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including programmes in cable television services, is really beyond the scope of any Bill. One may well ask whether such provisions are proportionate to protect the Asian community within the ambit of Articles 9 and 10 of the convention, if Part 5 were enacted.
It is appreciated that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for staying late this evening, and of course I include the noble Lord the Whip on the Front Bench and the Deputy Chairman. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has been up for a long time. I think that I heard him speak on the radio early this morning and so he has had a long day. I had thought that rather more noble Lords would have been tempted by the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. They could have used it to have a preliminary canter around the terrorism Bill, in particular Part 5. I must confess, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that was partly my motivation for speaking in the debate. However, our numbers are small and I shall be brief.
For eight years I have sat opposite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and have constantly disagreed with him. However, tonight may be the one occasion on which he and I are in agreement, but perhaps for different reasons. I am not a lawyer and so my knowledge of the law is rather simplistic. In my simple way I had always thought that in this country we have freedom of speech. However, if by abusing that freedom a person incites others to break the law, that person can be prosecuted if it is in the public interest. It does not matter whether the cause of the incitement is religious, racial or whatever.
Perhaps I may illustrate my point. I should say straightaway that I do not expect the Minister to comment in detail on the material to which I shall refer because it is now in the hands of the police. I have with me some disgraceful recent examples of religious hatred. I have a leaflet which states that paradise will not come until all the Jews are killed. I have the transcription of an audio tape purchased earlier this year in Luton. It gives 19 reasons why there cannot be peace in the world as long as there are Jews: that is why they must all be killed. The justification for that murder is religious.
Surely that kind of incitement is contrary to the time-honoured British civic tradition and law which allows people freely to organise themselves as religious and cultural communities but within civil society and within the law. That is why I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. may be right. Incitement to break the law through hatred is already a crime under existing law and religion can be no excuse for crime.
Indeed, I go further. I am rather nervous of any attempt to create a kind of class legislation as far as religion is concerned. Perhaps I am a little sensitive about it. My sister and I came to this country because that kind of class legislation made life impossible for our parents. Noble Lords may recall that in countries under the control of the Nazis or under the communists, the law gave protection to some religions but not to others. It was against the law to steal but it was all right to steal from Jews or gypsies. This had the effect of codifying religious hatred and religious prejudice, and we all know what that did to Europe only 60 years ago. So I am against any vestiges of

1227
attempts to separate religious crime from any other kind of crime. Why separate religious hate from other kinds of hate?
No, religious legislation relating to religious and theological issues should be avoided. Indeed, it should be the other way round. Membership of a synagogue or a mosque or a church, or following any religion in Britain, should remain a voluntary, autonomous, individual act fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of British citizenship and complete equality in British society but within the law.
Here I must declare an interest. I am a deputy chairman of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. This organisation is a think-tank which was established in London in 1948 by some far sighted people precisely to look at these matters; to study, to inform and to advise on the social and cultural aspects of Jewish life in Britain and Europe. It does not deal with religious matters.
I am advised by that organisation that, for Jews, this matter of religious law versus civic law has been settled business for many years. The principle, which I shall quote in English for the benefit of those whose Aramaic may be a little rusty, is that,
"The law of the land is the law".
This dictum was made by the authority of a Rabbi who lived in Mainz, Germany, from 960 to 1028. Its original purpose, interestingly, was to deal with the number of wives that Jewish men could have depending on whether they lived in an Islamic country or in a Christian country. It still applies.
Indeed, this principle was used in the recent past in Sweden when the Jewish method of animal slaughter was banned. Of course people complained, objected and made a fuss, but in the end the ban became the law. Under the principle that the law of the land is the law, the Kosher method of animal slaughter was stopped in Sweden. For those who want it, Kosher meat can be imported freely from Denmark, where ritual methods of slaughter remain legal.
So I ask the Minister, does he not agree that legislation on religious matters is a very dangerous and slippery path which malevolent people will exploit? Does he not agree that it is up to religious and cultural communities to organise themselves within the law of civil society? The legal weight given to religious authority is up to the individual. People must decide for themselves how far they submit to religious jurisdiction, as long as it is within the existing civil and criminal law. If so, no further laws are necessary to deal with religious hate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, may well be right.
9.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing the Unstarred Question. It provides an opportunity for a more reflective discussion than usual on an issue that can be genuinely perplexing for people of good will.
1228
The Church of England has long supported the principle of extending the protection of the law to all major faith communities in this country. Indeed, I supported two amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has long championed this cause, in relation to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in June 1994; and I moved an amendment in July 1994 with substantially the same content as the clause in the anti-terrorism Bill.
The clauses in the anti-terrorism Bill have two main sections. First, Clause 39 amends Part II of Chapter 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 so that offences can be religiously as well as racially aggravated. This has the great merit that one of the nine crimes so proscribed has first to be demonstrated. In addition to that, it may not be easy to prove that there was a religious element in the crime, but at least there is a clear crime first to which the aggravation would refer. This, I suspect, is why the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is drawn to this aspect of the Bill. There have been about 21,000 cases of racially aggravated offences, so clearly this is an offence which it will be possible to pursue and prosecute.
Secondly, Clause 38 amends Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 so that it becomes an offence to incite hatred of a group, not only on racial grounds but on religious ones. It is this clause in particular which has given rise to serious questioning, as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Haskel, have said. For example, the word "religion" itself is left undefined.
There is a fear that healthy criticism of religion might be inhibited. Religion needs criticism and should not get too bothered by lampooning. Those columnists who fulminate against religion are a familiar and much loved feature of our cultural landscape. We would not want a society in which such expressions of dislike for religion were inhibited.
In their response to the Select Committee in another place, the Government gave assurances that legitimate criticisms of religion, humour, artistic depictions of religion and scholarly analysis would not be liable to prosecution in the proposed legislation. I am encouraged by Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986, which the anti-terrorism Bill seeks to amend, because subsection (1) of that section states:
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

"(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

"(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby".

Subsection (5) of the same section goes on to state:
"A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to he, and was not aware that it might be, threatening. abusive or insulting".
I am encouraged and, to some extent, reassured by those words. It is clear that for an offence to be proved there must be a proven intention as well as a judgment that racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
Nevertheless, I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that this whole issue needs to be probed further. It would be disastrous if a genuine

1229
desire to protect all faiths in their central convictions from criminal hostility should lead to any diminution in the right to free speech. It also needs to be pointed out, as has been mentioned already, that a variety of Muslim organisations who gave evidence to the Select Committee in the other place also expressed a number of reservations about this legislation. They feared that in the present climate it could work against rather than protecting them.
So there may very well be a case for further consultation, at least as regards the clause referring to the incitement of religious hatred before a final decision is made. I understand that that is going to be the case in Scotland.
Quite rightly, people point to the difficulty of obtaining convictions for incitement to racial hatred. In fact, since 1988 only 42 defendants have been successfully prosecuted. In 1999 there were only four prosecutions which resulted in only three convictions. But it may be that the smaller number of convictions itself highlighted the case for this kind of legislation. As we all know, the law has a declaratory purpose and a deterrent effect. It could be argued that the laws against incitement to racial hatred have in fact played a role in making such hatred less frequent. It is for that reason that, although I believe that there needs to be further discussion and probing along the lines I have suggested, I am at this stage at any rate inclined to accept both Clauses 38 and 39 of the anti-terrorism Bill even though I do have sympathy with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and believe that we need further probing and reassurances from the Minister, particularly as regards Clause 38.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—as, I am sure, are other noble Lords—for introducing this preliminary skirmish, if one can permit that general phrase, around the question of religious prejudice and incitement and the forthcoming anti-terrorist Bill. I have enjoyed some discussions with the noble Lord before this evening. I believe that this debate can be nothing but helpful to those major debates next week in that to a degree it will clear the air. We are on extremely ticklish and difficult ground because I believe that everyone who has spoken has highlighted the problems of defining the distinction between what is regarded as freedom of speech, which is proper, and what is regarded as incitement to something rather worse, which is clearly improper.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying this, but when one considers freedom of speech in the religious sense, if one is dealing with a dedicated evangelical person of any religion, the debate verges on incitement to other things if one is not extremely careful. I acknowledge that most people, certainly in a country such as ours, would not wish to incite anything worse, but the danger is that that can be done inadvertently.
1230
There is a further problem which has been illustrated to some degree in the debate this evening. All too often the use of religion is in fact a surrogate for race. Religion is not a surrogate for race and we should never treat it as such. I hope that I can say without fear of contradiction that on the whole whatever religion people profess in this country, this would be regarded as a Christian society. We may express agnosticism; we may adhere to the Christian faith, the Jewish faith or any other faith; but our history and tenets are those of a Christian society. There are Christian societies all over the world—French, German, American, Australian, and South American. It is easy to make a distinction between such societies on racial grounds.
Precisely the same is true in relation to Muslims. I mention this deliberately because all too often in this country, which is supposedly a Christian society, we behave in an un-Christian way towards Muslims. We do it on a racial basis, and we presume that one is a proxy for the other. But let us consider Muslim society: there are Pakistanis in this country, there are Bangladeshis, there are almost certainly some people of Indonesian extraction, I know some Iranians here, there are Iraqis, Arabs, and people from Malaysia—all of whom are Muslim.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for a story which has some significance. I am sure that he will not mind my quoting it. In a town which I shall not name, as this is a matter of some shame, a job advertisement was placed for a van driver, added to which were the words, "Muslims should not apply". The matter was referred to the Campaign for Racial Equality on the grounds that the advertisement demonstrated prejudice and was wrong. I believe that we should have no difficulty in agreeing that it was wrong. The CRE could find no redress in law. It found that it was not a racial offence to include a religious distinction in an advertisement. So we need to think carefully what we are about.
My noble friend Lord Campbell mentioned another problem. I agree that there is a difficulty when we come to consider religious incitement. Without quoting the source religion, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, quoted from some documents that had come into his possession. That religion is not the only offender in this regard. There are those—sadly, not always religious groups—who use religious incitement just as much against a particular faith in the opposite direction, as it were. Everyone present will know what I am talking about. We regard these matters as wrong—I believe that we are in complete agreement on that. But we are used to more tolerant ways than those to which many other countries are accustomed.
I am trying to pick my way gently through a situation that is extremely difficult. It is all too easy when discussing this issue to give offence one way or the other. We are fortunate in one regard. We are not in a situation in this country where we have to stand up and be counted for our religious views. That is not the case in many other parts of the world, and we should remember that—I do not know whether with pride or humility. We are blessed in that regard.

1231
If a law is introduced to deal with religious prejudice, I say in the strongest terms that it must apply with equal force to all religions within this country. For it to do anything else would be improper. If the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is real—namely, that such a law might impact on the Muslim religion—we should not withdraw from such action because that might be the case. I know for a fact that within that religion there will be those who would regard that fact as a matter of protection for themselves. For moderate and ordinary Muslims who are, as it were, more attuned to the philosophy to which we are accustomed in this country, extremists are an embarrassment. They are an embarrassment to the majority of the Muslim community. We should regard in the same way any Christian who was so fanatical about his beliefs that he preached against other religions in such a forceful way as to incite hatred. Because the situation is not properly covered, there probably is a case for legislation in this area.
That leaves a second question. Is trying to resolve that issue appropriate in the present context? An antiterrorist Bill is being introduced in an emergency situation and with great speed. This House has agreed to throw all of its normal legislative practices to the winds. However, I am bound to say that we are being treated quite generously—this House is being allowed eight days to discuss the Bill, whereas the House of Commons has to pass it in three. When I heard today that those who are against cloning for reproductive purposes will have to steer a Bill through all of its stages in one day, I thought that we had been fairly generously treated!
These issues have very serious implications for freedom of speech—grave implications run across society. Those issues deserve considerably more discussion—the word "consultation" is not quite right—in the wider community than has been possible with regard to the Bill. I have grave doubts about whether it is appropriate to include the proposal in the Bill. I should vastly prefer it—we shall go into this next week in much more detail—if the subject were not part of the Bill. The matter should be given much more careful and considered attention in a separate Bill, which could be introduced in the near future for full consideration by Parliament. It has to be said—I shall say this again next week—that the enormous haste with which the Bill is being pressed through means that the consideration that has been given to it is not really sufficient to deal with this fundamental issue.
9.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for initiating this brief debate and to my noble friend Lord Haskel, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for their contributions.
I do not intend to make a long speech or give the speech that I, or one of my colleagues, will deliver next week. To the best of my knowledge, this part of the Bill has not yet been debated in the other place—I believe
1232
that that will be done on Monday. I shall not prejudge any of the decisions that may be taken in the other place. It is therefore best that I stick to the central issue.
We have had a run round the course and some interesting questions have been raised. That will be helpful to Ministers and those in my department who are considering the issue. We do not in any way regret this debate or that on Monday when we had in effect two debates—one was closely related to the Bill and the other was related to anti-terrorism and to other Bills. I have no problem at all about that.
I shall give an overview of the way in which the clauses are contained in the Bill. At present there are two kinds of race hate laws on the statute book. First, in relation to incitement to racial hatred, there are six offences contained in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. They are offences that deal with stirring up racial hatred by, for example, making speeches or distributing inflammatory leaflets. Secondly. there have been introduced into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 nine racially aggravated offences, based on four types of existing offence: offences against the person, including assault and malicious wounding, criminal damage, threatening behaviour and protection from harassment. Where there is evidence of a racist motive or racial hostility in connection with the offence. those aggravated offences carry higher maximum penalties than the basic offences. That is how the law currently stands. It has, of course, been much debated iii both Houses over the past 30 years since the original Race Relations Act.
In the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, we are proposing that those two groups of offences should be expanded to cover incitement to religious hatred and religiously aggravated offences. Regrettably, since 11th September some people in this country have sought to stir up tension between communities and have attacked people apparently on the basis of their perceived religious beliefs. The Government do not believe that that kind of behaviour is acceptable in our society.
As the noble Lord will know, it is an offence to incite another to commit a criminal offence. However, there is no criminal offence of religious hatred, nor is there a criminal offence of racial hatred. Racial hatred per se is not a crime. That is why there is a specific offence of incitement to racial hatred and why that offence has existed in various forms since the 1960s when it was first enshrined in the Race Relations Act.
Of course, religious hatred and racial hatred may be motives for other crimes, such as assault or criminal damage. Prior to 1998 it was the case, on the clear direction of senior judges, that a racist motive should have been considered by a judge as an aggravating factor in any offence meriting a higher sentence within the maximum available. The racially aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were introduced to put that guidance on a statutory basis and to provide for higher maximum penalties for racially aggravated offences. There was a clear perception by communities and by victims of those

1233
crimes that judges did not consider racist motives as aggravating factors, or, if they did, were not making that fact known.
Religious hatred may also be reflected in other public order offences. Noble Lords may have in mind the offences contained in Sections 4, 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Those offences essentially outlaw the use of threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour, but are different from the incitement to racial hatred provisions because they deal with the direct effect that such behaviour would have on an individual. For example, under Section 4, it is an offence to use towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him. Those three offences also have racially aggravated versions with higher maximum penalties.
We need the Part III incitement offences and the Sections 4, 4A and 5 offences because, although they may in some respects seem similar, they deal with different circumstances and address different harm. Because of experiences since 11th September, we need to expand those provisions to religious hatred. It is true that many people outside—I do not refer to Ministers or Members of both Houses—initially demanded those provisions and, having reflected on them, may subsequently have thought that they are not such a good idea.
Our proposals will end the unquestionable anomaly in the law whereby some religious groups, by virtue of a distinct ethnic identity, have been considered by the courts to be racial groups and, therefore, offered protection under the race laws, whereas others have not.
That is one reason why those of the Islamic faith feel that they are second class in that sense. It is clear from court decisions that some religious groups—I shall not go into a debate on the details because it is known that there are two—have a close affinity with an ethnic racial background, which means that they are covered under the race laws. There is an anomaly that can be exploited by those who seek to cause problems.
1234
As the right reverend Prelate said, we are not looking to snuff out vigorous debate and discussion about the merits or practices of various religions—far from it. We are certainly not looking to knock out humour or jokes—or what is intended as a joke. That is the opposite of what we intend.
We are not looking to stifle free speech. There are restrictions on free speech. The classic example is that to stand up in a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" when there is no fire is an abuse of freedom of speech. Everybody accepts that. We are not looking to create windows into people's minds—far from it.
Looking back at some examples from recent years, I felt incited by the sight of people burning books many years ago. I consider that to be a heinous crime. I do not mind getting rid of a CD or a tape but as a working class boy I have a thing about books. You do not get rid of books and you certainly do not burn them. I felt incited to commit a public order offence when I saw photographs of people burning books because they did not agree with what had been written in them. The hatred in that case was stirred up against the author, not as claimed. I think that our laws should be more likely to catch the book burners than the book writers in some respects.
There is a debate to be had and we shall have it in the next couple of weeks. Having had a run round the course, we should start our debate on the detail after the other place has concluded its consideration of the Bill, however short that consideration may be. I do not want to pre-judge anything that may be said in the other place.
We are not looking to stifle free speech—far from it; the exact opposite is the case. However, when people use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention or likelihood of stirring up racial or religious hatred, we have to deal with it. That is not a limitation on the free speech that we have fought hard to protect in this country. I do not want to pre-judge the debates in the other place and I look forward to the debates that we shall have in this House over the next two or three weeks.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Minority Groups: Representation in Public Life
  Minority Groups: Representation in Public Life
  Sentencing Review
  Sentencing Review
  Afghanistan: Cluster Bombs
  Afghanistan: Cluster Bombs
  Afghanistan: Unexploded Ordnance
  Afghanistan: Unexploded Ordnance
  Future Rapid Effect System: Reconnaissance Element
  Future Rapid Effect System: Reconnaissance Element
  Tactical Radio Communications
  Tactical Radio Communications
  Apache Helicopter
  Apache Helicopter
  Helicopter Blades
  Helicopter Blades
  Challenger 2: Desertisation
  Challenger 2: Desertisation
  RAF Calendar
  RAF Calendar
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  Aircraft Carrier Procurement
  Aircraft Carrier Procurement
  Fuel Poverty Strategy
  Fuel Poverty Strategy
  DEFRA: Aims and Objectives
  DEFRA: Aims and Objectives
  Flood Defences
  Flood Defences
  Permanent and Severe Disability
  Permanent and Severe Disability
  Old Age Pensioners and Severely Disabled People
  Old Age Pensioners and Severely Disabled People
  Speed Limiters
  Speed Limiters
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Fuel Poverty
  Fuel Poverty
  28 Ghz Radio Spectrum
  28 Ghz Radio Spectrum
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  Electronic Patient Record Level 3
  Electronic Patient Record Level 3
  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Performance and Innovation Unit